Research in Science Education

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 495–513 | Cite as

The Effect of Three-Dimensional Simulations on the Understanding of Chemical Structures and Their Properties



In a series of three experimental studies, the effectiveness of three-dimensional computer simulations to aid the understanding of chemical structures and their properties was investigated. Arguments for the usefulness of three-dimensional simulations were derived from Mayer’s generative theory of multimedia learning. Simulations might lead to a decrease in cognitive load and thus support active learning. In our studies, the learning effectiveness of three-dimensional simulations was compared to two-dimensional illustrations by use of different versions of a computer programme concerning the modifications of carbon. The first and third study with freshman students of chemistry and biochemistry show that no more knowledge was acquired when participants learnt with three-dimensional simulations than with two-dimensional figures. In the second study with 16-year old secondary school students, use of simulations facilitated the acquisition of conceptual knowledge. It was concluded that three-dimensional simulations are more effective for younger students who lack the experience of learning with different visual representation formats in chemistry. In all three studies, a significant relationship between spatial ability and conceptual knowledge about the modifications of carbon was detected.


Three-dimensional simulations Information technology Conceptual knowledge Spatial ability Chemistry education 



We are thankful to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Demuth for providing opportunities to realise this study as well as to the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein for financial support.


  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working. The American Psychologist, 56, 851–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (vol. 8, (pp. 47–90)). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barke, H.-D. (1983). Das Training des Raumvorstellungsvermögens durch die Arbeit mit Strukturmodellen [Training of visuospatial abilities by working with structural models]. MNU, 36, 352–356.Google Scholar
  5. Barke, H.-D. (1993). Chemical education and spatial ability. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 968–971.Google Scholar
  6. Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry students’ performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodner, G. M., & McMillen, T. L. B. (1986). Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 727–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 1063–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton, W. G., Holman, J. S., Pilling, G. M., & Waddington, D. J. (1995). Salters advanced chemistry. A revolution in pre-college chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 227–230.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, S. L., & Gotch, A. J. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 206–209.Google Scholar
  12. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4, 61–74.Google Scholar
  14. Ealy, J. B. (1999). A student evaluation of molecular modeling in first year college chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferk, V., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1227–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferk Savec, V., Vrtacnik, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Evaluating the educational value of molecular structure representations. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 269–297). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 957–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 937–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. The American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4–12+R). Göttingen: Beltz Testgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  23. Hofstein, A., & Kesner, M. (2006). Industrial chemistry and school chemistry: Making chemistry studies more relevant. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn, W. (1983). Leistungsprüfsystem. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  25. Hyde, R. T., Shaw, P. N., Jackson, D. E., & Woods, K. (1995). Integration of molecular modelling algorithms with tutorial instruction. Design of an interactive three-dimensional computer-assisted learning environment for exploring molecular structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 699–702.Google Scholar
  26. Korfiatis, K., Papatheodorou, E., & Stamou, G. P. (1999). An investigation of the effectiveness of computer simulation programs as tutorial tools for teaching population ecology at university. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozhevnikov, M., & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (2005). Multimedia learning of chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 409–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions. Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nick, S. (2006). CHEMnet: Analysis of the use of special features and multimedia elements of an online chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 1099–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nick, S., Andresen, J., Lübker, B., & Thumm, L. (2003). CHEMnet—Structure, design, and evaluation of an online chemistry course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., et al. (2006). ‘Chemie im Kontext’: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piburn, M. D., Reynolds, S. J., McAuliffe, C., Leedy, D. E., & Birk, J. P. (2005). The role of visualization in learning from computer-based images. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pribyl, J. R., & Bodner, G. M. J. (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330–334.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 977–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slater, T. F., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. L. (1997). Impact and dynamics of portfolio assessment and traditional assessment in a college physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 460–464.Google Scholar
  44. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu, H.-K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang, E.-M., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. J. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 329–349.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology of Excellence in Business and EducationLudwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Institute for Science EducationUniversity of KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Science EducationLeibniz University of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations