Commentary

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

How Multimedia-Based Learning and Molecular Visualization Change

the Landscape of Chemical Education Research
Loretta L. Jones*
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80631, United States

ABSTRACT: Visualizations of molecular structure and dynamics are widely used

in chemistry classrooms, although the research findings needed to make informed
decisions about how best to select and use these materials often are not available.
Much of the research on educational uses of visualizations that was conducted in
the past does not provide the information needed for today’s students.
Collaborations among the research communities of cognitive science, education,
and physical and life sciences are helping chemical education researchers to study the
instructional uses of visualization techniques, particularly visualization and animation
of the particulate state of matter. These collaborations reveal how students perceive
and interpret various kinds of multimedia presentations and molecular animations
and show how to develop design principles for creating and using effective chemistry
visualizations. This paper describes how research studies on multimedia-based
learning and molecular visualizations have changed over the past 35 years. It
addresses what types of research questions will be useful and examines research
methods developed for investigating them.

KEYWORDS: Chemical Education Research, Interdisciplinary/Multidisciplinary, Multimedia-Based Learning

FEATURE: Award Address

■ INTRODUCTION
Not long ago a chemistry education graduate student who was
struggling to devise a good research question for studying molecular
visualization in the chemistry classroom asked me, “But what’s
left to know? Haven’t all the aspects of technology in chemical
education been already examined?” It was essentially the same
question I had asked when starting my own graduate studies in
chemistry education. I had entered the Doctorate of Arts program in
the Chemistry Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago
Circle (now known more simply as the University of Illinois at
Chicago) and the DA degree required research expertise in both
chemistry and chemistry education. Performing the education
research project changed my life because it opened a door to the
fascinating world of research in the teaching and learning of
chemistry. Since that time, nearly 40 years ago as of this writing, we
know much more about teaching chemistry and about using various
forms of technology to learn chemistry, but that knowledge has
led to even more questions and the field has grown even more
fascinating. Consequently, there is much yet to discover. This paper
will deal with some of what has been learned and what yet needs
to be learned about research in chemistry education, particularly
research involving multimedia and visualization techniques.
Education can be expensive and needs to be justified in every
generation.1 In the early days of technology usage, the potential
of technology in education was considered to be very high, and
in fact, each new type of educational technology was initially
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
thought to be so powerful that it could replace all other forms of
instruction, leading to more efficient and less costly instructional
methods. In 1913 Frederick James Smith reported this interview
with Thomas Edison:2
“Books,” declared the inventor with decision, “will soon be
obsolete in the public schools. Scholars will be instructed
through the eye. It is possible to teach every branch of human
knowledge with the motion picture. Our school system will be
completely changed inside of ten years.”
By the 1950s it was the use of television for instruction that
enchanted. The Ford Foundation Fund for the Advancement
of Education reported television to be “the most powerful
medium of communication yet devised by man.”3 Eventually, the
awesome potential of the computer became apparent, and in
1984 Seymour Papert predicted,4
There won’t be schools in the future...I think the computer
will blow up the school. That is, the school defined as
something where there are classes, teachers running exams,
people structured into groups by age, following a
curriculumall of that. The whole system is based on a
set of structural concepts that are incompatible with the
presence of the computer. These structural concepts are based
on knowledge being handed out by a medieval process
expositionrather than by a process of discovery.
A dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
While none of these technologies have replaced schools, the
advent of technology has led to huge changes in how chemistry is
taught. The impacts of these changes are not fully understood
and further research is needed. Older models of classroom
research are not always appropriate, and new research models
are being developed to study the impact of technology on the
teaching and learning of chemistry as well as other areas of
chemical education research. In the following sections, the types
of research conducted on the use of technologies such as
multimedia and molecular visualization for the teaching and
learning of chemistry and how the focus of the research has
changed over time are examined.
■
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION
A research study that generates useful new knowledge must begin
with a good research question, from which the methodology
follows. In the early days of educational technology, a common
research question asked whether technology-based instruction
could replace some existing part of a course, such as books,
laboratories, or lectures. To compare instruction using techno-
logy with traditional instruction, quantitative studies were set
up with a control group taught with traditional methods and an
experimental group learning by computer, television, or other
technology. Often the study was conducted by the same people
who had developed the technology-based instructional materials.
Results were mixed, due partly to differences in research design
and partly to the wide variation in the quality of both the
technology-based and traditional methods and materials.5−9
Qualitative studies would be required to identify what other
factors were at play and many of those factors still remain to be
investigated.
■ QUANTITATIVE STUDIES
In 1979, I went to the University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign to work with Gil Haight as a visiting assistant
professor with responsibilities for developing video-based
general chemistry lessons. While I was there, the organic chemist
Stanley Smith became a valued mentor and collaborator. He was
one of the first to use computers in the teaching of chemistry and
had an excellent grasp of how to communicate with learners by
means of the computer.10 We began to combine a computer with
video in order to develop multimedia-based learning for chemistry.
At that time, multimedia required controlling a videocassette player
with a computer and working with both a computer monitor and a
television monitor. Several experts advised us that our work was a
waste of time because schools would not be able to provide the
equipment for such an advanced technological application. However,
we persisted because multimedia combines the realism of video with
the interactivity of computers, which held great promise for learning
chemistry, especially the chemistry of substances too hazardous to
study otherwise. There were no instructional design guidelines for
this purpose, so we used index cards to organize the content and
set as our model a student working independently with a tutor
coaching from behind. All the video was shot from the viewpoint of a
student conducting laboratory experiments. The resulting lessons,
which became the Exploring Chemistry series (later, part of the
Comprehensive Chemistry Curriculum11), were designed to drive
content learning by guiding students to make choices and control
variables in simulated experiments, then to interpret the results.12
These multimedia lessons have now been incorporated into the
Fundamentals of Chemistry tutorials, which are available through the
University of Illinois.13
B dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Commentary
The first evaluation of the approach was quantitative: the
lessons were compared to laboratory instruction and to
prelaboratory preparation; the structure of how chemistry was
taught was not altered.14 In this study, 49 students completed a
laboratory activity on equilibrium and wrote a report on their
work, 21 students completed only multimedia lessons on
comparable content and a computer quiz at a time of their
convenience, and 26 completed the multimedia lessons as a
preparation for the laboratory activity and report. Scores on a
seven-point quiz were used as the criterion for achievement.
Although no pretest was used, the three groups displayed
comparable performance on other course measures and so
were viewed as matched for ability. Analysis of variance showed
that the average score of students who had completed only
the multimedia lessons (83.0%) was significantly higher (p <
0.00005) than the average score of students who had completed
only the laboratory and report (59.5%), but were about the same
as the scores of students who had worked the multimedia lessons
as a prelaboratory preparation (79.8%).
Scores on the lab reports of students in two sections taught by
the same teaching assistant were compared to find out whether
the simulation used as prelaboratory instruction had helped
students better understand and interpret the laboratory activity.
The average lab report score of students who had prepared for the
laboratory activity by completing the multimedia lessons (77.6%)
was significantly higher (p = 0.0068) than the average score of
students who had prepared by reading (66.1%). A difficulty with
studies like these is that the students who had completed the
multimedia lessons may have spent more time on the content, and
so the cause of the difference is not necessarily clear.
In similar quantitative studies, hands-on laboratory work
was compared to videotaped experiments15 and to molecular
modeling on a computer.16 In later work, we compared paper-
based assessments of stereochemistry to computer assessments
in which rotating molecules could present different aspects
of a molecule to students.17 In each case, the technology-based
materials were found to be effective methods of learning or
assessment. However, these studies used only paper tests and
surveys to compare teaching methods. Such methods, designed
to evaluate achievement, do not normally yield much informa-
tion on other important aspects of the learning environment,
such as which characteristics of a given lesson enhance its
effectiveness.
■
QUALITATIVE STUDIES
As technology became more central to classrooms, the entire
instructional environment began to be re-examined. Pedagogy
designed for classroom instruction using books and paper
needed to be redesigned for instruction using technology,
particularly when interactive technologies were used.18 It became
apparent that not only is it important to discover the effect of
each type of instruction on learners, but the optimal character-
istics of each type of instruction need to be identified. In addition,
we need to know not only how various kinds of technology can
be integrated into instruction in a meaningful way, but also how
instruction itself can now be changed. The important research
questions today are not whether technology-based materials are
better than laboratory, books, homework, lecture, or instructor,
but what characteristics of each type of instruction enhance or
inhibit learning and how can instruction be restructured to take
advantage of these tools?
Quantitative studies can be used to investigate some
characteristics of instruction. For example, in one research
Journal of Chemical Education
study the role of visual representations in laboratory manuals was
found to be important for comprehending the procedures.19
In another, characteristics of adjunct questions that best help
students learn from multimedia lessons were compared and it
was discovered that text-based questions can be as effective as
pictorial questions for assessing understanding of the particulate
level of matter.20 However, often a simple test may not give us the
whole picture and different research methodologies might be
required.21 To find what makes a particular kind of instruction
effective, a variety of qualitative methods, such as interviews,
think-aloud protocols, ethnographic methods, and focus groups,
may be used. In each case, the methodology must be matched to
the research questions.
An example of an observational study was one conducted in
1988.22 This study was designed to identify the impact of
multimedia lessons as a preparation for laboratory work. In
laboratory activities involving new kinds of equipment, often
much time is lost during the laboratory period as students
struggle to learn how to operate the equipment and teaching
assistants (TAs) must spend a great deal of their time helping
students learn to operate new equipment rather than focusing
on the learning goals of the lesson. The research questions were
designed to discover in what ways the multimedia simulations
helped (or hindered) students in their subsequent hands-on
work.
In this study, intact laboratory sections of students were
assigned to prepare for the use of a spectrometer in the laboratory
either by reading the manual and completing a written pre-
laboratory assignment (manual group; 22 students) or by
completing a multimedia simulation of the same spectrometer
and the same prelaboratory assignment (simulation group;
26 students). In lab, the students, working in pairs, had to set up
and calibrate a spectrometer, then analyze a sample that they had
previously prepared.
During the laboratory sessions, an observer noted for each
pair of students the number of errors made while using the
spectrometer, the time required to complete the procedure,
whether help was required from the TA, and whether the
laboratory manual was consulted. The observers noted that the
pairs of students in the manual group made an average of
4.5 errors and required an average of 7.6 min to complete the
assignment. The TA’s help was sought by 54% of the pairs and
90% referred frequently to the manual. On the other hand, pairs
of students in the simulation group made an average of only
1.4 errors and required an average of only 4.7 min to complete
the assignment. Only 23% sought help from the TA and 23%
referred frequently to the manual. The observers noted that
students in the simulation group would walk up to the spectro-
meter and begin to operate it as though they had used it before
and asked for help only if they ran into a problem, while students
in the manual group tended to consult the TA before beginning
each step. Working with the simulation had prepared the students
to use the instrumentation efficiently. Findings like these would
have been difficult to gather using paper tests, which focus more
on recall and comprehension.
Observational methods are also appropriate for investigating
the effects of new methods of instruction on learning environ-
ments, not only what content students are learning, but what else
is going on and what is being replaced. One example of such a
study was a set of observations made of students and teachers
in classrooms that had adopted a computer-based inquiry
curriculum.18,23 The goal of the study was to investigate how
interactions between students and teacher and between students
C dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Commentary
changed when the curriculum was introduced. It was also
important to know how students and teachers spent their time.
In this study, teachers at two high schools taught one
chemistry class in their usual manner and one class using the
computer-based inquiry curriculum, ChemDiscovery.24 A check-
list was created and observers visited the four classrooms on 12
different days. During each visit, observations were made every
5 min. The data were then tabulated and analyzed. Profound
differences were discovered between the classrooms taught in the
traditional manner and those in which the computer-based
inquiry curriculum had been used. In the traditional classrooms,
teachers spent 58% of their time lecturing and only 13% of their
time facilitating students working independently or in groups.
However, in classrooms using the computer-based curriculum,
teachers spent approximately the same amount of time
facilitating student work (38%) as they did lecturing (40%).
The ChemDiscovery materials pose difficult problems for the
students to solve; for example, students are challenged to select
elements that will react with each other to form ionic compounds.
After students had spent some time struggling with each
challenge, the teacher would stop them, give a short lecture,
and lead a class discussion about how to solve the problem.
Observers noted that attentiveness during these lectures and
discussions was much greater than attentiveness during a
traditional lecture, in which the content was presented before
students were asked to solve related problems.
■ THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION
The great strides in the development of scientific visualization
and electronic communication made toward the end of the 20th
century brought exciting new potentials to both chemistry
research and the chemistry classroom. Visualization technologies
grew rapidly in two areas: (i) representing a molecular-level image
of a real sample (for example, scanning tunneling microscopy)
and (ii) representing a model of reality (for example, a molecular
modeling program). The introduction of these technologies
raised issues such as how best to represent interactions and how
complex an image could be and still be understood.
The term molecular visualization can have different meanings,
beginning with a simple sketch of a molecular structure.
However, in general, it refers to the models we have of molecules
and their interactions.25 These visualizations can be physical
models, computer-generated models, or mental models. A simple
visualization of a group of molecules might be a two-dimensional
image. A more complex visualization might include three
dimensions, motion, and some indication of the relative forces
experienced by different parts of the molecules. Visualizations
can be more than visual, as they can include audio
representations of forces and collisions.26 They can even include
haptic interactions, which allow a person to feel differences in
energy.27
Molecular structures and dynamic processes can be compli-
cated and different representations of the same structures are
used by chemists for different purposes. The issues are critical for
beginning students, who may not see the same thing in an image
that a chemist would see. For example, the image of PCl5 in
Figure 1 contains a lot of information that is useful to a chemist,
but is difficult for many beginning students to interpret. Two
types of representation are used in this image: a ball-and-stick
model, and an isosurface. In addition, two sets of color codes
are used: one designates the different elements, and one indicates
the net electric potential at each point on the isosurface. It is
important for instructors to know what students see when they
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 1. This electrostatic potential surface of PCl5 conveys important
information to a chemist, yet novices might need help interpreting it.
(Courtesy of Leroy Laverman, University of California at Santa Barbara;
used with permission.)
look at structures like these so that instructors can help the
students to understand them.
In 2001, cognitive psychologists were studying how
learners interact with various types of visualizations, but the
developers of scientific visualizations were generally scientists
and programmers who were not aware of these research
findings. Consequently, often visualizations were being devel-
oped without consideration of cognitive issues, and design
principles and guidelines for classroom usage of visualizations
were rarely available. These various disciplines needed to be
brought together.
With support from the National Science Foundation, Ken
Jordan, from the Center for Molecular and Materials Simulation
at the University of Pittsburgh, Neil Stillings, a cognitive psycho-
logist at Hampshire College, and I organized the multi-
disciplinary workshop, Molecular Visualization in Science
Education.28,29 The goal was to find ways to bring scientists,
educators, and developers together with cognitive psychologists,
computer scientists, and artists to develop collaborations to study
visualization techniques in the teaching of science, particularly
regarding the particulate state of matter.
The workshop report25 summarized the recommendations of
workshop participants and was distributed to participants at the
2001 Gordon Research Conference on Science and Visualization
in advance of the meeting to help focus discussion. At the
conference small “visionary grants” (then called mini-grants)
were awarded to promote collaboration.28 The few thousand
dollars provided by this small grant program proved to be a good
model for encouraging collaboration and the program has
continued. Applicants for a visionary grant have to show how
they would address important visualization issues, include
collaborative activities, and have multidisciplinary teams.
An important outcome of the visionary grant program has
been enhanced connections among the disciplines of cognitive
science, art, computer science, physics, biology, geology,
mathematics, chemistry, and chemical education. In the first year
alone, more than 25 institutions in seven nations participated.
D dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Commentary
Participants in visionary grants have cited a number of benefits
from the collaboration. They felt that they had gained:28
• The ability to set appropriate learning objectives
• A greater awareness of student learning needs
• Appreciation of the dif f iculties of evaluating major instruc-
tional change
• The ability to design assessment tools
• The conf idence to tackle complex projects that require
expertise in other disciplines
The outcomes after the first year were substantial, including an
annotated bibliography on crosscultural issues, two sets of videos
for use in teaching or research, a set of chemistry animations,
two instructional software programs, six instructional modules
using scientific visualization, three Web sites, five evaluation
instruments, and nine research studies on learning from
visualizations.30
One such collaboration, formed in 2003, was concerned about
the problem that animations of molecular dynamics cannot
represent true reality.31 To find out what students are learning
(or “mislearning”) from animations, we put together a molecular
visualization team that included not only chemical educators
such as Jerry Suits (University of Northern Colorado), Roy
Tasker (University of Western Sydney), and myself, but also
Barbara Tversky, a cognitive psychologist at Stanford and
Columbia Universities, Jerry Honts, a molecular biologist at
Drake University, and David Falvo, an expert in educational
technology at Walden University.
Collaborating with a cognitive psychologist led to new kinds
of research questions. For example, we started examining the
interaction between individual differences and learning.32−34
We looked at the elements of visual language and how instructors
use electronic classroom tools.35 Instead of looking at whether
prelaboratory simulations helped or did not help students, we
looked at what the optimal characteristics of these simulations
should be,36 and instead of simply studying whether simula-
tions can enhance learning, we looked at the role of interactivity
in the use of a simulation37 and the effect of different levels of
guidance.38
Some of the early findings of this project showed that anima-
tions can help students better understand dynamic molecular
processes. However, we found that for most students animations
are not enough for meaningful understanding.39 They take what
they see literally and have difficulty distinguishing artifacts
from chemistry concepts. They need explanations of what they
are seeing. Even when the animation showed processes in a
manner as close to reality as possible, prior misconceptions may
not be affected. Students simply did not seem to notice features
that were in conflict with their preconceptions and new
misconceptions even developed.39,40
We found it necessary to re-examine our methods. For
example, in order to describe student mental models of chemical
concepts, should we ask students to communicate their concep-
tions in words or should we examine their pictorial
representations? We found that students revealed different
aspects of their understanding in the two forms of expression.
When asked to draw their explanations, students were more
likely to focus on the structural aspects of the concept, while
when writing their explanations in words, they were more
likely to focus on the dynamic processes occurring.41 We also
discovered using a think-aloud protocol that students have
distinct preferences for particular types of representations.42
Overall, we found that we needed to learn to view research in
Journal of Chemical Education
chemical education with new eyes, from the viewpoints of
psychologists and graphic designers.
■
WHAT WE STILL NEED TO LEARN
We still need to know how best to design and use instructional
technology.43 Today instructional technology is traditional
instruction. It is time to look at its characteristics and how best
to use it. The bottom line was best stated by Stan Smith:44 “It’s
not the technology, it’s the pedagogy.”
It is interesting to review the recommendations for research
on visualization that attendees at the Workshop on Molecular
Visualization proposed.25 They are still relevant today, as most of
this work remains to be done. The workshop attendees suggested
two approaches to this research: macroscopic (large scale, long-
term studies of effectiveness) and microscopic (controlled
studies that investigate particular aspects of visualizations and
their uses). They made the following recommendations about
research on the educational applications of scientific visual-
izations:
Characteristics of visualizations:
• Analyze new visualizations produced by scientists:
• What drives their development? How are previous
conventions used or changed? Where do new
conventions come f rom?
• What are the ef fects of visualizations on intuitions,
research questions, conceptions, and misconceptions?
• When are tactile interactions important?
• What are the ef fects of mixing dif ferent types of
visualizations?
• How do individual dif ferences such as gender, learning
style, culture, and so on, af fect the ability to learn from
visualizations?
• Is there a right−lef t brain shif t in activation of
visualization f rom experts to novices, comparable to
that seen in music training?
• What principles of graphic design are important for the
design of ef fective molecular visualizations?
Curriculum issues:
• What are the barriers to educators introducing
molecular visualization into the classroom?
• What new student misconceptions might be introduced
by visualization tools?
• How can networking, discussion groups, and other
communication opportunities be used to support
learning with visualizations?
• How can visualization best be used in combination with
practical work? In groups of students?
• How and when do instructors use dif ferent visual-
ization systems and representations?
• What pedagogical content knowledge is appropriate?
• Does working with visualizations require new kinds of
problem-solving skills?
• How does knowing what a molecule looks like
contribute to learning?
• How will the curriculum be restructured? What must be
given up?
• How much guidance do we give students?
• How much visualization of a given type has to be
present in a course for it to be ef fective?
• How can learning f rom visualizations best be assessed?
Interactions:
E dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Commentary
• How are student mental models of matter af fected by
molecular visualizations?
• How do student-generated representations change when
students interact with visualizations?
• How do student-generated visualizations change as
students learn scientif ic concepts?
• Can we generate “thick” descriptions of students
interacting with molecular visualizations to try to
characterize the learning experience?
• What types of interactions are best for which types of
situations or topics?
• How do students integrate dif ferent types of
representations?
• Are dif ferent learning methods more appropriate for
dif ferent situations?
Today collaborations, not only between disciplines, but within
them, are even more important for chemical education research,
especially because the field draws on other disciplines.45 The field
of scientific visualization in education would benefit from the
formation of a dedicated community. Organizational structures
such as the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Education
Research Committee within the Division of Chemical Education
have done a lot toward establishing chemical education research
as a legitimate field of inquiry within chemistry. The same could
be done for molecular visualization in the teaching and learning
of chemistry. Working together builds identity and strength.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: lljones2000@gmail.com.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Loretta L. Jones, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry in the
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of
Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, received the 2012 Award for
Advancement of Research for the Teaching and Learning of
Chemistry, sponsored by Pearson Education on March 27, 2012,
in San Diego, California. This paper is adapted from her award
address.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are all here because we are standing on the shoulders of
giants. I would like first to thank the giants who shepherded me
through my studies at Loyola University in Chicago, the
University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois at Chicago,
particularly my graduate mentors C. F. Liu, Robert Schwartz,
Cynthia Jameson, and Leonard Kotin. I owe an enormous deal to
my mentors Stanley Smith and Gilbert Haight, Jr., at the
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. I have also
benefited greatly by having supportive fellow students as well
as colleagues who have inspired me over the years: John Gelder,
J. Dudley Herron, Joe Lagowski, John Moore, Dorothy Gabel,
Anna Wilson, Mary Virginia Orna, Peter Atkins, and Peter
Mahaffy. I would also like to acknowledge my collaborators at the
University of Northern Colorado as well as all my amazing
students and my research collaborators Barbara Tversky, Roy
Tasker, Jerry Honts, and David Falvo. These studies were made
possible by grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation
(DUE-9354033, REC-0095023, and REC-0440103) and the
award for which this talk was given was graciously supported by
Pearson Education.
Journal of Chemical Education

■
Commentary

REFERENCES (31) Tversky, B.; Morrison, J. B.; Betrancourt, M. Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 2002, 57, 247−262.
(1) De Boer, G. E. A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications (32) Schoenfeld-Tacher, R.; Jones, L. L.; Persichitte, K. A. J. Sci. Educ.
for Practice; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, 1991. Technol. 2001, 10, 305−310.
(2) Smith, F. J. The New York Dramatic Mirror, July 9, 1913, 24. (33) Beeton, R. M.; Jones, L. L.; Canales, G. Chicana/Latina Stud.
(3) Tanner, D. Sch. Rev. 1961, 69, 311−321. 2011, 11, 40−81.
(4) Papert, S. Popular Comput. 1984, 3, 38. (34) Falvo, D. A.; Urban, M. J.; Suits, J. P. CEPS J. 2011, 1, 45−61.
(5) Akaygun, S.; Jones, L. L. In Concepts of Matter in Science Education; (35) MacArthur, J. R.; Jones, L. L.; Suits, J. P. J. Comput. Math. Sci.
Tsaparlis, G.; Sevian, H., Eds.; Innovations in Science Education and Teach. 2011, 30, 251−270.
Technology, Vol. 22; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. (36) Supasorn, S.; Suits, J. P.; Jones, L. L.; Vibuljan, S. Chem. Educ. Res.
(6) Kadiyala, M.; Crynes, B. L. J. Eng. Educ. 2000, 89, 177−189. Pract. 2008, 9, 169−181.
(7) Höffler, T. N.; Leutner, D. Learn. Instruct. 2007, 17, 722−738. (37) Akaygun, S.; Jones, L. L. Animation or Simulation: Investigating
(8) Vogel, J. J.; Vogel, D. S.; Cannon-Bowers, J.; Bowers, C. A.; Muse, the Importance of Interactivity for Learning Solubility Equilibria. In
K.; Wright, M. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2006, 34, 229−243. Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses; Suits,
(9) Williamson, V. M. Teaching Chemistry with Visualizations: What’s J. P., Sanger, M. J., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC,
the Research Evidence? In Investigating Classroom Myths through 2013; Chapter 6. http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841228269 (accessed
Research on Teaching and Learning, Bunce, D., Ed.; American Chemical Oct 2013).
Society: Washington, DC, 2011. (38) Akaygun, S.; Jones, L. L. How Does Level of Guidance Affect
(10) Smith, S. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1080−1085. Understanding When Students Use a Dynamic Simulation of Liquid−
(11) Smith, S. G.; Jones, L. L.; Chabay, R.; Kean, E.; Gammon, S.; Vapor Equilibrium? In Active Learning and Understanding in the
Kornet, J. Comprehensive Chemistry Curriculum; Falcon Software: Chemistry Classroom; Devetak, I.; Glazar, S. A.; Plut-Pregelj, L., Eds.;
Wellesley, MA, 2000. Springer: The Netherlands, 2013; pp 281−300.
(12) Smith, S. G.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1989, 66, 8−11. (39) Kelly, R. M.; Jones, L. L. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2007, 16, 413−429.
(13) Rogers, E.; Stovall, I.; Jones, L.; Chabay, R.; Kean, E.; Smith, S. (40) Kelly, R. M.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 303−309.
Fundamentals of Chemistry. http://www.chem.uiuc.edu/ (41) Akaygun, S.; Jones, L. L. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2013; DOI: 10.1080/
webFunChem/GenChemTutorials.htm (accessed Oct 2013). 09500693.2013.828361.
(14) Smith, S. G.; Jones, L. L.; Waugh, M. L. J. Comput.-Based Instr. (42) Madden, S. P.; Jones, L. L.; Rahm, J. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2011,
1986, 13, 117−124. 12, 283−293.
(15) Haight, G. P.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1987, 64, 271−273. (43) Muller, D. A.; Eklund, J.; Sharma, M. D. Aust. Educ. Res. 2006, 33,
(16) Jones, L. L. The Role of Molecular Structure and Modeling in 25−68.
General Chemistry, New Initiatives in Chem. Educ., ChemConf Online (44) Smith, S. G. Personal communication.
Conference, Summer, 1996. (45) Bunce, D.; Gabel, D.; Herron, J. D.; Jones, L. L. J. Chem. Educ.
(17) Kuo, M.-T.; Jones, L. L.; Pulos, S. M.; Hyslop, R. M. Chem. 1994, 71, 850−852.
Educator 2004, 9, 1−7.
(18) Agapova, O. I.; Jones, L. L.; Ushakov, A. S.; Ratcliffe, A. E.;
Varanka Martin, M. A. Chem. Educ. Int. 2002, 3, AN-8. Available at:
http://www.iupac.org/publications/cei/vol3/0301x0an8.html (ac-
cessed Oct 2013).
(19) Deschri, P.; Jones, L. L.; Heikkinen, H. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34,
891−904.
(20) Lekhavat, P.; Jones, L. Educ. Quim. 2009, 20, 351−359.
(21) Schacter, J.; Fagnano, C. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 1999, 20, 329−343.
(22) Jones, L. L. Trends Anal. Chem. 1988, 7, 273−276.
(23) Schoenfeld-Tacher, R.; Madden, S. P.; Pentecost, T.; Mecklin, C.
J.; Jones, L. L. A Systematic Comparison of Technology-Based and
Traditional High School Chemistry Classrooms, National Association
for Research in Science Teaching Meeting, Boston, MA, March 30,
1999.
(24) Agapova, O.; Jones, L. L.; UshakovA. ChemDiscovery; Kendall-
Hunt: Dubuque, IA, 2002.
(25) Jones, L. L.; Jordan, K. D.; Stillings, N. A. Molecular Visualization
in Science Education, 2001. http://helios.hampshire.edu/∼nasCCS/
papers_and_reports/chemviz_workshop_report_final.pdf (accessed
Oct 2013).
(26) Rimland, J.; Ballora, M.; Shumaker, W. Beyond Visualization of
Big Data: A Multi-Stage Data Exploration Approach Using Visual-
ization, Sonification, and Storification. In Next-Generation Analyst,
Broome, B. D., Hall, D. L., Llinas, J. Proc. SPIE 2013, 8758;
DOI:10.1117/12.2016019.
(27) Sato, M.; Liu, X.; Murayama, K. A.; Isshiki, M. A Haptic Virtual
Environment for Molecular Chemistry Education. Transactions on
Edutainment I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin, 2008;
Vol. 5080, pp 28−39.
(28) Jones, L. L.; Jordan, K. D.; Stillings, N. A. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
2005, 6, 136−149.
(29) José, T.; Williamson, V. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 937−943.
(30) Jones, L. L. Molecular Visualization and Science Education:
Promoting Collaboration across Disciplines, NSF Grant 0095023,
Unpublished report to the National Science Foundation, 2004.

F dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed4001206 | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX