Improvement of students’ achievements in organic stereochemistry by active learning using information and communication technologies

Chemia Naissensis Volume 8, No.1 (2025) (стр. 17-35) 

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Aleksandra Naumoska and Slobotka Aleksovska

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46793/ChemN8.1.17N

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

Stereochemistry remains a challenging topic for undergraduate chemistry students, often leading to misconceptions and learning difficulties. To improve students’ understanding, traditional teaching methods should be complemented by innovative strategies such as interactive learning tools, digital resources, and hands-on activities. This study aimed to identify the main difficulties students face when learning stereochemistry and to evaluate the effectiveness of different pedagogical interventions.

A pre-test assessing key stereochemistry concepts was administered to 24 second-year students at the Institute of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Mathematics in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. The results revealed significant challenges, particularly in identifying chiral centers, determining R/S configurations, recognizing meso compounds, and understanding E/Z isomerism. Students also struggled with the spatial representation of molecules and applying stereochemical rules to structural representations. Targeted teaching activities, including web-based tutorials, physical molecule models, and the HyperChem Professional computer program, were introduced to address there difficulties.

A post-test was then conducted to measure learning gains. Statistical analysis using a paired- samples t-test indicated a significant improvement in students’ stereochemical knowledge (p < 0.001), with an average increase of 30.95% in test scores. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of interactive and hands-on approaches and underscore the value of multifaceted teaching strategies that integrate digital tools, laboratory activities, and visualization techniques to  reinforce student learning and bridge the gap between theoretical and practical aspects of stereochemistry.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

active learning, chemistry teaching, learning difficulties, misconceptions, organic stereochemistry

ПРОЈЕКАТ/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES: 

  • Anderson, T. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). What can we do about ‘Parker’? A case study of a good student who didn’t ‘get’ organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 93–101 https://doi.org/10.1039/b806223b.
  • Amsad, L. N., Liliasari, S., Kadarohman, A., & Sardjono, R. E. (2019). Recognizing students’ abilities to work through synthesis organic pathways. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 042021, 1157 (4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042021.
  • Boukhechem, M.S., Dumon, A., & Zouikri, M. (2011). The acquisition of stereochemical knowledge by Algerian students intending to teach physical sciences. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90040D.
  • Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., Murphy, C. J. & Woodward P. M. (2012). Chemistry: The Central Science (12th ed.). Pearson.
  • Burrmann N. J., & Moore W. J. (2013). Development of a Web-Based, Student-Centered Stereochemistry Tutorial. Journal of Chemical Education, 90 (12), 1622–1625. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300744s.
  • Bekkink, M. O., Donders, A. R. T., Kooloos, J.G., de Waal R. M. W., & Ruiter D. J. (2016). Uncovering students’ misconceptions by assessment of their written questions. BMC Medical Education, 16, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0739-5.
  • Barrientos, C., Moris, S., & López J. G. (2024). A teaching strategy for teaching stereochemistry: a proposal for converting from one representation to another. Educación Química, 35(4), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.22201/fq.18708404e.2024.4.88280.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Collini, M. A., Miguel K., Weber, R. & Atkinson M. B. (2024). Investigating changes in students’ attitudes towards organic chemistry: a longitudinal study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25, 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00228D.
  • Domin, D. S., Al-Masum, M. & Mensah, J. (2008). Students’ categorizations of organic compounds. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1039/B806226A.
  • Donkoh, S. (2017). What students say about senior high school organic chemistry? International journal of environmental & science education, 12(10), 2139–2152. http://www.ijese.net/makale_indir/IJESE_1977_article_5a1b379c0a6c6.pdf.
  • Dwyer, A. O., & Childs, P. E. (2017). Who says Organic Chemistry is Difficult? Exploring Perspectives and Perceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13 (7), 3599–3620. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00748a.
  • Durmaz, M. (2018). Determination of Prospective Chemistry Teachers’ Cognitive Structures and Misconceptions About Stereochemistry. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6 (9), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3353.
  • Da Silva Junior, J. N., De Andrade Uchoa, D. E., Lima M. A. S,. & Monteiro, A. J. (2019). Stereochemistry Game: Creating and Playing a Fun Board Game To Engage Students in Reviewing Stereochemistry Concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 96 (8), 1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01020.
  • Eticha, A. T. & Ochonogor, C. E. (2015). Assessment of undergraduate chemistry students’ difficulties in organic chemistry. Proceedings of the ISTE International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 285–296. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344179315_ASSESSMENT_OF_UNDERGRADUAT  E_CHEMISTRY_STUDENTS%27_DIFFICULTIES_IN_ORGANIC_CHEMISTRY.
  • Gilbert, J. K. (1977). The study of student misunderstandings in the physical sciences. Research in Science Education, 7 (1), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02643123.
  • Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ Alternative Conceptions in Chemistry: A Review of Research and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Studies in Science Education, 25 (1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269508560050.
  • Hassan, A. K., Hill, R. A. & Reid, N. (2004). Ideas Underpinning Success in an Introductory Course in Organic Chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 8, 40–51. https://www.rsc.org/images/p2_reid_tcm18-31146.pdf.
  • Ippoliti, F. M., Nguyen, M. M., Amber, J., Reilly, A. J. & Gar, N. K. (2022). Gaming stereochemistry. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 6, 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-022-00395-5.
  • Iyamuremye, A., Twagilimana, I. & Niyonzima, F. N. (2024). Examining the utilization of web-based discussion tools in teaching and learning organic chemistry in selected Rwandan secondary schools. Heliyon, 10 (20), e39356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39356.
  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7 (2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.
  • Kurbanoglu, N.I., Taskesenligil, Y. & Sozbilir, M. (2006). Programmed instruction revisited: a study on teaching stereochemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90012C.
  • Kumi, B. C., Olimpo, J. T., Bertlett, F., & Dixon, B. L. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of organic chemistry textbooks in promoting representational fluency and understanding of 2D-3D diagrammatic relationships. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14 (2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP20166J.
  • Kusumaningdyah, R., Devetak, I., Utomo, Y., Effendy, E., Putri D., & Habiddin, H. (2024). Teaching Stereochemistry with Multimedia and Hands-On Models: The Relationship between Students’ Scientific Reasoning Skills and The Effectiveness of Model Type. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 14 (1), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1547.
  • Leonard, M.J., Kalinowski, S.T., & Andrews, T.C. (2014). Misconceptions Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13 (2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0244.
  • Miu, B. (2019). Teaching The Concept Of Isomerism In Organic Chemistry In High School Education. Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 363–373. https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.03.43?utm_source=chatg pt.com.
  • Mistry, N., Singh, R. & Ridley, J. (2020). A Web-Based Stereochemistry Tool to Improve Students’ Ability to Draw Newman Projections and Chair Conformations and Assign R/S Labels, Journal of Chemical Education, 97, 1157–1161. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00688.
  • Milne, S. L., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Garza, N. F., Zimmerman, S. C., & Shultz, G. V. (2024). Capturing students’ identification of the relevance of organic chemistry in writing. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00161J.
  • Nartey, E. & Hanson, R. (2021). The Perceptions of Senior High School Students and Teachers about Organic Chemistry: A Ghanaian Perspective. Science Education International, 32 (4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.8.
  • Naumoska, A. & Aleksovska, S. (2023). Identification of Difficulties and Misconceptions in the Study of Organic Chemistry in High School. 26th Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry of SCTM, September 2023, Ohrid, Macedonia, 199–200. https://sctm.mk/conferences/2023-26th- Congress-book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf.
  • Naumoska, A. & Aleksovska, S. (2023). Representation of questions from organic stereochemistry and their evaluation in knowledge tests at the International Chemistry Olympiads (in macedonian). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Physics and Related Sciences in Skopje, N. Macedonia, 109–116. https://drive.google.com/file/d/151rOeDU36JHfXm49_9SUZ41jQsWEb8Jp/view?usp=sharing.
  • Obumnenye, O. & Ahiakwo, M. J. (2013). Using stereochemistry models in teaching organic compounds nomenclature: effects on senior secondary students’ performance in rivers state of Nigeria. African Journal of Chemical Education, 3 (2), 91–105. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mP1KlGVqAWQ_jNrdtwbpBL8uon-GJUUr/view?usp=sharing.
  • Olimpo, J. T., Kumi, B. C., Wroblewski, R., & Dixon B. L. (2015). Examining the relationship between 2D diagrammatic conventions and students’ success on representational translations tasks in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00169A.
  • Ping, E., Parrill, F., Church, E. B., & Meadow, S. G. (2022). Teaching stereoisomers throught gesture, action, and mental imagery. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23 (3), 698– 713. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00313E.
  • Rius, C., Dominguez, H. M. T., Gonzalez-Quezeda, Y., & Pozas-Horcasitas, R. (2011). The use of stereoscopis tools (3D) to teach stereochemistry. Proceedings of EDULEARN11 Conference, 289–297.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259176906_THE_USE_OF_STEREOSCOPIC_TOOL S_3D_TO_TEACH_STEREOCHEMISTRY.
  • Schmidt, H. J. (1992). Conceptual difficulties with isomerism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (9), 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290908.
  • Salah, B. M., & Alain D. (2016). To what degree does handling concrete molecular model promote the ability to translate and coordinate between 2D and 3D molecular structure representations? A case study with Algerian students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17 (4), 862–877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00180C.
  • Salame, I. I., Patel, S., & Suleman, Sh. (2019). Examining Some of The Students’ Challenges in Learning Organic Chemistry. International Journal of Chemical Education Research, 3 (1), 6–14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333003516_Examining_Some_of_The_Students’_Chal lenges_in_Learning_Organic_Chemistry.
  • Salame, I. I., Casino, P. & Hodges, N. (2020). Examining Challenges that Students Face in Learning Organic Chemistry Synthesis. International Journal of Chemical Education Research, 4 (1), 1–9.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341608142_Examining_Challenges_that_Students_Fac e_in_Learning_Organic_Chemistry_Synthesis.
  • Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M. & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(6), 460. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed068p460.
  • Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (2000). Learners’ explanations for chemical phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(3), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1039/B0RP90015J.
  • Talanquer, V. (2006). Commonsense Chemistry: A Model for Understanding Students’ Alternative Conceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 83 (5), 811–816. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p811.
  • Uchegbu, R. I., Ahuchaogu, A. A., & Amanze K. O. (2017). Tertiary institution students’ perception of difficult topics in organic chemistry curriculum in Imo State. AASCIT Journal of Education,  3, 9–15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319357563_1_Tertiary_Institution_Students%27_Perc  eption_of_Difficult_Topics_in_Organic_Chemistry_Curiculum_in_Imo_State.
  • Uce, M. & Ceyhan, I. (2019). Misconception in Chemistry Education and Practices to Eliminate Them: Literature Analysis. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7 (3), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i3.3990.