Student Engagement with a Science Simulation: Aspects that Matter

  • Susan Rodrigues
  • Eugene Gvozdenko
Keywords: Chemistry, Educational simulations, Learning, Instructions, Interactivity, Simulation design


It is argued that multimedia technology affords an opportunity to better visualise complex relationships often seen in chemistry. This paper describes the influence of chemistry simulation design facets on user progress through a simulation. Three versions of an acid-base titration simulation were randomly allocated to 36 volunteers to examine their interactions with the simulation. The impact of design alterations on the total number of interactions and their patterns was analysed for the following factors: (a) the place of a feature on the screen, (b) alignment of the sequence of instructions, (c) additional instruction before the simulation, (d) interactivity of a feature. Additionally, interactions between individual
factors, such as age, prior experience with science simulations and computer games, perception of the difficulty of science simulations, and general subject knowledge, on one hand, and the efficiency of using the simulation, on the other hand, were examined. The findings suggest that: (a) centrality of the position of an element significantly affects the
number of interactions with the element, (b) re-arranging the sequence of instructions on the screen in left-to-right order improves the following of instructions, (c) providing users with additional written advice to follow numbered instructions does not have a significant impact on student behaviour, (d) interactivity of a feature was found to have a strong positive
correlation  with the number of interactions with that feature, which warrants a caution about unnecessary interactivity that may hinder simulation efficiency. Surprisingly, neither prior knowledge of chemistry nor the age of the participants had a significant effect on either the number of interactions or the ability to follow on-screen instructions.


Download data is not yet available.


Azevedo, R. (2004). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199-209.

Banks, K. (2008). Mobile learning in developing countries: Present realities and future possibilities. In D. Harper (Ed.), Education for a digital world: Advice, guidelines, and effective practice from around the globe (pp. 51-56). Vancouver: BCcampus and Commonwealth of Learning.

Barker, P. (2008). Re-evaluating a model of learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 127-141.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 385-395.

Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a
kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(8), 803-815.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition & Instruction, 8(4), 293-240.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.

Clarke, R., & Mayer, R. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning. California: Pfeiffer.

Church, K., Smyth, B., Cotter, P., & Bradley, K. (2005). Mobile information access: A study of
emerging search behavior on the mobile Internet. ACM Transactions on the Web, 1(1), 4.

DiNucci, D. (1999). Print: Design & new media. Fragmented future. Retrieved 10.04.2010 from

Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the
role of an animated agent’s image. Computers and Education, 49(3), 677-690.

Eilks, I, Witteck, T., & Pietzner, V. (2010). Using multimedia learning aids from the Internet for
teaching chemistry – Not as easy as it seems? In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Multiple Literacy and Science
Education: ICTS in Formal and Informal Learning Environments (pp. 49-69). Hershey: IGI Global.

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313-331.

Grimley, M., Nilsen, T., Kerr, R., Green, R., & Thompson, D. (2010). Virtual Worlds for Science
Learning. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Multiple Literacy and Science Education: ICTS in Formal and
Informal Learning Environments (pp. 263-279). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.

Gvozdenko, E., Steinle, V., Stacey, K., Price, B., & Chick, H. (2010). Considering test takers navigation patterns in a Maths test design. Presentation at SMART project meeting. The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Mackenzie, S (2010). Achieving multiple literacy in Science Education: A Classroom Teacher’s
Perspective. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Multiple Literacy and Science Education: ICTS in Formal and
Informal Learning Environments (pp. 32-48). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global

Madden, A. D., Nunes, J. M. B., McPherson, M., Ford, N., Miller, D., & Rico, M. (2005). A New
Generation Gap? Some thoughts on the consequences of increasingly early ICT first contact.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 1(2), 19-33.

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of
speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational psychology, 95(2), 419-425.

Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the methodsaffects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1) 149-158.

Office for National Statistics. (2008). Consumer durables. Retrieved 10.04.2010 from http://www.

Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution; A dual coding theoretical interpretation. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Pallant, A., &Tinker, R. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51-66.

Ploetzner, R., Bodemer, D., & Neudert, S. (2008). Successful and less successful use of dynamic
visualizations. In R. Lowe, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with Animation – Research Implications for Design (pp. 71-91). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.

Prenksy, M (2004). The Seven Games of Highly Effective People: How playing computer games helps you succeed in school, work and life. Retrieved from

Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Burden, D. & de Freitas, S. (2008). A Model of Motivation for Virtual-Worlds
Avatars. In H. Prendinger, J. Lester, &M. Ishizuka (Eds.), IVA 2008, LNAI 5208 (pp. 535–536). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Redman, C., McDougal A., & Rodrigues, S. (2009). Research into teaching with whole class
interactive technologies, RITWIT Conference, University of Cambridge, June 29th-30th.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (1999). Kids and media at the new millennium: Executive summary. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rodrigues, S., Taylor, N., Cameron, M., Syme-Smith, L., & Fortuna, C (2010). Questioning
Chemistry: The role of level, familiarity, language and taxonomy. Science Education International,
21(1), 31-46

Sanchez, E., & Garcia-Rodicio, H. (2008). The use of modality in the design of verbal aids in
computer based learning environments. Interacting with Computers, 20(6), 545-561.

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple
representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 117-123.

Schwartz, N., Andersen, C., Hong, N., Howard, B., & McGee, S. (2004). The influence of
metacognitive skills on learners’ memory of information in a hypermedia environment. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 77–93.

Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/the
content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489–504.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edition. London: Sage Publications.

Testa, I ., Monroy, G., & Sassi, E. (2010). Students’ reading images in kinematics: The case of real-time graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 235-256.

Thomas, R., & Hooper, E. (1991). Simulations: An opportunity we are missing. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 23(4), 497-513.

Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of
computer use in primary education: teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 494-506

Tortosa, M., Pinto., R., & Saez, M. (2008) The use of sensors in chemistry lessons to promote
significant learning in secondary school students. In Current Trends in Chemical Curricula.
Proceedings of the International Conference, (pp. 135-139). Prague.

Valentine, G., Marsh., J., & Pattie, C. (2005). Children and young people’s home use of ICT for
educational purposes: The impact on attainment at key stages 1-4. (Research report RR672).
Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.

Van der Meij, H., & Boersma, K. Th. J. (2002). Email use in elementary school: An analysis of
exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 189-200.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: human science for an action in sensitive pedagogy, 2nd edition. Albany NY: The State University of New York.
How to Cite
Rodrigues, S., & Gvozdenko, E. (2018). Student Engagement with a Science Simulation: Aspects that Matter. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(4), 27-43.