skip to main content
10.1145/3631991.3632023acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Enhancing Integration of Digital Technology in Higher Education: The Impact of Avogadro Software on Conceptual Understanding in Organic Chemistry Courses in Indonesia

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to enhance the integration of digital technology in a higher education course in Indonesia. Specifically, the implementation of the Avogadro software was originally designed to enhance students’ conceptual understanding. The participants consisted of 40 students from the Chemistry Education Department and 30 students from the Chemistry Department at a university in Bandung, Indonesia. This is an experimental study with a pre-experimental type. To assess students' conceptual understanding, pre-test and post-test were conducted, and the data were analyzed using SPSS 24. The results showed that there was a significant improvement in conceptual understanding of students of the Chemistry Education Department with a high category increase indicated by an n-gain value of 0.74. For the Chemistry Department, the improvement was in the medium category with n-gain values of 0.66. The results of inferential analysis using the Wilcoxon Test with Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) were <0.05 and showed that the pre-test and post-test scores differed significantly for both groups of students, with a higher average score in the post-test. The interactive nature of Avogadro software facilitated students' knowledge construction and made the course topic more meaningful, thereby stimulating their conceptual understanding.

References

  1. W. W. M. So, Y. Chen, and Z. H. Wan, “Multimedia e-Learning and Self-Regulated Science Learning: a Study of Primary School Learners’ Experiences and Perceptions,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 508–522, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09782-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Schwedler and M. Kaldewey, “Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: How voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1132–1147, 2020, doi: 10.1039/c9rp00211a.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. K. E. Amaral, J. D. Shank, I. A. Shibley, and L. R. Shibley, “Web-enhanced general chemistry increases student completion rates, success, and satisfaction,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 296–302, 2013, doi: 10.1021/ed200580q.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. M. A. Camilleri and A. C. Camilleri, “Remote learning via video conferencing technologies: Implications for research and practice,” Technol. Soc., vol. 68, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101881.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. C. Jeongho, K. Su-Yin, and C. P. Wai, “Uncritical inference test in developing basic knowledge and understanding in the learning of organic spectroscopy,” Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1789–1802, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. So¨zbilir, “What Makes Physical Chemistry Difficult? Perceptions of Turkish Chemistry Undergraduates and Lecturers,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 81, no. 4, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. S. C. Chen, M. S. Hsiao, and H. C. She, “The effects of static versus dynamic 3D representations on 10th grade students’ atomic orbital mental model construction: Evidence from eye movement behaviors,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 53, pp. 169–180, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Torun, “The effect of a textbook preparation process supported by instructional technology tools on the tpack self confidence levels of prospective social studies teachers,” Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. Online, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115–140, 2020, doi: 10.33403/rigeo.691943.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. R. Vandenplas, D. G. Herrington, A. D. Shrode, and R. D. Sweeder, “Use of Simulations and Screencasts to Increase Student Understanding of Energy Concepts in Bonding,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 730–744, 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. B. D. Homer and J. L. Plass, “Level of interactivity and executive functions as predictors of learning in computer-based chemistry simulations,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 36, pp. 365–375, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.041.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N. Hayati, “Kemampuan Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) dan Penguasaan Konsep Mahasiswa Melalui Perkuliahan Kimia Organik Polifungsi Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran RADEC,” Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. D. Hanwell, E. Curtis, Donald, D. C. Lonie, T. Vandermeersch, E. Zurek, and G. R. Htchison, “Avogadro: An Advanced Semantic Chemical Editor, Visualization, and Analysis Platform,” J. Cheminform., vol. 4, no. 17, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. V. Listyarini, “Implementation of Molecular Visualization Program for Chemistry Learning,” Prism. Sains J. Pengkaj. Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Mat. dan IPA IKIP Mataram, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 64, 2021, doi: 10.33394/j-ps.v9i1.3941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. B. Rayan and A. Rayan, “Avogadro Program for Chemistry Education: To What Extent can Molecular Visualization and Three-dimensional Simulations Enhance Meaningful Chemistry Learning?,” World J. Chem. Educ., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 136–141, 2017, doi: 10.12691/wjce-5-4-4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach Fifth Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Hake, Analyzing Change/Gain Scores. USA: Indiana University, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. F. Neese, “The ORCA Program System,” Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 73–78, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R. . Ward, Bifunctional Compound. USA: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. L. L. Parker and G. M. Loudon, “Case study using online homework in undergraduate organic chemistry: Results and student attitudes,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 37–44, 2013, doi: 10.1021/ed300270t.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. H. Lee, J. L. Plass, and B. D. Homer, “Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 902–913, 2006, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.902.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, “Aids to computer-based multimedia learning,” Learn. Instr., vol. 12, pp. 107–119, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. N. S. Shemy, “Digital Infographics Design (Static vs Dynamic): Its Effects on Developing Thinking and Cognitive Load Reduction,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 104–125, 2022, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.5.6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. Setyarini, Liliasari, A. Kadarohman, and M. A. Martoprawiro, “Profile of Students’ Comprehension of 3D Molecule Representation and Its Interconversion on Chirality,” 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. C. Moore, “Efficacy of multimedia learning modules as preparation for lecture-based tutorials in electromagnetism,” Educ. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.3390/educsci8010023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. J. M. Santos and R. D. R. Castro, “Technological Pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: Application of learning in the classroom by pre-service teachers (PST),” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 3, no. 1, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. P. Nuangchalerm, “TPACK in Asean perspectives: Case study on Thai Pre-service Teacher,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 993–999, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. W. Sopandi , Model Pembelajaran RADEC: Teori dan Implementasi di Sekolah. Bandung: UPI Press, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. R. R. Sukardi, W. Sopandi, and Riandi, “Fundamental chemistry concepts on environmental pollution: Experts validation of pre-learning questions,” Moroccan J. Chem., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 312–320, 2021, doi: 10.48317/IMIST.PRSM/morjchem-v9i2.27583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. A. Rasheed, A. Kamsin, and N. A. Abdullah, “Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 144, no. September 2019, p. 103701, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. R. M. Warfa, J. Nyachwaya, and G. Roehrig, “The influences of group dialog on individual student understanding of science concepts,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0142-3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Nopriyeni, Z. K. Prasetyo, and Djukr, “The implementation of mentoring based learning to improve pedagogical knowledge of prospective teachers,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 529–540, 2019, doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12332a.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. N. Murray and T. McConachy, “‘Participation’ in the internationalized higher education classroom: An academic staff perspective,” J. Int. Intercult. Commun., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 254–270, 2018, doi: 10.1080/17513057.2018.1459789.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. R. Khatoon and E. Jones, “Flipped small group classes and peer marking: incentives, student participation and performance in a quasi-experimental approach,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 910–927, 2022, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1981823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. M. A. Camilleri and A. C. Camilleri, “Learning from Anywhere, Anytime: Utilitarian Motivations and Facilitating Conditions for Mobile Learning,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10758-022-09608-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Enhancing Integration of Digital Technology in Higher Education: The Impact of Avogadro Software on Conceptual Understanding in Organic Chemistry Courses in Indonesia

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WSSE '23: Proceedings of the 2023 5th World Symposium on Software Engineering
      September 2023
      352 pages
      ISBN:9798400708053
      DOI:10.1145/3631991

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 December 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format