Using Virtual 3-D Technology to
Improve Learners’ Spatial and
Science Skills: Teaching VSEPR
Theory in Second Life®
A STUDY
Dr. Wendy L. Keeney-Kennicutt
Presidential Professor for Teaching Excellence, Piper Professor of 2010
Associate Director, First Year Chemistry Program, TAMU
k-keeney@tamu.edu
Ms. Zahira Merchant
Educational Psychology, TAMU
zhmerchant@neo.tamu.edu
1
Premise

to investigate if Second Life can enhance
– learning of a chemistry concept:
3-D shapes of molecules (VSEPR* theory)
– Spatial ability – translating 3-D images into
2-D pictures and back again

* Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Theory
2
My Second Life Space
on 12th Man Island
(maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/12th%20Man/215/237/26)
3
Classroom Use
Classroom Area – for reviews and office hours
Clicker
System
Movie Screen
Streaming Desktop
Blackboard
Notice Board
Quiz
System
Seats that allow
students to raise
their hands
4
TAMU Islands
TAM Health Science
Center (4 Islands)
Communication
Island - coming
Dr. K’s
Chemistry
Corner
AgriCulture
Aggie Orientation
Ecosystem
TAMUGalveston
(2 Islands)
TAMU Faculty are using
SL to do
 Meetings
 Simulations
HSC Nursing*
Ag Crisis Comm*
Ecosystems*
 Student Talks*
 Guest speakers
 Tech Writing
 Office hours & Reviews
 Learning modules
 Pre-Teacher training*
 Architecture Projects
 Streaming live events
 Viz lab student films
* Funded projects
5
Study Design

Quasi-experimental pre-posttest control group
research design study
– 2 classes of Chem 101 students with same
instructor (me)
– ~ 240 students in each class
– all assessments with HW worth 40/700 pts.



Experimental group: 3 activities in SL (6wks)
Control group: same 3 activities using two 2-D
rotated images (SL screen shots)
See blog: chemist-in-sl.blogspot.com
6
Study Design

Blog: chemist-in-sl.blogspot.com
7
Pre-Testing

Spatial Ability
– Card Rotations Test (2-D) from ETS: paper
Educational Testing Service
http://www.ets.org/
– Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (3-D): online
Bodner, George M, and Roland B Guay. “The Purdue Visualization of
Rotations Test.” The Chemical Educator 2.4 (1997) : 1-17.

Chemistry Content
– VSEPR theory: online

Science logic
– Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT): online
http://ken.tobinweb.net/Papers/TOLT.pdf
8
Pre-Testing

On-line tests prepared by us with Qualtrics
PSVT (20 items, 10 min)
Free!
Lots of research uses them!
TOLT (10 items, 38 min)
9
Pre-Testing

CRT
– 20 items with 8 parts each
– 10 items per page, 3 min per page
– Students must identify if each figure, when compared
to the main figure on the left, is the
 Same - S (rotated in the plane), or
 Different – D (flipped over and rotated)
10
Pre-Testing

VSEPR test – developed by me
– Tested on 3 faculty and ~100 past students
– 36 questions, 4 parts, 45 min
(angle, content knowledge, shape id, chemical examples of shape)
– Reliability: 0.90 (Cronbach’s alpha) based on post test data
11
Post-Testing

Spatial Ability
– Card Rotations Test
– Purdue Spatial Visualization Test

Chemistry Content
– VSEPR theory on-line test

Presence questionnaire + Demographics
– Included qualitative aspect
HW & Laboratory module on VSEPR theory
 Exam questions - same for both groups

12
Intervention #1
The Molecule Game
 Experimental
– Develop SL skills beyond SL
&TAMU orientations
(inventory, chat,
interacting with
objects, taking
photos)
– Begin seeing
molecules in 3-D

Control
– Answer same questions from SL screen shots (2 views)13
Intervention #1
The Molecule Game
 Control
– Students answer the same questions using SL screen
shots (2 views)
14
Intervention #1 Feedback
The Molecule Game
87% written directions were clear
(N=71)
69% watched video & found it
helpful (N=67)
86% MG is useful to learn
SL skills (N=49)
85% MG ran smoothly (N=13)
15
Intervention #2
The Chemist as Artist

Experimental
– Develop more SL skills
– Interact and draw 2 views
each of 3 molecules in
sandbox with photos
(link, move, copy, rotate)
⇒

Control
– Draw given 2 views of 3 molecules
(5 different sets – screen shots)16
Intervention #2
The Chemist as Artist
Control - Draw given 2 views of 3 molecules
(5 different sets – screen shots)
17
Intervention #3
Tower of VSEPR

Experimental
– Rez 11 molecules
– Measure bond angles,
determine geometries,
Lewis dot structures,
draw structures

Control
– Do same homework from 2 views
of each SL molecule (5 sets)
18
Intervention #3
Tower of VSEPR HW
19
Student Acceptance

Student Issues  Solutions
– On-line test compliance  gave pts/reminders
– SL learning curve  videos/ppt in SL/RL
– not virtual world savvy  SL/RL office hours
– some think SL is creepy  TAMU Island
20
Preliminary Results

Before interventions, the control (C) and
experimental (E) groups were the same as
measured by:
C (N=137)
Mean (SD)
E (N=153)
Mean (SD)
TOLT (max=10)
6.43 (2.10)
6.14 (2.24)
PVRT (max=20)
12.36 (3.48)
11.86 (3.70)
VSEPR Content
Test (max=45)
7.08 (3.56)
7.39 (3.77)
TEST
21
Preliminary Results

The two groups were different on CRT pre-test
but NOT post-test. The E group showed a small
but significantly larger gain.
CRT
(max=160)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
107.9 (30.4)
100.3 (27.9)
0.027 (2-tailed)
Posttest
127.2 (29.5)
123.8 (22.5)
0.28
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
19.3 (20.4)
23.5 (17.8)
0.029 (1-tailed)
p<0.001
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.22
Cohen’s d=0.64 Cohen’s d=0.93
22
Preliminary Results

PVRT – no significant differences were seen between
the pretest and posttest for either group.

Exam 3 score on VSEPR – no significant differences

VSEPR HW and Laboratory – no significant
differences

VSEPR content test
– Overall, no significant differences were seen on
posttest
Control: 18.41 ± 7.60 Experimental: 18.67 ± 8.73 23
Preliminary Results

More on VSEPR test: On Part 1
(determining angle from drawing), the
E group did significantly better (max=4)
VSEPR Pt 1
(max=4)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
1.01 (0.57)
1.07 (0.47)
0.26 (2-tailed)
Posttest
1.74 (1.20)
2.01 (1.19)
0.03 (1-tailed)
Cohen’s d=0.24
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
0.74 (1.20)
0.94 (1.14)
0.075 (1-tailed)
p=0.004
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.18
Cohen’s d=0.78 Cohen’s d=1.04
24
Preliminary Results

Even more on VSEPR test: If you include

all pre/post students, the results are even
more significant, BUT
On average, students are recognizing <2/4 of angles
.
VSEPR Pt 1
(max=4)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
1.03 (0.58)
1.04 (0.51)
0.82 (2-tailed)
Posttest
1.55 (1.17)
1.82 (1.19)
0.019 (2-tailed)
Cohen’s d=0.24
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
0.52 (1.17)
0.78 (1.16)
0.023 (2-tailed)
P<0.001
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.22
Cohen’s d=0.56 Cohen’s d=0.85
25
Preliminary Results

Let’s look at the questions one by one.

Here is the
question verbage:
26
Question 1 of 4


Gain-C (-0.04 ± 0.49; N=194)
Gain-E (0.005 ± 0.44; N=209)
p < 0.16
(1-tailed)
100
Percent
80
Confidence–Pre
C=74% E=75%
Confidence–Post
C=77% E=82%
60
40
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
20
Experimental-Post
0
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
27
Question 2 of 4


Gain-C (0.25 ± 0.47)
Gain-E (0.33 ± 0.49)
60
Confidence–Pre
C=58% E=75%
Confidence–Post
C=63% E=60%
50
Percent
p < 0.043 (1-tailed)
40
Confidence–Pre
C=53% E=72%
Confidence–Post
C=75% E=76%
Control-Pre
30
Control-Post
20
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
10
0
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
28
Question 3 of 4

Percent

Gain-C (0.08± 0.44)
Gain-E (0.15 ± 0.49)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Confidence–Pre
C=46% E=57%
Confidence–Post
C=74% E=75%
p < 0.064 (1-tailed)
Confidence–Pre
C=61% E=59%
Confidence–Post
C=65% E=62%
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
29
Question 4 of 4


Gain-C (0.23± 0.49)
Gain-E (0.29 ± 0.47)
p < 0.086 (1-tailed)
90
80
Confidence–Pre
C=68% E=66%
Confidence–Post
C=70% E=68%
70
60
50
40
30
Confidence–Pre
C=34% E=42%
Confidence–Post
C=75% E=74%
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
20
10
0
30o
45o
60o
90o
109o 120o 150o 180o
30
Comments
Disheartening!!
31
More Preliminary Results
 We
analyzed two questions posed to
the Experimental group:
1. Is it a good idea to use Second Life in
future chemistry classes?
(Quantitative analysis)
2. Please explain your answer.
(Qualitative analysis)
32
Is it a good idea to use Second Life in
future classes?
35
30
Percentage
N = 219
30%
25
23%
20
18%
18%
15
10
11%
5
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Agree
33
Please Explain Your Answer….
Main Theme - Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Usefulness
70
Percentage
60
1. Visualization (38%)
58%
2. Time Consumption
(29%)
50
35%
40
3. Interactivity (17%)
30
20
7%
10
0
Yes
Subthemes:
No
Unsure
4. Other methods such
as text books, 2-D
images, paper pencil
were just as useful
(16%)
N = 100
Other themes: Perceived ease of use & gaming experience
34
Results - Perceived Usefulness
Comments
1. It helped a lot with the VSEPR theory by allowing me
to visualize the molecules so when I’m drawing them on
paper I can see the molecule in my mind’s eye. This
allowed me to draw 3D molecule faster and easier.
2. I found that it took a lot of time to learn how to
manipulate the molecules in Second Life.
3. It allows you actually see and interact with a molecule
4. I feel it would be easier to lecture about this material
and show students more examples.
35
Future Work/Questions
 Did my attempt to show
the correct molecular shape
by giving 2 views of a
molecule to the control group
skew the CRT results?
Do students taking a regular general chem class increase
their CRT scores naturally?
If so, do they keep their higher CRT scores over time?


 Can we really assume that students
can see that this angle is 90o,
without training them? Not!
36
Acknowledgements
 Zahira and I thank all my students who
had to endure all our assessments….
 Thank you and any questions?
37