Students' Use of Web-Based Tutorial Materials and Their Understanding of Chemistry Concepts

Research: Science and Education

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 7 July 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education 975

Chemical Education Researchedited by

Diane M. BunceThe Catholic University of America

Washington, D.C. 20064

Students’ Use of Web-Based Tutorial Materialsand Their Understanding of Chemistry ConceptsWilliam J. Donovan* and Mary B. NakhlehDepartment of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1393; *[email protected]

Overview

Many chemical educators have turned to the World WideWeb to supplement other resources available in their courses.While the Web is recognized as valuable for presenting infor-mation, one of the downsides of storing what Paulisse and Polikcalled a “static document” (1) is that the same information couldbe presented just as easily and with little pedagogical differencein traditional hard-copy format.

John Nash and William Robinson of Purdue Universityhave developed Web-based tutorial materials for five generalchemistry topics. The materials include static, animated, anduser-manipulable representations of molecules and chemicalprocesses. These representations would appear to offer advan-tages over paper representations of the same concepts becauseof their ability to show motion and to allow the student tomanipulate the representation. Our research was designed to

discover how students perceive their understanding ofchemistry concepts to be affected by the use of these Web-based materials, and to discover in some measurable way howunderstanding of chemical concepts differs between studentswho use the Web-based materials and those who do not. Herewe present the findings of the initial phase of this study.

The Web site, entitled “Visualization and Problem Solvingfor General Chemistry” (2), includes tutorial materialsfeaturing the types of representations mentioned above andcovering the topics of Liquids, VSEPR, CoordinationCompounds, Vibrational Modes, and the Molecule Library.The Molecule Library includes an index of molecules and ionsand offers the user a static Lewis dot structure, a manipulableball-and-stick model, and the formula, the name, and an audiofile of the name of the molecule being spoken. The VibrationalModes page, first available in January 2000, is the most recentaddition. A section of the Web site entitled “How Do I Solve

It?” includes step-by-step descriptions of how to solvecommon types of problems in general chemistry.Other sections offer tutorials on common operationsin Microsoft Excel and Hyperchem. Our study focuseson the sections of the site that specifically deal withchemistry content and offer the various types of rep-resentations, namely the Liquids, VSEPR, Coordi-nation Compounds, and Molecule Library pages.

Study Design

Students in CHM 115, 116, 124, and 126 inSpring 1999 and CHM 115 in Fall 1999 at Purduewere surveyed about their use of the Web-based ma-terials. The survey included demographic, scaled-response, and free-response questions. CHM 115–116 is the general chemistry sequence for aspiringengineers. CHM 124 is the second semester of amore rigorous general chemistry sequence for engi-neers. CHM 126 is the second-semester generalchemistry course for chemistry majors. Students inCHM 115 were advised about the VSEPR page bytheir instructor during the coverage of the topic. Stu-dents in CHM 124 were advised of the availabilityof all the tutorial pages available. Students in CHM116 were advised of the Coordination CompoundsPage by their instructor and the researcher. Studentsin CHM 126 were given a homework assignment, pre-pared by the instructor, about coordination com-pounds. This assignment involved using the Coor-dination Compounds Page.

Volunteer students in CHM 126 were individu-ally interviewed about their use of the Web site and

snoitseuQesnopseR-delacSotsesnopseRtsegnortS.1elbaT

tnemetatS naeMesnopseR

(9991gnirpS,621MHC N )23=

.retteblairetamehtdnatsrednuemdeplehegaPpleH611-511MHCehT 00.2

.yrtsimehcdnatsrednuotyawwenadedivorpetisbeWehT 71.2

.ecapnwoymtakrowotemdewollatiesuacebetisbeWehtgnisudekilI 71.2

.emrofgnisufnocsawetisbeWehtgnitagivaN 00.4

.ysaesawetisbeWehtgnisU 40.2

.stpecnocyrtsimehcdnatsrednuotemplehTONdidetisbeWehT 01.4

.yrtsimehcnraelotetisbeWehtesuTONrehtardluowI 68.3

.emotlufesusawegaPsdnuopmoCnoitanidrooCehtgnisU 01.2

.emotlufesusawslairetamlairotutlecxEtfosorciMehtgnisU 00.2

.emotlufesusawegaPmehcrepyHnisnoitarepOnommoCehtgnisU 18.1

(9991gnirpS,421MHC N )04=



rehtardluowI ton .yrtsimehcnraelotetisbeWehtesu 54.3

(9991gnirpS,611MHC N )931=


(9991gnirpS,511MHC N )812=


didetisbeWehT ton .stpecnocyrtsimehcdnatsrednuotempleh 24.3

rehtardluowI ton .yrtsimehcnraelotetisbeWehtesu 75.3

(9991llaF,511MHC N )242=

.ecapnwoymtakrowotemdewollatiesuacebetisbeWehtgnisudekilI 14.2

.emotlufesusawegaPRPESVehtgnisU 95.2resuehtybdetalupinamebdluoctahtsnoitatneserperralucelomehtdesuI

.esuomehthtiw55.2

NOTE: Questions were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (stronglydisagree).

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2001/Jul/

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/


976 Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 78 No. 7 July 2001 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

otsesnopseRnisecnereffiDtnacifingiSyllacitsitatS.2elbaTredneGyb,snoitseuQesnopseR-delacS

tnemetatSesnopseRnaeM

pelameF elaM

)41=M,81=F(9991gnirpS,621MHC.emrofgnisufnocsawetisbeWehtgnitagivaN 42.4 33.3 420.

didetisbeWehT ton yrtsimehcdnatsrednuotempleh.stpecnoc

52.4 06.3 130.

.emotlufesusawegapRPESVehtgnisU 02.2 00.3 500.

.emotlufesusawegapsdiuqiLehtgnisU 22.2 00.3 400.

)62=M,11=F(9991gnirpS,421MHC

sihtesudluowI,esruocyrtsimehcrehtonaekatoterewIfI.lairetamemosweiverotegap

05.1 18.2 400.

.yrtsimehcdnatsrednuotyawwenadedivorpetisbeWehT 05.1 80.3 200.

rehtardluowI ton .yrtsimehcnraelotetisbeWehtesu 05.4 81.3 700.

)18=M,45=F(9991gnirpS,611MHC

ehtdnatsrednuemdeplehegaPpleH611–511MHCehT.retteblairetam a

74.2 49.2 800.

takrowotemdewollatiesuacebetisbeWehtgnisudekilI.ecapnwoym

26.2 29.2 930.

.emrofgnisufnocsawetisbeWehtgnitagivaN 65.3 41.3 020.

didetisbeWehT ton yrtsimehcdnatsrednuotempleh.stpecnoc

83.3 29.2 240.

.slairetametisbeWehtgnisudeyojneI 17.2 79.2 240.

.emotlufplehsawegaPRPESVehtgnisU 34.2 19.2 110.

)751=M,58=F(9991llaF,511MHC

sihtesudluowI,esruocyrtsimehcrehtonaekatoterewIfI.lairetamemosweiverotegap

02.2 65.2 200.

ebdluowtahtstpecnocnraelotemdewollaetisbeWehT.esiwrehtodnatsrednuottluciffid

25.2 77.2 410.

.emotlufesusawegaPRPESVehtgnisU 04.2 96.2 600.

IesuacebegaPgnivloSmelborPdnanoitazilausiVehtdesuI.lairetamehthtiwplehdedeen

06.2 68.2 520.

NOTE: Questions were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (stronglydisagree).

aBefore Fall 1999, the Web page was known as the Chemistry 115–116 HelpPage, and the questions referred to this name.

their understanding of certain coordination chemistry con-cepts. This class was selected for interviews because the Website was part of an assignment and the probability of findingstudents who had used the site was likely to be greater thanin other courses. During the interview, each student was alsoasked to draw a concept map involving several specified coor-dination chemistry terms. The researcher closed the inter-view by allowing the student to ask questions about the re-search or give any additional thoughts.

Data Analysis and Results

SurveysScaled-Response Statements

Responses to the scaled-response survey questions werefrequency-counted and the mean student response was cal-culated. Responses were scaled from 1 (strongly agree) to 5(strongly disagree). A sixth option, “did not use”, was alsooffered so that we could distinguish students who genuinely feltneutral about a statement from students who had no opinionbecause they did not use the Web site. Responses indicatingthis sixth option did not enter into the calculation of the meansfor the scaled-response questions. The strongest responses tothe scaled-response survey questions are shown in Table 1.

Statistically, very significant differences between genderswere observed for responses to several of the scaled-responsequestions (Table 2). In each case where a statistically significantdifference existed between the female and male responses, themean female response was more positive toward Web site use(i.e., stronger agreement with positive statements such as “I likedusing the Web page because it allowed me to work at my ownpace” and stronger disagreement with negative statements suchas “I would rather not use the Web to learn chemistry”). This isa very interesting and potentially important finding. A previousstudy of use of computers in biology laboratories (3, 4), founda similar result: in each case where a gender difference existed,women responded more favorably about computer use thanmen. In a study of secondary students’ use of instrumentation(Malina, E. G.; Nakhleh, M. B.; Burnett, D. W. SchoolSci. Math., manuscript submitted), all but one of the genderdifferences showed that girls were more positive about use ofinstrumentation. We did not check for such gender differ-ences in our previous study of student Web site use (5). Thiscongruence of opinion about instrumentation, computers, andthe Web is certainly consistent and interesting. It presentsinteresting possibilities for how such materials might be usedto improve science courses for women. The availability ofcomputers and Web-based tutorial materials might be a posi-






tive aspect of a science course for women, and thisis an area in which further research would be useful.

Free-Response QuestionsThe free-response survey questions were coded by

an open coding scheme in which codes were generatedby examination and analysis of the data. New cod-ing categories were opened as necessary. This con-trasts with a coding scheme in which all responsesare coded against predetermined categories. In to-tal, 29 codes, some with subcategories, were opened.Data from all courses surveyed were transcribed,coded, and tabulated. Table 3 presents the highestfrequencies of coding categories for responses tothe free-response questions. For example, 188 re-sponses to the question “Why did you choose to usethe Visualization and Problem Solving Web Page?”were assigned to coding categories (multiple codesfor one response were allowed if appropriate). Ofthese 188 statements, 41 were coded in the Materi-als/Information category.

Patterns arose in student responses to the free-response survey questions. Students who used the Webpage in general believed that they needed help withthe chemistry material or visited the site to gain ac-cess to information. One student’s response to “Whydid you choose to use the Web page?” provides anexcellent example of a statement that fits the“Needed help” coding category: “I was havingtrouble with Chem. 115 so I decided to try the Webpage out.” An example quote from the free-responsesurvey data is given with each coding category inTable 3.

Overall, the Web site users stated that they usedthe Web page to obtain help and chemistry informa-tion. Some students believed that using the materialson the Web site helped in visualization of chemicalphenomena or provided examples, but others felt thatthe Web page made no difference in their understand-ing. Web site users believed in general that the part ofthe Web site pertaining directly to the chemistry cov-ered in class was most useful (VSEPR for CHM 115;Coordination Compounds for CHM 116 and 126).Most students who did not use the Web site statedthat they did not use it because they had forgottenabout it or did not know about it at all. Some statedthat they did not use the Web site because they didnot need to use it. Generally, however, nonusers be-lieved that using the Web site might have helped theirunderstanding of chemistry concepts, through visualizationtools or reinforcement of lectures, or as a resource to studyfrom. Even nonusers had positive feelings about using the Webto learn chemistry.

InterviewsWith the survey we were able to gain a broad under-

standing of how students used the Web-based materials andhow they felt about using them. To gain deeper insight intostudents’ Web site use and understanding of chemical con-cepts, we solicited volunteers from CHM 126 in Spring 1999for individual interviews. This course was chosen because the

professor had assigned homework (not collected or graded) basedon the Web site materials, which increased the likelihood offinding students who had used the site. The population of CHM126 is fairly homogeneous owing to the students’ commonmajor and similar backgrounds: all students in the course hadpassed a math placement test and taken high school chemistry.The majority of them were second-semester freshmen.

Both Web site users and nonusers were solicited and sixstudents were interviewed. This represents 12% of the class inSpring 1999. The volunteers were guaranteed anonymity andwere assigned pseudonyms for the transcription and data analy-sis. We did not attempt to control for differences in ability be-

aBefore Fall 1999, the Web page was known as the Chemistry 115–116 HelpPage, and the questions referred to this name.

rofseirogetaCgnidoCevitatneserpeRfoycneuqerF.3elbaTsesruoCllA,snoitseuQyevruSesnopseR-eerF

yrogetaCgnidoC ycneuqerF esnopseRevitartsullI?egaPbeWgnivloSmelborPdnanoitazilausiVehtesuotesoohcuoydidyhW a

( N )stnemetatsdedoc881=noitamrofnI/slairetaM 14 . )%22( t’ndidInehwscipotnoofnieromteG

.sATehtotogotemitevahdesufnocsaw/plehdedeenI 63 . )%91( Ios511.mehChtiwelbuortgnivahsawI

.tuoegapbeWehtyrtotdedicedgnidnatsrednurettebtegoT 9. )%5( ymevorpmidluowyehtthguohtIesuaceB

.yrtsimehcfognidnatsrednugnidnatsrednuruoytceffaegaPgnivloSmelborPdnanoitazilausiVehtgnisudidwoH

(.selpmaxecificepsevigesaelP?lairetamehtfo N )761=/noitazilausiv/snoitatneserpeR

snoitamina82 . )%71( otemdeplehrettebetisbeWehtgnisU

rehtarD3nidepahsesehtezilausiv.daehymnimehterutcipotgniyrtnaht

)cificepsnon(deplehtI 93 . )%32( .deplehtI

,uoyotlufplehtsomerewegaPgnivloSmelborPdnanoitazilausiVehtfostraphcihW(.rewsnaruoynialpxeesaelP?uoyotlufesutsaelehterewhcihwdna N )131=

RPESV 42 . )%81( dnatsrednuemdeplehtiesuaceb,RPESV.lairetameht

sdnuopmoCnoitanidrooC 51 . )%11( sawegapsdnuopmocnoitanidroocehTerutcelehtesuaceblufplehtsomeht

.raelct’nerewcipottahtnoneviglufpleherewstrapllA 01 . )%8( .lufesuytterpsawgnihtyrevE

(?egaPgnivloSmelborPdnanoitazilausiVehtesutonuoydidyhW N )144=

togrof/tituobawonkt’ndiDtituoba

872 . )%36( egapsihttahterawatonsawItsriftAtitahttogrofInehtdna,elbaliavasaw

.elbaliavasawtiesuotdeentondiD 19 . )%12( hguonellewlairetamehtwenkIekiltlefI

.etisbeWehtesuottonsmelborpsseccA 81 . )%4( eht+moorymniretupmocaevaht’nodI

.sbalehtnignoloserasenilodotsgnihtrehto/emitoN 51 . )%3( weivotemithcumdahItahtdnift’ndidI

.etisehtkoobreferp/koobesunaC 51 . )%3( .xedniotpilf/koobnepootreisaE

ruoydetceffaevahdluowslairetamdesab-beWgnisutahtknihtuoyodwoH(?yrtsimehcfognidnatsrednu N )614=

deplehevahdluow/thgiM 932 . )%75( dnatsrednuemdeplehevahdluowtI.rettebyrtsimehc

ondahevahdluow/thgiMtceffe

49 . )%32( hcumdahevahdluowtiknihtt’nodI.tceffe

noitazilausiv/snoitatneserpeR 02 . )%5( .sledomD-3ezilausivotreisaE

?611–511MHCniyrtsimehcnraelotbeWehtgnisutuobaleefuoyodwoH( N ylno9991llaF511MHC;)502=

aedidooG 09 . )%44( ebdluowdnaaedidoogasititahtleefI.stnedutsroflaicifeneb

erutufehtnitiesulliW 91 . )%9( .611mehcnitiesuotyrtlliwI

aedidoogaton/aedidaB 41 . )%7( .yawdoogasibeWehtleeftonodI

syawtnereffid/erusopxeeroMnraelot

41 . )%7( evitanretlanasevigdnalufplehsitileefIehtgnidaertsujnahtrehtargninraelot

.lairetam






tpecnoCfossentcerroC.5elbaTskniLpaM

kniLybnwarDskniLfo.oN

beW etiSsresU a

beW etiSsresunoN a

tcerrocnI 2 )%5( 0 )%0(

etelpmocnI 8 )%12( 0 )%0(

tcerroC 82 )%47( 62 )%001(aData represent links drawn by 3 users

and 3 nonusers.

noitanidrooCotsesnopseR.4elbaTsnoitseuQweivretnIyrtsimehC

esnopseRybsesnopseRfo.oN

etiSbeWsresU a

etiSbeWsresunoN a

tcerrocnI 4 3etelpmocnI 6 3

tcerroC 12 52aData represent responses by 3 users

and 3 nonusers.

tween Web site users and nonusers because Web site use wasentirely voluntary. We were not attempting to compare equiva-lent groups of students; we were interested in how students whohad used or not used the materials on the Web site understoodchemistry and why students decided to use or not use the site.This small group provided a great deal of data that suggest in-teresting trends; these will be investigated in phase 2 of our study,which will involve more students.

In the interview, the interviewer discussed with the stu-dents the nature of their use of the Web site or the reasonsfor their not using the site. Students were asked to discuss theirthoughts about using the Web in their specific course as wellas in chemistry courses in general. They were then asked somedirected questions about coordination chemistry and wereasked to draw a concept map of some coordination chemistryterms. This topic was chosen because the course instructorhad given homework about coordination chemistry that in-volved using the Web site.

Discussion of Coordination ChemistryThe questions about coordination chemistry dealt with

shapes of coordination complexes, isomerism, and ligands.Students’ responses were judged as correct, incorrect, or in-complete. Mark’s statements concerning ammonium ion as aligand are an example of what would be judged as correct.

INTERVIEWER: Could NH4+ act as a ligand in a coordina-

tion compound?

MARK: I don’t think so, no.

INTERVIEWER: OK, and why is that?

MARK: Because it doesn’t have any electrons to give.

Chad’s discussion of the relationship between the represen-tations of two square planar complexes (which cannot haveoptical isomerism) represents an incorrect statement.

INTERVIEWER: I was wondering if you think that is a pairof isomers.

CHAD: They’d be optical isomers, because this guy is themirror image of this one, obviously, but then this oneisn’t going to match up.

In reality, the two complexes presented to the students wereidentical. As Chad observed, one was indeed the mirror imageof the other. Chad’s response to this question was categorizedas incorrect, however, because the complexes represented werenot isomers; one representation could be rotated 180° so asto be identical to the other.

A statement was judged to be incomplete if it containedinformation that could be correct in some cases but not inothers, or if it had both correct and incorrect aspects. “Water is

a base” would be an example of an incomplete statement. Insome cases water does act as a base, but in others it can act as anacid. Victor’s statements concerning ammonia and oxalate ionas ligands demonstrates a statement categorized as incomplete.

INTERVIEWER: Why the difference between ammonia beingmonodentate and oxalate being bidentate?

VICTOR: Because with this one, you have the negativecharges. I think they’re on these oxygens?

INTERVIEWER: The single-bonded ones? I just want to besure I have it on the tape.

VICTOR: I think it’s the single bond. I’m not actually sure.Maybe it’s [the points of attachment from oxalate to metalion] on the double-bonded. It’s between two of theseoxygens, and since they both have extra negative charge,they could clamp on to a metal ion, transition ion. Butwith ammonia, there’s only going to be one pair of extraelectrons on the nitrogen, and that can only bond oncewith a ligand. And there’s no way geometrically for it toclamp on to it.

Victor made some correct statements in his discussion, suchas the idea that monodentate ligands (ammonia) attach tothe metal ion once and bidentate ligands (oxalate ion) at-tach in two locations, and the idea about the geometry of theligands; but he also had some incorrect notions, such as thatthe charge on the oxygen explains why the oxalate ion is abidentate ligand.

A second rater judged a random sample of half of thestudent responses, assigning a score of 1 to agreement betweenthe raters and 0 to disagreement. These scores were summedand the fraction of agreements was calculated as an inter-raterreliability. Overall, the raters agreed on 28 of 31 responses;the disagreements were between “incorrect” and “incomplete”categories. This represents an inter-rater reliability of 28/31or 0.90.

Students were asked 31 questions about coordinationchemistry. The scoring of their responses is shown in Table4. There were no statistically significant differences betweenWeb site users and nonusers. This portion of the interviewhas been revised for future use, to better discern whether dif-ferences exist between users’ and nonusers’ understanding ofcoordination chemistry.

Concept MapsStudents were asked to draw a concept map of some coor-

dination chemistry concepts. They were given a brief descrip-tion of concept mapping, shown two example maps of theconcept of density, and given a list of terms that included coor-dination complex, coordinate covalent bond, ligand, donor atom,






electron, isomers, Lewis base, Lewis acid, central atom, mono-dentate, and bidentate. They were told that they could addterms or not use a term as needed. They were instructed tomake the map as connected as they felt necessary, to writelinking words between concepts, and to show directionalitybetween concepts. An example of a concept map drawn byBeth, a Web site user, is shown in Figure 1. Note that Bethmade a compound link in her map by drawing an arrowthrough one concept to the next: “Coordination complex hasisomers with different donor atoms.” Beth’s concept map linkswere all judged to be correct or complete.

Judging of the concept maps was similar to judging theinterview discussion of coordination chemistry. Each conceptlink was judged as correct, incorrect, or incomplete. The inter-rater reliability was 0.94, which was deemed acceptable. Table5 shows the totals of the concept links judged.

Students who did not use the Web site made no conceptmap links that were judged incorrect or incomplete. Studentswho did use the site had about the same number of correct linksas the nonusers, but they made more links overall and some ofthese links were judged incorrect or incomplete. This suggeststhat the students who used the Web site created more knowl-edge, but some of that knowledge was not correct.

To account for the different numbers of links made bythe students, the percentages of correct, incomplete, and in-correct links were calculated for each student. The higher per-centage of correct links for Web site nonusers almost reachesstatistical significance at the 95% level (p = .07). The per-centage of incomplete links was significantly larger (p = .04)for users than for nonusers. The percentage of incorrect linksdid not differ significantly between groups. The larger numberof links attempted by Web site users may be related to themotivation factor between the groups (see below).

Results from the chemistry discussion and concept mapportions of the interview suggest that the students who didnot use the Web site had a better understanding of coordi-nation chemistry than the students who did use the site andare consistent with the statements made by some studentson the free-response survey questions. Many students whodid not use the Web site felt that they did not need to use itbecause they understood the material well enough already.This is also consistent with our past research on Web site use

(6 ), which found that students who used an organic chemistryWeb site did not understand the relevant chemistry conceptsas well as students who did not use the site. We speculatedthat the Web site might be more attractive to students whoneed more help with chemistry. The concept map and surveyresults of this study are consistent with that speculation.

We acknowledge that the sample of students interviewedwas limited. In phase 2 of this study, we will expand thenumber of students interviewed and modify our researchinstruments so as to gain more insight from more studentson how they understand chemistry concepts and how Website use may be related to this understanding.

Visualization ThemeThe dominant trends in the discussion of the Web site

agree well with the survey responses. The use of representa-tions and visualization on the Web was a strong point forthe students interviewed. Leo, a site user, referred to the user-manipulable 3-D representations of molecules on the Website: “It’s really nice to have that page where the moleculesspinning around. You know, you drag the mouse on themand they turn around.” Beth, another user, described herthoughts about the representations of coordination com-plexes: “Well, this one [Web site] in particular, like I said,helped to visualize it. If you don’t have a 3-D model, it’s hardto see a coordination compound, how it all fits together.”The issue of materials and information was important to siteuser Victor: “It’s better than just going through lecture againbecause you actually get to focus more energy and time onthings you don’t understand and you can skip over the thingsthat you do.”

Motivation ThemeNot all comments about using the Web to learn chemistry

were positive, however. Leo echoed the sentiments of somestudents’ survey responses in terms of using the Web site toreview or study. When asked why he used the Web site, Leosaid: “It was given to us as part of a homework assignment,and I try to get the homework done because I’m afraid notto because something might be on the test.” The interviewerasked, “If it weren’t part of the homework, would you have usedit, do you think?” Leo replied, “Probably not. I probablywouldn’t have even looked at it.”

Access ThemeMartha, a Web site nonuser, stated a two-pronged concern

about computer access: access to the Web itself, and accessingthe representations of the molecules in the Web browser. “Idon’t really like walking at night to a [computer] lab. … Icouldn’t get the pictures. On the worksheet, it said to drawthe structure. On my computer, it had a little square, andthen it had a little puzzle piece. … I couldn’t figure out a wayto get to them.” Encountering this difficulty, Martha gaveup on doing the assignment on the Web. (Martha’s problemwith the puzzle piece on the screen was that the Chime plugin(6 ) was not installed on her computer. Purdue’s lab computershave this software, but individuals would have to downloadit to see the structures on their own computers.)

DiscussionThe chemistry understanding (as determined from the

chemistry discussion and concept map portions of the inter-view) of students who did not use the tutorial Web site was

Figure 1. Beth’s concept map.

central atom

Lewis acid

coordinationcomplex

isomers

donor atom(s)

bidentate

monodentate

Lewis base

ligand

electrons

coordinate covalent bond

acceptspair of

acts as a

cont

ains

attaches to

withdifferent

contains

donates pair of

is

is

acts as

forms a

donatespair of

has






determined to be more complete than that of students who diduse the Web site. This is consistent with our past findings(5). We speculate that it is the result of weaker students beingattracted to the Web site as a supplementary source of help.Leo’s statements about using the Web site only because it wasrequired in a homework assignment, not because he wantedto use it, reflects this sentiment.

The reasons for Web site use given by students in thefree-response survey support this speculation as well: accessingmaterials and information, needing help, and the intent to gaina better understanding of chemistry are all characteristic ofstudents who want to use the Web site to help themselves.Students who felt they already had sufficient understanding ofchemistry would not give such reasons for using the Web site.

The primary reason given by students for not using theWeb was that they did not know about the site or forgot aboutit. This is unfortunate, since the instructors for the coursesinvolved in this study mentioned the Web site and suggestedit as a source of help. In all courses except the Spring 1999offering of CHM 115, links were available from the courseWeb page to the tutorial Web site. Of course, if students arenot inclined to use the Web, they would not find these links.

Some students stated that they did not use the Web sitebecause they did not need to use it. This was the type ofstudent we encountered as a Web site nonuser in our previousstudy (6 ). A tutorial Web site may not be attractive to studentswho feel they have already mastered the material.

A possible third type of nonusers may feel that the Website is not a match for them. One student in CHM 115 inFall 1999 responded to the question “How do you feel aboutusing the Web to learn chemistry in CHM 115–116?” asfollows: “I don’t think it would have been useful for me, but itmight have been for someone else.” This acknowledgmentof different types of resources being useful or appropriate fordifferent students is appropriate for all of us to remember asnew technologies for teaching and learning are developed andimplemented.

Implications for Teaching

This study’s findings with regard to gender differences inattitudes toward Web site use may be important to those whoare concerned about women in science classes. The findingsare consistent with those of past research at Purdue involvingcomputers in science classes (3). The favorable attitudes towardcomputer and Web site use held by women in these studies

suggest that availability of computers and the Web may be avaluable aspect of a science course for women.

The primary reason students gave for not using the Website was that they did not know about it or forgot about it.This is unfortunate but is a very real problem. Among stu-dents who did know about the Web site, the majority whochose not to use it stated that they did not need it to learnchemistry. Therefore, it seems reasonable to recommend thatinstructors assign the Web site as part of homework or otherassignments, so all students have the opportunity to use itand see for themselves if it would help them.

Some students found that using the Web site benefitedthem. In particular, the site appears to be useful for studentswho wish to visualize the chemistry involved. According tothe students, the multimedia and visual aspects of the Website help them to understand chemistry. Therefore, it maybe beneficial for the instructor to employ these Web-basedrepresentations in class when covering relevant material. Werecommend that these findings be taken into considerationin the design and implementation of Web-based materialsfor chemistry courses.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the three anonymous reviewersfor their valuable comments in the preparation of this manu-script. We also thank the faculty, staff, and students of thecourses involved and the General Chemistry Office staff atPurdue for their cooperation in our study.

Literature Cited

1. Paulisse, K. W.; Polik, W. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 704.2. Visualization and Problem Solving for General Chemistry;

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/ (accessed Mar 2001).3. Eichinger, D. C.; Nakhleh, M. B.; Auberry, D. L. Presented

at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the National Association forResearch in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, Ill. ERIC docu-ment ED406174.

4. Eichinger, D. C.; Nakhleh, M. B.; Auberry, D. L. J. Comput.Math. Sci. Teach. 2000, 19, 253–276.

5. Nakhleh, M. B.; Donovan, W. J.; Parrill, A. L. J. Comput.Math. Sci. Teach. 2000, 19, 355–378.

6. MDL Chime Plugin for Netscape and Internet Explorer; http://www.mdli.com (accessed Mar 2001).




http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/May/abs704.html

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/

http://www.mdli.com

http://www.mdli.com

Documents

Students' Use of Web-Based Tutorial Materials and Their Understanding of Chemistry Concepts