Exploring the Impact of and Perceptions about Interactive, Self-Explaining Environments in Molecular- Level Animations

  • David A. Falvo
  • Michael J. Urban
  • Jerry P Suits
Keywords: Interactive learning environments, Simulations, Visualisations


This mixed-method study investigates the effects of interactivity in animations
of a molecular-level process and explores perceptions about
the animated learning tool used. Treatments were based on principles
of cognitive psychology designed to study the main effects of treatment
and spatial ability and their interaction. Results with students (n=189)
showed that science majors scored higher than non-science majors in
retention measures (i.e., structure and function) but not in transfer.
Significant main effects were found for treatment in function questions and spatial ability in structure questions. There was a significant interaction between treatment and spatial ability in structure questions. Additionally, in this study participants believed the key and the motion of ions and molecules were the most helpful parts of the animation. This study shows that students perceive the animations as being supportive of their learning, suggesting that animations do have a role in science classrooms.


Download data is not yet available.


Atkinson R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving
problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

Chi, M. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33-49.

Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chi, M., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves
understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.

Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances
in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge
and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gabel, D. L. (2005). Handbook on Science Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Science Teacher Association. New York: Macmillan.

Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701-704.

Kelly, R. M. (2005). Exploring how animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’
explanations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado.

Linn, M. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727-758.

Martin, B. & Tversky, B. (2003). Segmenting ambiguous events. In Proceedings of the Cognitive
Science Society Meetings, (pp. 234-238). Boston.

Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Retrieved 05.01.2005 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/edpsych/external/EDUC_5080/Mayer.pdf.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Nakhleh, M. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Journal of Chemical Education, 70(1), 52-55.

Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a
difference? Journal of Chemical Education, 64(6), 508-509.

Peters, M., Laeng, B., Lathan, K., Jackson, M., Zaiouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn
Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition. 28(1), 39-58.

Sawrey, B. (1990). Concept learning versus problem solving: Revisited. Journal of Chemical
Education, 67(3), 253-254.

Schar, S. G., & Zimmermann, P. G. (2007). Investigating means to reduce cognitive load from
animations: Applying differentiated measures of knowledge representation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 64-78.

Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Tasker R., (2004). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational theory into
practice. In T. Greenbowe, & M. Cooper (Eds.), A Chemist’s Guide to Effective Teaching (pp. 256-272). New York: Prentice Hall.

Tasker, R., Dalton, R., Sleet, R., Bucat, B., Chia, W. & Corrigan, D. (2002). Description of VisChem:
Visualising chemical structures and reactions at the molecular level to develop a deep understanding of chemistry concepts. Retrieved 20.01.2007 from Learning Designs Web site: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/LD9/index.html

Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract
thought (pp. 79-111). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial Reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 209-242). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.

Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Applied. 9(2), 88-100.
How to Cite
Falvo, D. A., Urban, M. J., & Suits, J. P. (2018). Exploring the Impact of and Perceptions about Interactive, Self-Explaining Environments in Molecular- Level Animations. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(4), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.405