Enhancing Students' Understanding of The Concept of Chemical Bonding by Using Activities Provided On An Interactive Website

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 3, PP.
289–310 (2009)
Enhancing Students’ Understanding of the Concept of Chemical Bonding

by Using Activities Provided on an Interactive Website
Marcel Frailich, Miri Kesner, Avi Hofstein
Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Received 30 January 2007; Accepted 14 July 2008
Abstract: This study investigated the effectiveness of a web-based learning environment in enhancing 10th grade
high-school students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. Two groups participated in this study: an
experimental group (N ¼ 161) and a comparison one (N ¼ 93). The teachers in the experimental group were asked to
implement four activities taken from a website, all dealing with the concept of chemical bonding. Computer-based visual
models are utilized in all the activities in order to demonstrate bonding and the structure of matter, and are based on
student-centered learning. The study incorporated both quantitative and qualitative research. The quantitative research
consisted of achievement questionnaires administered to both the experimental and comparison groups. In contrast, the
qualitative research included observations and interviews of students and teachers. Importantly, we found that the
experimental group outperformed the comparison group significantly, in the achievement post-test, which examines
students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. These results led us to conclude that the web-based learning
activities which integrated visualization tools with active and cooperative learning strategies provided students
with opportunities to construct their knowledge regarding the concept of chemical bonding. ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 289–310, 2009
Keywords: chemistry; technology education/software design; secondary
We assert that web-based learning facilitates the use of a diverse range of visual tools that demonstrate
abstract scientific phenomena. Many studies (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004; Barnea & Dori, 2000; Sanger &
Badger, 2001; Stieff, 2005; Tversky & Morrison, 2002; Wu, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2001) dealing with using
computer-based visual models found that students benefit from this type of representation. Hence,
incorporating such interactive simulations is effective for both students and teachers in strengthening the
learning and teaching process. In addition, when the study was conducted, it was assumed that when
the website activities are professionally designed, they have the potential to promote collaborative and
student-centered learning. A web-based environment in which the students are provided with clearly defined
and focused activities promotes an environment in which the students become active participants in the
learning process, assisted by their teachers and peers. Active learning is defined as learning that strengthens
student involvement in the learning process and has had a positive impact on student attitudes and
achievements (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Felder & Brent, 2003; Moore, 1989). Several very significant
interactions occur when students are engaged in web-based activities while they work in small groups:
interactions take place between the student and the learning materials, between the students themselves, and
between the students and their teacher. It was suggested in the literature that social aspects are important
components of learning processes (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998a,b; Mayer, 1999; Semple, 2000). We
believe that all these lead to effective, more meaningful learning and to a more in-depth understanding of the
science topics being studied.
Correspondence to: A. Hofstein; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20278
Published online 24 November 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

290 FRAILICH, KESNER, AND HOFSTEIN
The main goal of this study was to evaluate the educational effectiveness of a web-based learning
environment regarding 10th grade students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. More
specifically, the research question is as follows:
How did the web-based activities contribute to students’ better understanding the structure of matter and
the concept of chemical bonding?
The uniqueness of this study is that it contains several aspects of learning: (1) the contribution of the
visualized computerized models to the students’ comprehension of the material; (2) active learning in which
the student is in the center of learning; and (3) cooperative learning while performing various activities. This
study investigates the effectiveness of web-based learning centered on visualization, in strengthening student
involvement in the learning process. In addition, the contribution of web-based learning to students’
understanding of the concept of chemical bonding is discussed along with the accompanying implications.
Theoretical Framework
The Web-Based Learning Environment
Web-based technology, which has made huge strides over the past decade, is slowly but steadily gaining
momentum in education and learning worldwide. Many studies have noted the benefits of web-based learning
and its vast potential to empower learning and teaching (Carpi, 2001; Clark, 2004; Linn, Clark, & Slotta,
2003; Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000). For example, Linn et al. (2003), in their study of Web-Based Inquiry
Science Environment (WISE) projects, found that when students and teachers participate in a series of WISE
projects, they have the opportunity to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the inquiry
process. Also, Mistler-Jackson and Songer (2000) found that carefully and well-designed network-based
science projects have the potential to enhance student’s motivation, and students discover what it means to
learn and engage in scientific activities. More specifically, aligned with the present study, several
investigators (summarized by Clark, 2004) noted the importance of integrating computer-based
visualizations into learning. Clark presented several studies that demonstrated that visualizations help
students to focus on ideas within the realm of the curriculum. Kozma and Russell (2005) suggested that
molecular models, simulations, and animations could aid in studying chemistry in general and in better
understanding the concept of chemical bonding in particular. They also found that web-based interactive
animations helped students understand difficult and abstract concept associated with equilibrium,
electrochemistry, and chemical solutions, and aided students’ understanding of molecular and dynamic
concepts in laboratory experiments. More recently Marbach-Ad, Rotbain, and Stavy (2008) concluded from
their study that it is advisable to use computer animations in molecular genetics, especially when teaching
about dynamic processes.
It is suggested that the use of computers in the teaching of science and technology has many advantages
including the ability to use simulations, graphs, and to demonstrate models at the macroscopic and
microscopic levels. Barak and Dori (2005) found that the use of computer-based models helped promote
students’ understanding of chemistry at four levels: the macroscopic, microscopic, symbolic, and chemical
process levels. Furthermore, they found that the computer-based visual models helped novice students
understand chemical concepts, theories, and molecular structures. Moreover, Ardac and Akaygun (2005)
found that students who learned with the aid of dynamic computer-based models outperformed their peers
(who had no such experience) regarding molecular representations (using drawings) and their understanding
of the structure of matter.
Although the literature is relatively rich in evidence regarding the benefits of web-based learning in
science classrooms, others (Wallace, Kupperman, Krajcik, & Soloway, 2000; Winebrener, 1997) remain
pessimistic regarding its application as an instructional tool. For example, Winebrener claimed that students
are mislead by viewing falsified information posted on the web, and are confused by the varying forms of
navigation. In addition, the students were frustrated due to their inability to locate specific information easily.
Similar findings were also found in studies conducted by Wallace et al. (2000), and by Hoffman, Wu, Krajcik,
and Soloway (2003), which indicated difficulties with inquiry learning through Internet-based resources.
Also, Waight and Abd-El-Khalich (2007) found that the use of computer technology restricted rather
promoted inquiry in 6th grade science classrooms. They claimed that it is naı̈ve to assume that computer use
would foster inquiry in any substantial way. Research has also shown that it is quite difficult to integrate
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
ENHANCING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING 291
technology in order to advance and strengthen the learning process. However, the majority of researchers in
this area continue to believe that dynamic media has great potential for both teaching and learning alike
(Hegarty, 2004).
Constructing Knowledge in a Web-Based Learning Environment

There is widespread agreement within the education community that meaningful learning is a process in
which the student actively collects, organizes, and processes information as it becomes knowledge (Salomon,
2000). Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) suggested that active learning requires the students to read,
write, discuss, and solve problems as well as get involved in tasks that demand high-level thinking such as
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
Educational constructivism emphasizes the learner rather than the instructor; thus, the students take
responsibility for the learning process (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Constructivist learning theory suggests that
students use ideas and construct knowledge already in their minds to make sense of their experiences.
Matthews (2000) suggested that constructivism is undoubtedly one of the major theoretical constructs that
influences contemporary science and mathematics education. Fensham (1992) claimed that ‘‘the most
conspicuous psychological influence on curriculum thinking in science since 1980 has been the constructivist
view of learning.’’
Social constructivism stresses that learning is a social activity in which learners are involved in
constructing knowledge through discussions and negotiations with peers. While learning in this way, students
can identify and articulate their own ideas, exchange views, and reflect on those of other students (McRobbie
& Tobin, 1997; Prawat, 1993; Solomon, 1987). In the social constructivist approach, cooperative learning is
encouraged (Eshet & Hammer, 2006). Students are encouraged to assume a more active role in their learning,
to explain their ideas to one another, to discuss disagreements, and to cooperate in solving complex problems,
while teachers participate in the design of these contexts and act as a facilitator of this and similar kinds of
activity (Resnick, Salmon, Zeitz, & Wathen, 1993). This is congruent with the study of Krystyniak and
Heikkinen (2007), which found that students employed science process skills, and engaged in higher-order
thinking during laboratory activities, while the teacher changed his behavior from deliverer of information to
a facilitator.
Students’ Difficulties in Understanding the Concept of Chemical Bonding

The difficulties students encounter in understanding the concept of chemical bonding have been the
subject of a great deal of research. Based on the literature, the abstract concept of chemical bonding is
considered by teachers, students, and chemical educators to be a very difficult and complicated concept
(Gabel, 1996; Levy Nahum, Hofstein, Mamlok-Naaman, & Bar-Dov, 2004; Taber, 2002). More specifically,
atomic structure, the particulate nature of matter, the molecule, and the chemical bond are considered abstract
concepts. Students’ misconceptions regarding these concepts are based on the fact that they live and operate
within macroscopic world of matter and do not easily follow shifts between macroscopic and sub-
macroscopic levels (Gabel, 1996; Harrison & Treagust, 2000). Consequently, they tend to build themselves
alternative conceptions and nonscientific mental models (Taber, 2002). Chemical bonding is a concept in
which understanding is developed by using models through which the students are expected to interpret a
disparate range of symbolic representations (Taber & Coll, 2002). Many teachers use models to help students
understand this concept, sometimes introducing more problems because of incorrect use of models and lack
of discussion about the limitations of the models (Justi & Gilbert, 2002; Lunetta & Hofstein, 1991). In
addition, very often teachers use only one type of model (such as ball-and-stick in chemistry), thereby
eliminating student acquaintance with the diversity of other models, and leaving students with only a partial
grasp of the model or a complete misunderstanding of it (Barnea & Dori, 2000).
A thorough analysis of students’ answers during a 12-year period was conducted by analyzing final
examinations (matriculation) that were administered centrally by the government. Our aim was to analyze
their response (answers) to questions related to bonding and the structure of matter. It was found that students
could not indicate the specific particles that compose the matter, and they had many difficulties in
understanding the type of chemical bond between the particles in the ionic, molecular, and metal structures.
The findings indicated that the subject is problematic and that the same misconceptions are repeated year after
year (for more details, see Levy Nahum et al., 2004).
The Study
The Rationale and Development of the Website
The current research study is an attempt to investigate the educational effectiveness of an instructional
tool in order to help students overcome their difficulties in understanding the concept of chemical bonding (as
cited in the literature above). In developing the web-based learning environment, three aspects were
considered: (1) The students are exposed to varied visualized dynamic models of structures of matter and
chemical bonding to demonstrate the abstract concepts of chemical bonding. (2) The web-based activities
developed were based on students’ active learning. (3) The students interact collaboratively in small groups
on the web-based activities. The web-based learning environment that was developed for this study utilizes
the potential and the advantages of the electronic media efficiently. We have tried to incorporate all the above
principles into this learning environment to achieve meaningful learning.
Awebsite was developed entitled: ‘‘Chemistry and the Chemical Industry in the Service of Mankind’’ (is
in Hebrew only); its URL is: http:/ /stwww.weizmann.ac.il/g-chem/learnchem. This website augments most
of the high-school curriculum and contains a wide range of activities on the topics studied in high-school
chemistry; more specifically, it includes databases on chemical substances and chemical industrial plants, a
glossary, picture galleries, documents, and a search engine (see also a more detailed description in Kesner,
Frailich, & Hofstein, 2003). The goal was to plan and construct a site that will be based on information
technology principles as well as be dynamic, appealing, up-to-date, user-friendly, and interactive. More
specific goals in setting up the site were (1) to enrich chemistry studies in terms of the learning materials and
the pedagogical and didactic tools used, and to increase student involvement in the learning process; (2) to
utilize web-based resources to demonstrate and promote understanding of abstract phenomena by means of
varied types of representations, such as computer-based models, animations, three-dimensional images,
video clips and applets; (3) to create a web-based learning environment as a teacher’s aid in high-school
chemistry lessons; (4) to supply sources of enrichment beyond the curriculum for interested students; (5) to
emphasize the relevance of chemistry in everyday life (to include industrial chemistry) in order to boost
student interest and motivation; and (6) to utilize electronic communications such as email and Internet group
discussions (forums) between teachers and students, between students and experts, and between students and
their peers in order to strengthen and widen the learning process, and to vary the chemistry classroom learning
environment.
In the present study we focused on activities (from the website), all of which deal with the concept of
chemical bonding, for the following reasons: (1) Chemical bonding is a key concept that is taught in 10th
grade chemistry in high school. It provides the basis for many chemistry topics that follow, and (2) Chemical
bonding topics are very difficult for students with the existing tools (e.g., static models in books, ball-
and-stick models), which are insufficient to demonstrate the abstract phenomena associated with this subject.
The four activities developed for this study are (1) models of the atomic structure, (2) metals—structure and
properties, (3) ionic substances in everyday life and in industry, and (4) molecular substances—structure,
properties, and uses. Each of these activities (except for models of atomic structure) consisted of the
following four sections:
Section A deals with the structure of substances and is accompanied by visual tools to demonstrate
the structure of the substances (metal, ionic, or molecular). This section presents varied computer-based
models from different websites. The students are required to interpret them and to explain them in their own
words.
Some of the questions accompanying them in the activity ‘‘Metals—structure and properties’’ follow
(few examples):
(1) There is a list of websites specifying the structure of metals. Describe, in your own words, the
structure of metals and add an illustration.
(2) Choose one of the illustrations and specify what each item in the illustration signifies.
(3) What is a metal bond? Between which particles does a metal bond occur?

Section B deals with the physical properties of substances. In this section, the students received the
URLs of various websites containing information about the physical properties of different substances and
were asked to complete a table and to record for each substance its melting and boiling point, type of chemical
bond, and type of lattice and electrical conductivity, using the information presented on those websites and
material taught in the classroom.
Section C deals with the connection between the structure of the substance and its properties. In this
section the students were asked to use the information they had acquired in the previous sections of the
activity and the prior knowledge that they had achieved in the classroom in order to find the connection
between the structure of a substance and its properties, and to give reasons for their answers.
Section D deals with the relevance of chemistry and links substances to everyday life. Web resources
were presented that provide information on various substances. The students were asked to choose a
substance of interest and to prepare a presentation about it including information such as its properties, its
uses in everyday life, and methods of producing it in industry, as well as any other interesting information they
found (Frailich, Kesner, & Hofstein, 2007).
The activities that were developed for this study focus on the learning process and guide the students step
by step. Students were asked to follow the instructions of each activity and they had to answer precisely the
questions they were asked in their own words. Hence, the students must think about the questions, try to
understand them, look at the dynamic models (e.g., animations, applets in Section A), and connect them to
their previous theoretical studies in class, then formulate and write the answers. In this way, the students take
an active part in the learning process, and discuss the answers with their classmates, since they are working in
groups. Note that the visualized models used in the activities differ from the static models in books, as
presented in Table 1.
Based on Table 1, the students might explore a variety of visualized models on web-based activities more
than models presented in a book. This fact will induce students to view a broader and more accurate picture of
the structure of matter.
The Research Question
The research question is: How did the web-based activities contribute to students’ better understanding
the structure of matter and the concept of chemical bonding?
Methodology
Research Population
The study consisted of two groups: an experimental group and a comparison group of 10th grade
students. Two criteria helped us in selecting the experimental group: (1) schools that had appropriate and
relevant technology (i.e., computers and access to the Internet); and (2) teachers that choose voluntarily to
integrate the web-based learning environment into chemistry studies. The comparison group was chosen in a
way consistent with the experimental group, by the same criteria (presented in Table 2).
Based on Table 2 the schools from which the experimental and comparison groups were drawn could be
characterized as high schools that are academic in nature (as opposed to rural or vocational schools). In
general, such schools are characterized by relatively high inclination to the sciences. All the chemistry
teachers of the experimental and comparison classes had at least 6 years of experience in teaching chemistry
and were interested in improving their teaching methods and varying their instruction for the purpose of
improving their teaching of chemistry. In addition, all the teachers (both in the experimental and comparison
Table 1
Comparison between static models in textbooks and visualized models in the Web-based activities
Models in Books Models in Web-Based Activities
1 One or two models Variety of models (four models at least)
2 Static models Static and dynamic models
3 No interactive models Interactive models
4 Usually 2-D representation of models 2-D and 3-D representation of models

Table 2
Description of the research population
Criterion Experimental Group Comparison Group
Number of schools 7 5
Number of classrooms 7 5
Average number of students in a classroom 24 20
Total number of students 161 93
Socioeconomic status Average Average
Average teachers’ seniority in teaching 19 22
groups) participated in in-service professional development training prior to this study, regarding teaching
10th grade chemistry. The training includes content and pedagogy regarding teaching the concept of chemical
bonding. In order to validate the similarity of the two groups, we administered to all the students
that participated in this study an achievement pre-test that examined their knowledge (see the Achievement
Pre-Test results). This enabled us to characterize the experimental and comparison groups regarding their
similarities or differences.
Teaching the Concept of Chemical Bonding
The educational system that prevails in Israel dictates the curriculum and all students study the same
syllabus. Thus, all students study the concept of chemical bonding for the first time in 10th grade. Both the
experimental and the comparison groups participating in the study learned the basic chemical bonding topics,
as required in the school curriculum, based on the Bohr model of atom, in which the chemical bonds are
determined by the valence electrons in the ‘‘outermost’’ shell of an atom. Based on the curriculum, the
students learned about the structure of metals, ionic and molecular substances at the particle level, and types
of chemical bonds: metallic, ionic, and covalent bonds, the properties of substances, and the connection
between the structure of a substance and its properties. The students study 2-D and 3-D representations of
models as well as ball-and-stick and framework models. More specifically, they build models of molecules,
draw models of different substances, use movies to demonstrate the different structures of different
substances, and perform laboratory experiments. Students were also given exercises in the classroom and for
homework. All teachers taught using the same textbooks and allocated 40 lessons to teaching chemical
bonding.
Integrating the Web-Based Activities into the Learning Process
Teachers in the experimental group were given an intensive 3-day in-service induction course in which
the rationale for setting up the website was presented, as well as its structure and content. Web-based activities
dealing with chemical bonding were emphasized as well as pedagogical methods of integrating the activities
into the regular chemistry lessons. The students in the experimental group were engaged in four web-based
activities dealing with chemical bonding. Each of these activities was conducted immediately after
instruction on a relevant topic in the classroom. Activities were conducted in the computer laboratory at the
schools, and two lessons were devoted to each activity. The teachers generally began the lesson with a brief
introduction (5–10 minutes) on how to conduct the activity, and they handed out instruction sheets. Most of
the lesson was devoted to engaging in the activity. The students worked in groups of two and three, with the
teacher moving among them, guiding and providing support when needed.
Note that the two groups (experimental and comparison) followed the same basic syllabus and used the
same textbook, and did the same activities. Also, the same length of time, namely, 40 class periods were
devoted to teaching the concept of chemical bonding. The only difference between the two groups was that
the experimental group of students was exposed to the website and performed the above-mentioned four
activities.
Research Methods and Tools
This study incorporated both quantitative and qualitative research. The quantitative research consisted
of achievement questionnaires administered to both the experimental and comparison groups. The qualitative
research included gathering data from small groups of students and teachers, with the goal in mind of helping
in the interpretation of the quantitative results. The diverse range of data collected enabled triangulation of the
results obtained from the conversations between the students during the activities, the achievement tests, and
the interviews with the students and teachers.
The Quantitative Dimension of the Research
Achievement Pre-Test. The purpose of the pre-test was to compare the two groups’ (experimental and
comparison) level of understanding of chemistry at the beginning of 10th grade. The aim was to assess their
initial level of knowledge in chemistry in general and in understanding of basic concepts in chemistry taught
in middle school in particular. The test consisted of ten multiple-choice-type questions on the following
topics: basic terminology in chemistry (the chemistry language), the states of matter, and the structure of the
atom and its elementary particles. However, this test did not include questions about the chemical bonding
topic since the students did not study this subject in middle school. This fact was strengthened by teachers of
both groups, who claimed that chemical bonding topics were studied for the first time during the 10th grade.
The test however consisted of chemical content which provides the basis for understanding the concept of
chemical bonding.
The test was developed and validated by four chemistry teachers who had at least 10 years experience in
teaching 10th grade chemistry, and it has a reliability of Cronbach’s a internal consistency of 0.65. It was
administered to both the experimental and the comparison groups at the beginning of the school year.
Achievement Post-Test. The purpose of the post-test was to determine the students’ understanding of the
concept of chemical bonding taught in 10th grade chemistry. Students have generally been asked questions
at a basic level that requires rote learning of material rather than an in-depth understanding of the
structure of matter. Hence, students often provide correct answers without having a deep and thorough
understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. The post-test was designed to examine in depth how the
different types of chemical bonds are understood, and also how the structure of matter at the particle level is
understood.
The test included questions that examined students’ understanding of atomic structures and the
structures of ionic, metals, and molecular substances as well as the differences between them, and students’
understanding of the nature of chemical bonds. It also examined students’ comprehension of the connection
between the structure of a substance and its properties and their acquaintance with the use of the substances in
everyday life (relevance).
The achievement post-test was validated by five experts (teachers and science educators) who were
asked to judge each question by the following criteria:
The question is compatible to the chemical bonding topics studied according to the syllabus.
The question is well phrased and clear.
The level of the question (easy, middling, difficult).
The question was classified according to the Bloom taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956).
The question examines the comprehension of the structure of matter (metal, ionic, or molecular) and/
or the differences between them.
The question examines students’ understanding of the chemical bond (metal, ionic, or covalent bond)
and/or the differences between them.
The experts responded that the questions in the post-test are compatible to the chemical bonding topics
studied according to the syllabus in 10th grade. Based on Bloom’s taxonomy, most of the questions examined
a deep understanding of the concept of chemical bonding and only a few questions examined knowledge
and applications. Some of the questions were then rephrased, based on the experts’ comments and were
included in a pilot test (administered a year prior to the main namely current year). At the end of the process,
the post-test included four open-ended questions and 17 closed-ended (multiple-choice-type questions with
arguments). The test was found to be reliable (Cronbach a ¼ 0.91).
In addition, 11 teachers were asked to evaluate in advance the performance level of the students needed
to answer each question in the achievement post-test as follows: 1 ¼ low performance level, 2 ¼ medium
performance level, 3 ¼ good performance level, 4 ¼ very good performance level. Based on this evaluation,
the expected average performance level was between 2.5 and 3, which means that teachers think that
students will be able to cope properly with the achievement post-test. This tool enables us to determine
whether the structure and contents of the achievement post-test are adequate for 10th grade students
according to the syllabus and the chemical bonding topics, and also according to students’ ability to answer
the questions.
To examine and score the questions in an objective manner, we developed rubrics. For example, for
question 1a (see Quantitative Results Section), the correct answer is: the illustration depicts the metal copper
as composed of positive copper ions (or positive atomic cores of metal), and a ‘‘sea of electrons’’ from the
outermost shell of electrons. Students, who provided the correct answer as written above, received three
points. If the student describes the existence of positive ions of metals or electrons, he receives one and half
points, if the student does not refer to both particles, he receives zero points. In such a way, the rubrics were
written for all the open-ended questions.
The test was administered to the experimental and comparison groups upon their finishing their study of
the concept of chemical bonding. The tests were anonymously reviewed by the class teachers using the
rubrics. Furthermore, all the achievement post-tests were examined by one of the researchers of this study, to
verify that the assessment was conducted by the teachers according to this rubric. In the majority of the classes
there was almost full agreement between the various ratings. In few of the cases (about 5%) in which
agreement was not reached the test was rechecked.
The Qualitative Dimension of the Study
Since the main goal of this study was to explore the contribution of a web-based learning environment to
the learning process and to ascertain students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding, the
researchers were interested in studying how teachers and learners used web-based activities, in science
lessons. Hence, the observations and also students’ interviews took place in the experimental classrooms
only, because the experimental group was the only one that conducted the web-based activities.
Experimental and comparison teachers were interviewed to determine their instructional strategies, the
curriculum they taught in 10th grade, and to ensure that they taught all the relevant topics regarding the
chemical bonding topic.
Observations in the Experimental Group Classes. The purpose of the observations in the experimental
group classes was to examine in depth how the web-based activities were integrated into the teaching of the
topic chemical bonds and how they helped the learning process and improved students’ understanding of the
subject matter. The four experimental group classes were observed regarding each of the four activities (for a
total of 16 observations constituting 32 lessons). Two (generally) constant groups of students in each of the
four classes were taped while conducting the web-based activities (eight groups in all).
The conversations of six groups of students were transcribed (two groups from three experimental group
classes) in all the activities they were engaged in, and several segments of conversation discussing the
structure of matter were subjected to qualitative analysis. Each segment of conversation lasted 4–6 minutes.
We chose to analyze the discussions and deliberations held in groups of students who were verbal and
outspoken. Thus, we could audio record them.
The analysis consisted of three stages:
Stage A: Characterizing the students’ actions in the group: reading, discussing, arguing, writing,
thinking, and formulating an answer.
Stage B: Analyzing the essence of the action: addressing the instructions and their implementation, and
focusing on how the activity was conducted.
Stage C: Scrutinizing the learning process: consolidating and increasing the depth of knowledge,
building on top of existing knowledge, and understanding the material. This stage also examined the
application of learning theories: active learning, cooperative learning, and a constructivist approach
to learning.

Interviews
In-depth interviews were chosen for the present study in which the interviewer did not limit the
interviewees by guiding their answers but instead enabled them to express themselves freely. In such an
interview, the interviewers focus on several topics to help the interviewees relate their story about the
investigated phenomena in their own language and in a narrative way (Shkedi, 2003, p. 70). In depth
interviews provide, the interviewees with opportunities to present freely their attitudes and their opinions
based on their experience from their respective chemistry classrooms.
Interviews with the Experimental Group Students and Teachers. Four teachers from the experimental
group and 3 students from each of the four experimental group classes observed (12 students in all) were
interviewed separately. Each student interview lasted 30–40 minutes and each teacher was interviewed for
about an hour. The issues discussed in the interviews were as follows: chemistry studies in 10th grade in
general, the affective and cognitive contribution of the website activities to the students and to the learning
process, and also the contribution of the activities to the understanding of the concept of chemical bonding.
Interviews with the Comparison Group Teachers. The teachers in the comparison group were
interviewed for about an hour regarding their teaching of chemistry in general and about teaching the
chemical bonding topic in particular. They were asked to report about methods of instruction, demonstration
tools, teaching aids, projects done by students in the classroom and at home, and the time allocated for
instruction on chemical bonding. The purpose of the interviews was to verify that the students in the
comparison group had indeed learned about chemical bonding effectively.
The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative-constructivist analysis by Shkedi
(2003), divided into four stages:
Stage A: preliminary analysis—categorization.
(1) Breakdown of the information into small, meaningful fragments, and assignment of a title to each
segment that reflects its contents.
(2) Classifying the data segments according to subject, combining fragments of information according
to subject (in a different and new order)—and assigning a name to categories.
Stage B: Mapping analysis: identifying relationships between categories, combining several categories
under one umbrella category so that each umbrella category contains sub-categories.
Stage C: Focused analysis: focusing in on several items of information to provide a coherent explanation
around one or more core categories. Each core category has sub-categories. At this stage, the focus is
on the categories relevant to the questions investigated by the study.
Stage D: Theoretical analysis: constructing theories and conceptual–theoretical explanations about the
phenomenon investigated, that is, translating a core category and the sub-categories from everyday
concepts into theoretical notions. This stage was taken from the ‘‘grounded theory’’ approach to
analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).
Data Analysis and Results

Quantitative Results
The Achievement Pre-Test Questionnaire. The purpose of the pre-test was to examine whether initial
differences existed between the experimental and comparison groups. To this end, a statistical t-test was
performed on the pre-test. It was found that mean score and standard deviation of the comparison (N ¼ 93)
group were 72.2 (19.0) and for the experimental group (N ¼ 161) 73.3 (19.5) t ¼ 0.45, p-not significant. Thus,
no initial significant differences exist between the groups.
To strengthen (and validate) the results regarding the similarity between the two groups a Chi-square test
between the distributions of the scores of both groups was performed: w28 ¼ 5:61 (p ¼ not significant). These
results strengthened the assumption that the groups were similar in terms of initial achievement and the initial
level of chemistry knowledge. Moreover, it strengthens the similarity in the characteristics of the groups as
determined according to criteria presented in Table 2.
The Achievement Post-Test Questionnaire. Based on the similarity of the groups, which had the same
initial baseline, a statistical t-test was performed on the whole achievement post-test, aimed at determining
whether differences existed between the experimental and comparison groups in student achievements
regarding the concept of chemical bonding. It was found that the mean score of the experimental group
(N ¼ 145) and the comparison group (N ¼ 88) was 76.1 (17.0) and 63.4 (16.2) respectively, t ¼ 5.7, p 0.001.
As shown above, the experimental group’s mean score regarding the concept of chemical bonding was
significantly higher than that of the comparison group.
The test included questions on various topics. Since this article addresses chemical bonding only,
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine whether differences generally
exist between the two groups on the sub-tests for three topics that were included in the post-test, namely,
metals, ionic compounds, and molecular compounds. The results for the MANOVA are Wilk’s l ¼ 0.88,
F(3,229) ¼ 10.8 (p < 0.0001), which indicate that overall, a highly significant difference exists between the
achievements of the two groups in the sub-tests analyzed. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were
conducted to determine the differences between the groups in each of the sub-tests examined. The results
are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 1.
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 1, the mean scores of the experimental group on the sub-topics examined
in the test were significantly higher than those of the comparison group, that is, the achievement level of the
experimental group students was higher in all the sub-topics of chemical bonding examined.
Close examination of the test reveals that most of the questions on which a statistically significant
difference were found between the experimental and comparison groups dealt with understanding the
structure of matter (metallic, ionic, and molecular). The following is an example of a question in the
achievement test that dealt with the structure of metal, question 1a (open-ended-type question).
(1) Look at the illustration presented (Figure 2) and answer the following:
a. The illustration depicts a model of a metal lattice. Explain the structure of the metal lattice according
to the given model.
About 75% of the students in the experimental group answered this question correctly, whereas only
55% in the comparison group answered it correctly. The following are typical examples of correct answers of
students:
The illustration depicts the metal copper, composed of positive copper ions and a ‘‘sea of electrons’’
A very strong attraction exists between the positive metal ions and the electrons; hence, the structure
is orderly and solid.
The metal lattice presented in the illustration is a copper lattice. It consists of positive atomic cores of the
metal (nucleus þ internal energy levels) surrounded by a sea of electrons (the outermost shell of
electrons).
Typical examples of incorrect (or partially correct) answers of students:
Metal lattice structure: According to the model, negative ions are attracted to each positive Cuþ2 ion.
There is attraction between the positive and the negative.
Table 3
ANOVA results for student achievement post-test
Experimental Group, Comparison Group, F-Value and
Sub-Tests N ¼ 145; Mean (SD) N ¼ 88; Mean (SD) Significance Level
Metals 74.33 (21.28) 61.01 (20.83) 21.79***
Ionic compounds 76.70 (16.88) 64.49 (17.69) 27.64***
Molecular compounds 71.90 (19.51) 58.43 (18.97) 26.66***
***
p 0.001.

Figure 1. The mean scores in the sub-tests of the achievement post-test. ***p 0.001.
It is a metal substance in a solid state containing negative ions in motion around the positive ones. It has a
high melting point and is malleable.
Based on these results, it is evident that most of the students in the experimental group correctly
addressed the structure of the metal and its components in their answers. That is, the vast majority of the
students in the experimental group grasped the concept of the structure of metals and the particles comprising
it. On the other hand, a higher percentage of students in the comparison group confused electrons with
negative ions and actually did not understand the structure of metals.
A similar analysis of additional questions dealing with ionic and molecular structure of chemical
compounds revealed similar results, namely, that a higher percentage of students in the experimental group
than in the comparison group understood the subject, specified correctly how the different particles and
structure of the ionic and molecular compounds are composed, and distinguished between a single molecule
and an agglomeration.
Qualitative Results
Analysis of the Classroom Conversations. After the students had finished learning all the relevant
subject matter on metals, they became engaged in an activity called ‘‘Metals—Structure and Properties.’’ One
of the goals of the activity was to summarize and revise the material learned in the classroom and to
demonstrate the metal model, the metal lattice, and metal bonds using various visual computer-based models
available on the Internet, in order to deepen and scaffold the students’ understanding of the structure and
chemical bonding in metals. The choice of segments of conversation for analysis was made following the
results of the achievement test on chemical bonding, in which significant differences in the questions that
tested students’ understanding of the structure of matter were found. Consequently, the segments of
conversation dealing with the structure of matter were selected for analysis, in order to examine closely and
comprehensively the learning process taking place while the students were engaged in the activities.
Figure 2. A model of a metal lattice.

Table 4 presents a segment of conversation and its related analysis conducted by a group of students
during and following the above-mentioned activity.
The segment presented in the above table is a transcription of the discourse between two students while
engaged in an activity dealing with several visual models describing the structure of metals. It is clear that the
students are focused on carrying out the activity and the tasks required. They read, explain to each other,
formulate an answer, and give each other feedback. During the activity, the students interact and cooperate in
interpreting the visual models for the structure of metals. Note that an argument arose (subsequently,
regarding the second model) about the identity of the ‘‘minuses’’ in a different visual model describing the
structure of metals. The first student (Avi) argued that they are electrons, whereas the second (Tal) maintained
that they are negative ions. The students worked together and discussed the questions on their own, but the
moment a problem arose, they asked the teacher to clarify the issue.
The following is a conversation that was held between some students and their teacher:
Teacher: (reading their answer): The circles are the ions with positive charges; around them are the
minuses representing ions with negative charges. Is this what you think? What is the structure of a
metal lattice?
Avi (student): Metal lattice . . . it’s written here (referring to the answer they wrote before) and here is the
sea of electrons.
Teacher: Ions that are positively charged; where are the negative ions?
Avi: The electrons.
Teacher: So what do you think: Are the ions electrons?
Tal (student): No, these are not ions only electrons that a..a. . .a..aaa. . .!
Teacher (summarizing): So what kind of particles do we have here?
Tal: Yes, these are electrons.
Avi (writes down): These are electrons that are moving.
With the aid of insightful questions from the teacher, the students realized that the ‘‘minuses’’ in the
illustration are electrons, not negative ions. This is only one example that demonstrates how a conversation
with teachers, combined with their experience with the activity on the website, helped them understand the
idea of metals and their respective structure.
The students engaged in the activity only after they had learned the subject matter in the classroom.
Nevertheless, they encountered difficulties in understanding the structure of metals, with some students
confusing different particles. The complexity of the subject matter, the many types of particles involved, and
the abstract nature of the subject matter meant that students, often the high achievers as well, encountered
serious difficulties. Confusion over particles occurred in five groups (out of six) in three different classes that
were engaged in the activity on metals, particularly in the initial stages. This generally indicates that the
structure of metals was not properly understood in the framework of ‘‘regular’’ lessons in the experimental
group class.
A similar analysis of segments of conversation taken from the activities of additional groups in other
experimental group classes that engaged in activities dealing with particulate, ionic, and molecular structure
revealed the same results.
The web-based activities induced students to become intensively involved in the learning process in
which the students are active, while they interacted with their friends and discussed the questions to achieve
meaningful learning by means of a constructivist approach to learning. Analysis of interviews below
reinforced these results.
Analysis of Interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted as described above in which the teachers in both groups were asked
to talk about teaching chemistry in general and teaching chemical bonding topics in particular, as well as
methods of instruction, demonstration tools, teaching aids, and the way their students studied, especially the
topic of chemical bonding. This kind of interview enables teachers to speak freely about their chemistry
classes. For example, experimental teachers chose to speak about the way their students studied in the
web-based learning environment, namely, student-centered approach. On the other hand, the comparison
Table 4
Two questions that dealt with models representing the structure of metals, a segment of a student’s conversation,
and an analysis of it
(Continued )

Table 4
(Continued)
group teachers who did not implement web-based activities in their classes chose to discuss learning contents,
instructional aids, and the instructional process that took place in their classes, namely, teacher-centered
approach. In-depth interviews enabled teachers to relate their unique story, so we could recognize the
differences between them. The differing results highlighted the differences between the web-based learning
environment and the ‘‘regular’’ classroom learning environment, as can be seen, according to the analysis of
the interviews afterwards.
Analysis of Interviews Conducted with Teachers and Students in the Experimental Group. Analysis of
the interviews revealed three key factors that contributed to learning and understanding the concept of
chemical bonding, as a result of integration of web-based activities. The three factors are (1) identifying
students’ difficulties regarding the concept of chemical bonding, (2) use of a constructivist approach to
learning, and (3) use of computer-based visual models, which it is assumed contributes to greater
understanding.
Identifying Students’ Difficulties with the Concept of Chemical Bonding

All teachers interviewed indicated that the concept of chemical bonding are too abstract and that the
students had difficulties in understanding them. The students confused particles of varied substances;
therefore, most students could not understand the structure of matter and its particles in the theoretic studies
that took place in class.
Teacher (Shula): The students had difficulties in understanding the kind of lattice . . . then they confuse,
for example, a metal lattice and ionic . . . they confuse particles.
Teacher (Aviv): . . . for example, the particle nature of structure, when students have an abstract concept,
a high percentage of students has difficulties in understanding the microscopic level.
Teacher (Amit): You can see that although they (students) finished studying the relevant contents in
class, while they did the web-based activities, I observed that they did not understand well the
contents taught in class.
A Constructivist Approach to Learning
Constructing Knowledge. The activities promote a constructivist approach to learning with the
student at the center of the learning process; the student builds up knowledge, and constructs it on the basis
of previous knowledge. Guided web-based learning consolidates knowledge and leads to a more in-depth
understanding of the subject matter; it differs from the ‘‘regular’’ method used in the classroom, which, for
the most part, is based on rote learning. Here are some quotes from students and teachers that were
interviewed:
Student (Eli): It’s a matter of adding one thing to another, and in the end, everything adds up. It is better
understood when you have to formulate an answer rather than listening in the classroom. The activity
contributed to a more in-depth understanding of things and that is a change in the way of learning.
Here you feel that you understand the subject matter better and that you are not simply learning it by
heart.
Teacher (Mina): While engaging in the activity, they ask questions, and they need me . . . in the
classroom I am the one who usually asks the questions; it is a major difference . . . for a student to ask
a question, he needs to know; he needs to be in a different mode than in the classroom when I ask a
question.
Active Learning. Almost all the teachers and students interviewed indicated that web-based activities
facilitate student-centered active learning. In the opinion of the interviewees, this type of activity encourages
students to focus on the learning process and thus, it is thought that this enhances their understanding. This
type of learning differs from ‘‘regular’’ learning in the classroom, where students are generally passive. Some
of their comments follow:
Student (Mali): It causes you to be more active; it simply causes you go more deeply into the subject
matter, makes you understand it better, because in a regular lesson you lose concentration.
Student (Mira): Here, you have to be focused . . . In the classroom you are more passive, you take less
action; here you have to have to apply your self more.
Teacher (Shula): It’s not like a lesson I teach in . . . here it is active learning, it certainly contributes to
learning, it contributes to more in-depth learning . . . I felt that they understood more, that it was more
consolidated.

Cooperative Learning. The teachers noted that conducting the web-based activities in small groups
enabled the students to cooperate; they helped one another; there was learning interaction that one does not
generally find in the ‘‘regular’’ classroom.
Teacher (Shula): There is teamwork, one knew more, another knew less . . . there was interaction
between them and they could help each other. This does not exist in a regular lesson.
Teacher (Aviv): . . . and it is also necessary to divide up the tasks among the students when
discussing various issues and questions. One thinks this, another thinks something different and they
learn well from one another . . . Yes, I know of several groups in which they really explained to one
another.
Teacher (Amit): They worked together, one told the other what to write, they thought together, observed
together, deliberated together . . . they explained to one another.
Computer-Based Visual Models Contribute to Understanding
Visual Demonstration Tools to Enhance Understanding. Most of the students claimed that it was
difficult to understand chemical bonding topics from the teacher’s explanations in class. Students and
teachers who were interviewed indicated that the animations and computer-based models contributed to
visualizing the abstract concepts of chemical bonding taught in the classroom and helped students to ‘‘see’’
the structure of matter.
Student (Mali): The animations and models demonstrate the model to us. You really don’t understand
how the ions and electrons actually move, and what really happens, and then you see it in an
animation. Then you understand it better.
Student (Eric): The models and animations are a visual way of demonstrating the subject matter, and it is
better when you see it, because sometimes it is difficult to understand it only from the teacher’s
explanation.
Teacher (Aviv): When students see the micro and the structures in three dimensions and the electron
cloud on the computer, they see that the models of molecular substances have volume, that there is
motion . . . and how one atom is arranged opposite another atom, and they see the connection between
them. This expands their understanding and gives them in-depth understanding. I think that this
contributes a great deal to the learning of concepts in chemical bonding.
Using Dynamic Models Versus Static Models. The students said that they had difficulty in imagining
the construction of matter, and they preferred the dynamic models in the web-based activities instead of the
static models that teachers showed them in class.
Student (Amir): When the teacher explains something in the classroom, you don’t have any way of
imagining it, how it looks; even when the teacher draws a diagram on the board, it still is not like
seeing it, as you do in an animation with color and 3-D demonstrations.
Teacher (Aviv): The animations are varied and diverse. What I can do is draw something static on the
board, but the students can’t see the particle in motion, which is the most important thing.
The Connection between the Macroscopic and Microscopic Levels. Many students found it difficult to
make the connection between the macroscopic and microscopic levels; the visual models on web-based
activities help them in this process.
Student (Mali): When I saw the animations I made the connection, the connection between the structure
itself and what happens there inside the structure.
Teacher (Mina): The animations are important because they help students make the connection between
the micro and the macro, which is one of the most difficult things to do. The focus is on the models and
on the micro, as opposed to the macro so that more students are able to understand.

Teacher (Aviv): It is important that the student will understand it at the micro level; with an animation,
the student sees what is happening inside the substance; that is really important.
Analysis of the Interviews Held with the Teachers in the Comparison Group. Analysis of the
interviews with teachers in the comparison group revealed that the instruction consisted of three key
components: content, instructional tools, and doing exercises on the subject matter taught. The teachers in the
comparison group talked about their methods of instruction and how they applied them:
Contents of the learning:
Teacher (Hilla): I taught the model of metals, the chemical bond between positive ions and electrons,
and the structure of metals, which is a giant and infinite structure . . . I emphasized the difference
between the structures of metal and ionic substances, which have giant structures, on the one hand,
and a molecular structure, which is a small structure . . . I taught the ionic bond, covalent bond, and
polar covalent bond. I teach in a sequential, structured, and logical manner.
Instructional aids for demonstration purposes:
Teacher (Tally): I show them models that appear in textbooks, which are two- and three-dimensional,
and show them the movie ‘‘The Architecture of a Molecule.’’ I use lots of models; they build
molecules. I draw models on the board and they also draw models. I incorporate a lot of models,
because they aid in understanding the material.
Exercises on the subject matter:
Teacher (Tally): A lot of exercises in the classroom, a lot of exercises to identify substances by means of
their properties, like in the national matriculation exams.
From the interviews with teachers in the comparison group, it is clear that they taught all the content
required in a highly structured and organized manner. They also used various static models (such as graphic
depictions and ball-and-stick models), and gave the students exercises on the entire subject matter. All these
are in alignment with the ‘‘traditional’’ format of instruction, in which basically the teacher teaches the
subject matter, is responsible for the instruction process (teacher’s centered learning), and does not refer to the
students’ learning process.
Discussion
In this study we studied the effectiveness of web-based chemistry by using quantitative and qualitative
tools. The quantitative research compared the achievements of the experimental and the comparison groups
and examined the differences between them, whereas the qualitative assessment tools were used to
investigate the learning process that occurs during the web-based learning. This set of tools was needed to
obtain a broad and clear picture of the process and the phenomena investigated in this study. The tools also
enabled us to examine more thoroughly the contribution of the web-based activities regarding the teaching
and learning of the topics chemical bonding and the structure of matter.
The question that was posed was how did the web-based activities contribute to students’ better
understanding the structure of matter and the concept of chemical bonding?
The answer to this question was obtained from a thorough investigation and triangulation of the data
from the qualitative and quantitative findings of the study. It was found that the web-based activities,
that contained various visual models, helped most of the students by providing them with a visualized
demonstration of the structure of matter. Presenting one or two models in a textbook or on the blackboard, as is
done in traditional classroom teaching, limits the comprehension of the models and the understanding of
structure of matter. For example, usually there is no reference to the model’s limitations. Thus, the student
might draw an incorrect or wrong model for the structure of matter (Barnea & Dori, 2000; Justi & Gilbert,
2002). In contrast, the web-based activities contain a variety of visualized models, each of which represents
one aspect of the structure of matter; therefore, many models can provide students with an extensive picture of
the structure of matter. In addition, the students refer to the model’s limitations. In this way, the students
realize that there is no model that represents the correct structure, but altogether the models could enhance the
comprehension of the structure of matter. Furthermore, static models cannot describe dynamic phenomena.
For example the static models of metals in which all particles are firmly fixed are limited in their potential to
scaffold students understanding regarding motion of electrons and its resulting electrical conductivity. This is
not the case regarding dynamic models as was used in our study. The students in the experimental groups were
exposed through the web activities to several different computerized models (static and dynamic, two, and
three dimensional). These were in addition to the models presented in class. This approach helped them to
better understand the concept of chemical bonding, as was evident in the achievement post-test that examined
the comprehension of the structure of matter and its particles. Those results are in alignment with interviews
that were analyzed in which teachers and students in the experimental group declared that the visualization
tools helped students to better understand the concept of chemical bonding. The computerized models help
students make an effective connection between the macroscopic level and the microscopic level, something
many students find difficult to do (Johnstone, 1991; Robinson, 2003; Tsaparlis, 1997). In addition, the visual
tools contributed significantly to students’ understanding and their internalization of the abstract aspects of
chemical bonding, the theory of which they had learned in the classroom. Several studies that investigated the
integration of computer-based models in web-based learning support similar results, namely, that use of
computer simulations, animations, and visual tools contributes to greater achievements and improved
understanding of concepts among students (Ardac & Akaygun, 2005; Barnea & Dori, 2000; Carpi, 2001;
Marbach-Ad et al., 2008).
We found that while the students were engaged in the web-based activity presented in the educational
website, they were motivated to focus on the activities and the learning process. Such activities effectively
promote a constructivist approach to learning, in which the student is at the center of learning and is
responsible for the learning process, by building up knowledge, and constructing new knowledge on top of
previous knowledge, and relating new knowledge to the subject matter learned in the classroom. Own (2006)
For example claims that ‘‘. . . the network and multimedia are useful tools for developing the learning
environment with a constructivism learning approach. Well-designed, web-based instruction will become a
crucial part of implementing constructivist style instruction.’’ The importance and benefits of active learning
are well-documented in the literature (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Felder & Brent, 2003; Lagowski, 1998;
Moore, 1989). Lagowski (1998), for example, noted that the integration of technology into learning promotes
active learning and helps improve academic performance and students’ attitudes as well as it reinforces
positive interaction between teachers and students. Digital technology shifts the focus from traditional
instruction, based on a lecture format in which students are, for the most part, passive, to a learning format in
which the student becomes more active (Moore, 1989). Based on the current study engaging in web-based
activities, shifted responsibility for the learning process from the teachers to the students. For example, the
students turn to the teacher with questions in order to grasp and understand the subject matter, and not vice
versa. One can argue that good teachers would be able to challenge their students and cause them to ask
questions without the web-based activities. However, this is much more feasible in our web-based learning
environment than in a more ‘‘traditional’’ classroom learning environment, where the teacher is more active
and is responsible for both the teaching and learning processes. Cooperative learning also occurred, as
reflected in the interactions between the students within small group discussions. The students clarified and
discussed the questions while performing the web-based activities; hence they gave the issues deep thought
and consideration. This discourse has potential to encourage the development and practice of metacognitive
activity that again might induce the enhancement of more meaningful learning. The web-based activities
promote high-level thinking in which the students associate the theory of chemical bonding learned in the
classroom with the visual models they observe in the web-based activities. This is in alignment with the study
conducted by Krystyniak and Heikkinen (2007) that found that the verbal interactions indicate that students
processed what they had observed in laboratory activities and linked it to the previously learned chemistry
content. The web-based activities afforded the students the opportunity to appreciate the essence of the metal,
ionic, and molecular structures, and to learn more in-depth about them in order to gain a better understanding
and to consolidate their knowledge. In the present study we found that web-based learning was a significant
addition to the teacher’s explanations in class, since it served as scaffolding and supported the students’
learning process, and indeed promoted cooperative and active learning within a community of learners using
a constructivist approach.
Limitations of the Study
The current study had some limitations. First, the sampling of the population; regarding the
experimental group, we approached only those schools that possessed the appropriate technology and that
consisted of teachers who were willing to implement a web-based learning environment. Second, this study
aimed at exploring the educational effectiveness of the web-based learning environment. Thus, most of the
qualitative part of the research focused on the experimental group (in which the web-based activities
were implemented), whereas the quantitative part of the research was performed equally in both groups. The
comparison group underwent neither observations nor students’ interviews. We are aware of the drawback of
this approach, but we believe that it did not interfere with the main goal of this study, namely, to examine the
contribution of web-based activities to the learning process. Third, based on our findings, it is clear that
the web-based activities improved students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding. However, we
have no clear evidence whether this improvement resulted from the animations or from the pedagogy chosen
to implement the web-based environment. More research is needed in which better control will be provided
regarding these variables. Fourth, one should take into consideration that this study is typical of studies in
which we compare the implementation by using experimental and comparison groups. Such studies have the
potential to be exposed to what is fondly called the ‘‘Hawthorne effect.’’ More research should be done in
the comparison group classes as well as in the experimental group classes to validate the results that were
obtained. Another limitation is the use of different achievement tests for the pre-test and post-test. The pre-
test focused on topics that were already learned before, whereas the post-test dealt with new topics. We made
this decision because the study was conducted in an authentic classroom situation in which the ability to
interfere with the normal classroom activities was limited. In addition, using the same test as the pre- and post-
test has the potential to frustrate the students since it meant introducing (in the pre phase) questions covering
topics that were completely novel to them.
Conclusions and Implications
The main contribution of the current study is in the development and formulation of a pedagogical model
for effective use of web-based learning in chemistry studies, by taking advantage of its educational and
organizational benefits. Our pedagogical model suggests the following steps should be considered as part of
the implementation process: (1) training teachers for effective use of a web-based learning environment
as well as learning appropriate pedagogical methods of integrating the web-based activities into regular
chemistry lessons, (2) before conducting the web-based activities teachers should be asked to teach in
advance all the theoretical aspects that underline the topic and the chemical concepts that are relevant to the
web-based activities, (3) the students are actively involved in the learning process, work in small cooperative
groups in which they discuss the learning materials, ask questions, provide each other with feedback, explain
their ideas to their peers, and answer the questions in their own words. Thus they construct their knowledge
step by step constructively. (4) The teachers guide students, identify and recognize students’ difficulties, and
provide them with support whenever needed.
The use of a website as an instructional method is rather new. Therefore more intensive and
comprehensive research is needed in order to explore and obtain insight regarding its pedagogical potential as
compared to other teaching strategies and among different students’ populations. More research is required to
examine the effectiveness of the integration of web-based activities into the learning process and
understanding of scientific concepts regarding students with different abilities and learning styles. In
addition, it is recommended to research the implementation of this instructional tool with different teaching
style. Since the learning activities consisted of few components (the web-based environment and the
animations) more research should be conducted to investigate the question whether the web-based
component or the animation make the difference regarding the students comprehension of scientific concepts
in general and the chemical bonding concept and structure of matter in particular.
Finally, from the findings of this study, it can be concluded that structured web-based activities
containing varied models for the structure of matter, which place students at the center of the learning process
via cooperative learning in small groups, contributes significantly to students’ understanding of the concept
of chemical bonding and the structure of matter. It should be noted that providing teachers with professional
development opportunities is a vital component in the implementation process for an effective integration of
this innovative learning environment into the regular teaching and learning process.
We would like to thank Yetty Varon for her advice, valuable help regarding the statistical analysis. We
are also indebted to all the chemistry teachers and students who participated in this study.
References
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes
molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41, 317–337.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at
molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1269–1298.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y.J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through
project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117–139.
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y.J. (2000). Computerized molecular modeling: The new technology for enhance
model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in
Europe, 1, 109–120.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.B., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York:
Longmans Green.
Bonwell, C.C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.
Washington, DC: George Washington University.
J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Carpi, A. (2001). Improvements in undergraduate science education using web-based instructional
modules: The natural science pages. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1709–1712.
Clark, D. (2004). Hands-on investigation in Internet environments: Teaching thermal equilibrium. In:
M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. (pp. 175–200).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eshet, Y., & Hammer, R. (2006). Principles of design and analysis of computer-based learning
environments. Raanana, Israel: Open University (In Hebrew).
Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2003). Learning by doing. Chemical Engineering Education, 37, 282–283.
Fensham, P.J. (1992). Science and technology. In: P.J. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
curriculum. (pp. 789–829). New York: Mcmillan.
Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The influence of web-based chemistry learning on
student’s perceptions, attitudes, and achievements. Research in Science & Technology Education, 25, 179–197.
Gabel, D. (1996) The complexity of chemistry: Research for teaching 21st century. Paper presented at
the 14th international conference in chemical education. Brisbane, Australia.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case
study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to difficult questions. Learning and
Instruction, 14, 343–351.
Hoffman, J.L., Wu, H.K., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2003). The nature of middle school learners’
science content understandings with the use of on-line resources. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40, 323–346.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1998a). Active learning: Cooperation in the college
classroom. (2nd edition.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1998b). Cooperative learning returns to college: What
evidence is there that it works? Change, 30, 26–35.
Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modeling in chemical education. In: J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong,
R. Justy, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van Dreil (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice.
(pp. 47–68). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kesner, M., Frailich, M., & Hofstein, A. (2003). Implementing the internet learning environment into
the chemistry curriculum in high school in Israel. In: M.S. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich
learning environments: A future perspective. (pp. 209–234). Singapore: World Scientific.
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Modelling students becoming chemists: Developing representational
competence. In: J.K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education. (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Academic
Publishers.
Krystyniak, R.A., & Heikkinen, H.W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended,
open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1160–
1186.
Lagowski, J.J. (1998). Chemical education: Past, present and future. Journal of Chemical Education, 75,
425–436.
Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, T.A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Can final examinations
amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 5,
301–325.
Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87, 517–538.
Lunetta, V.N., & Hofstein, A. (1991). Simulations and laboratory practical activity. In: B.E. Wolnough
(Ed.), Practical science. (pp. 125–137). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to
improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45, 273–292.
Matthews, M.R. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. In: D.C. Philips (Ed.),
National Society for the Study of Education, 99 year book. (pp. 161–192). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mayer, R.E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In: C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. (pp. 141–159).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1997). Asocial constructivist perspective on learning environments.
International Journal of Science Education, 19, 193–208.
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N.B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students
empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Education, 37, 459–479.
Moore, J.W. (1989). Tooling up for the 21st century. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 15–19.
Own, Z. (2006). The application of an adaptive, web-based learning environment on oxidation-
reduction reactions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 73–96.
Prawat, R. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher,
22(6), 5–12.
Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M.H., Zeitz, C.M., & Wathen, S.H. (1993). The structure of reasoning in
conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.
Robinson, W. (2003). Chemistry problem-solving: Symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. Journal
of Chemical Education, 80, 978–982.
Salomon, G. (2000). Technology and education in the age of information. Hifa: Zmora-Bitan
(In Hebrew).

Sanger, M.J., & Badger, S.M. II. (2001). Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve
students’ understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1412–
1416.
Semple, A. (2000). Learning technologies and their influence on the development and use of educational
technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 21–28.
Shkedi, A. (2003). Words of meaning: Qualitative research—theory and practice. Tel-Aviv: Ramot
(In Hebrew).
Solomon, J.J. (1987). Social influences on construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in
Science Education, 14, 63–82.
Stieff, M. (2005). Connected chemistry: A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom.
Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 489–493.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In: N. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taber, K.S. (2002). Chemical misconception: Prevention, diagnosis and cure: Vol. 1 Theoretical
background. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K.S., & Coll, R. (2002). Bonding. In: J.K. Gilbert, O.D. Jong, R. Justy, D.F. Treagust, & J.H. Van
Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice. (pp. 213–234). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic and molecular structure in chemical education: A critical analysis from
various perspectives of science education. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 922–925.
Tversky, B., & Morrison, J.B. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalich, F. (2007). The impact of technology on the enactment of ‘‘inquiry’’ in a
technology enthusiast’s sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 154–
182.
Wallace, R., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the web: Students on-line in
sixth grade classroom. Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104.
Winebrener, J. (1997). Take the internet with a grain (pound?) of salt. Michigan Association for
Computer-Related Technology Users in Learning, 17, 19–21.
Wu, H., Kraijcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations:
Student’s use of visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

Enhancing Students' Understanding of The Concept of Chemical Bonding by Using Activities Provided On An Interactive Website

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Students' Understanding of The Concept of Chemical Bonding by Using Activities Provided On An Interactive Website

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Students' Understanding of The Concept of Chemical Bonding by Using Activities Provided On An Interactive Website

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 46, NO. 3, PP.

Enhancing Students’ Understanding of the Concept of Chemical Bonding

Received 30 January 2007; Accepted 14 July 2008

Correspondence to: A. Hofstein; E-mail: [email protected]

ß 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Constructing Knowledge in a Web-Based Learning Environment

Students’ Difficulties in Understanding the Concept of Chemical Bonding

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

The Quantitative Dimension of the Research

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Stage A: preliminary analysis—categorization.

Data Analysis and Results

Typical examples of incorrect (or partially correct) answers of students:

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Figure 2. A model of a metal lattice.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Identifying Students’ Difficulties with the Concept of Chemical Bonding

A Constructivist Approach to Learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Computer-Based Visual Models Contribute to Understanding

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Instructional aids for demonstration purposes:

Exercises on the subject matter:

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like