*Corresponding author - kaomar@ucalgary.ca 

 

Omar, K. A., & Mozol, V. (2020). Exploring the role of viewing technologies in the chemistry classroom. Papers on 

Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, 4, 68-75. 

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF VIEWING TECHNOLOGIES IN 

THE CHEMISTRY CLASSROOM 

Kassem Ayman Omar* & Vivian Mozol 

University of Calgary 

 

Spatial ability is an important tool in chemistry and this ability can be improved. 

Various technologies have been used to improve spatial ability. However, it is not 

clear if viewing technologies should take the place of the model kit; the traditional 

method of learning about molecular structures. Our research aims to address this gap. 

In our study, we aimed to take advantage of student affinity to technology to drive 

spatial ability improvements (in the context of chemistry) by having students 

experience molecules in virtual space using modern viewing technologies (WBVE, AR, 

and VR). Students were first engaged with the technologies then were assessed to see 

if their ability to solve problems relating to 3D-molecular structure improved. The 

mean spatial ability of students improved over the course of the semester (permutation 

test, p < 0.05) and students using model kits scored higher than those using the 

technologies (t-test, p < 0.05). The collection and assessment of anonymous, 

aggregated, student responses for this study was conducted with the approval of the 

University of Calgary ethics board (REB13-0724).    

  

“Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs only to the people who 

prepare for it today”, as it was put by Malcom X at the 1964 Founding Rally of the Organization 

of Afro-American Unity (BlackPast, 2007). Indeed, these words ring true as those who pursue 

education are the same ones as those who will one day drive change in our world. Our students 

are our future, and as educators we must continually look for better ways to engage and teach 

them. In 2019, we find ourselves to have been rapidly thrust into a new age; one made of silicon 

and lead. That is to say that we find ourselves in a new age of technology. However, the up and 

coming have been born into this age and thus present an extraordinary affinity for technology. 

Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, and Gray (2008) conducted a study on more than 2000 first year 

university students, exploring the degree to which they liked and used technology. The 

researchers found that virtually all students have and use some form of technology every day 

(mobile phones or computers). The researchers also found that 84% of students responded that 

they would like their technology incorporated into their studies (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, & 

Gray, 2008). It seems that Robert Kvavik (2005, para. 1) was on to something when he said that 

our current cohort of students is “characterized as preferring teamwork, experiential activities, 

and the use of technology”. The question then is how, and where, can we implement such 

strategies? In our study, we aimed to take advantage of student affinity to technology to drive 

spatial ability improvements (in the context of chemistry) by having students experience 

molecules in a virtual space using modern viewing technologies.    

 To be able to “see” molecules students must make use of the ability to picture the 

descriptions of the objects in their mind. This relates to the idea of “spatial ability” or “spatial 

intelligence”. Work in this field goes back to the 1800s with the work of Sir Frances Galton  



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

69 

(1880) where he used simple mental activities and a series of questions to explore an individual’s 

capacity to see something unseen. Research has shown that some individuals are more capable 

(faster and more correct) than others when it comes to tasks involving spatial ability. For 

example, significant differences have been suggested to exist between males and females with 

regards to spatial ability (Casey, Nuttall, Pezaris, & Benbow, 1995; Maeda & Yoon, 2013). 

However, recent studies have highlighted the importance of considering things like age, 

experience, and implicit stereotyping before jumping to such conclusions (Guizzo, Moè, Cadinu, 

& Bertolli, 2019; King, Katz, Thompson, & Macnamara, 2019; Lauer, Yhang, & Lourenco, 

2019). In the study of chemistry, it has been shown that spatial ability is linked with higher 

grades in chemistry courses (Harle & Towns, 2011; Sorby, 2009). Naturally, the thought after 

this discovery is: can spatial abilities be improved? There is evidence to suggest that they can be. 

A study by Lord (1985) illustrated that with “weekly intervention sessions”, students improved 

their spatial ability. For us to be able to raise stronger and better chemists it will be beneficial to 

include and improve more measures for improving spatial ability in our educational strategies. 

One strategy to aid with this is the use of model kits. 

 Model kits are readily available and recommended in undergraduate introductory 

chemistry courses. Perhaps this is because one of the most abstract concepts in chemistry, for the 

beginner, is trying to picture molecules and understand them in our minds. In a study by Hyman 

(1982), two treatments were administered on university level organic chemistry students: 1) extra 

lectures that involved watching someone manipulate molecular models, followed by time for the 

students to manipulate the molecules themselves and 2) the same lectures that involved watching 

the manipulation of the models, but with no subsequent manipulation time. Hyman (1982) stated:  

This study was designed to determine if students in an organic chemistry course would 

perform higher on different levels of cognitive achievement if they attended sessions where 

they were given tasks to manipulate molecular models to facilitate comprehension of the 

concepts. An additional purpose of the study was to determine the role of spatial 

visualization ability on achievement in organic chemistry and to investigate the effect 

attending the sessions had on improving spatial visualization ability. (pg.1) 

Surprisingly, Hyman (1982) found that there were no significant differences in terms of 

“achievement” (as referred to by Hyman, 1982) between the two groups. Another study by 

Blatnick (1986) found similar conclusions in which a very similar experiment was conducted on 

grade 9 students in the context of chemistry. The results also indicated that there were no 

significant differences between the two treatment groups (model interaction and no model 

interaction). However, Blatnick (1986) did state:  

Models add interest and clarity to science instruction. Models are fun to use and provide 

needed variety in the instructional process. It is possible that the use of models 

contributes to instructional outcomes that were not measured in the present study. (p. 33-

34) 

From the studies of Hyman (1982) and Blatnick (1986), as well as that of Rafi, Anaur, Samad, 

Hayati, and Mahadzir (2005), it appears that students benefit from having the opportunity to see 

or view objects, but there does not seem to be any added benefit of physically manipulating these 

model kits. While the model kit has its uses, technology has come a long way since its 

development. The question is: do certain technologies have a place beside the model kit? 

 Technology has been applied in the educational setting with promising results. Researchers 

have tested the use of technology to improve spatial ability. In a study by Rafi et al. (2005), the 

use of a web-based virtual environment (WBVE) was utilized to test if regular spatial ability 



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

70 

training would improve participants’ performance on questions requiring the use of their spatial 

ability skills. WBVE consists of projecting a 3D image of an object on a computer screen and 

having the ability to manipulate that object with a mouse or trackpad. In this study researchers 

had undergraduate students make use of a WBVE system to complete various questions 

requiring the use of one’s spatial ability. The participants were allowed access to this technology 

over a span of five weeks, and researchers found significant improvements when compared to 

controls (controls were traditional pen and paper spatial ability teaching techniques) (Rafi et al., 

2005). As we can see, there is room for technology to play a role in helping our students improve 

their spatial ability skills in a time period as short as five weeks. Applying this to chemistry 

education could help teach our students necessary skills to succeed. 

 Other viewing technologies also exist, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality 

(VR) technologies. In a study by Asai and Takase (2011), it was demonstrated that the use of an 

AR system helped participants identify molecular structures faster and more accurately when 

compared with pc-desktop viewers. VR is different from AR in that, with AR, objects are 

projected and incorporated into life as we know it, whereas in VR the user wears a specialized 

head piece and immerses themselves in a virtual world. In a study by O’Connor et al. (2018), the 

researchers found that participants using their VR system to complete molecular structure related 

tasks, were able to do so quicker than those who did the same using a WBVE like setup. 

 From the afore mentioned studies, it seems to be that there is a benefit to making use of 

viewing technologies in the chemistry classroom (Asai & Takase, 2011; O’Connor et al., 2018; 

Rafi et al., 2005). The viewing technologies discussed hold the benefit of allowing the students 

to view and experience molecules or objects. They are also tools that students can use and 

manipulate anywhere and anytime. In our digital age, where virtually everyone has a smartphone 

only inches away, technology has become much more accessible than traditional resources such 

as the model kit. However, not all viewing technologies have been created equal. While it has 

been demonstrated that high end and expensive viewing technology tools have good utility, can 

the same be said about cheaper and more realistically attained versions? And if so, can they 

replace the model kit?  

RESEARCH QUESTION 

 In our study, we aimed to test the application of VR in chemical education. As stated 

before, undergraduate chemistry students are usually encouraged to buy molecular model kits 

and use them to supplement their understanding of the unseen chemical world. We put these 

traditional model kits to the test against a basic $25 VR/AR/WBVE system via a smartphone app 

called Sketchfab. In the research conducted by O’Connor et al. (2018), sophisticated VR systems 

were used that involve headpieces and controllers. Systems like these can cost up to hundreds of 

dollars. Here, we tested the utility of a $25 VR/AR/WBVE system that requires only a 

smartphone and a cardboard VR headset (which costs about $25). This is perhaps a more realistic 

application of VR to chemical education due to the cost. Ultimately, the question we answered 

is: will a basic $25 VR/AR/WBVE system better equip a chemistry student to learn concepts, 

pertaining to molecular structures, better than a traditional model kit will. The effectiveness of 

both the VR/AR/WBVE system (via sketchfab) and the model kit as spatial ability interventions 

were also examined in this study. The collection and assessment of anonymous, aggregated, 

student responses for this study was conducted with the approval of the University of Calgary 

ethics board (REB13-0724).    

 



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

71 

METHODS 

To test our research question, we ran a series of experiments on a first-year engineering 

cohort within the bounds of an introductory chemistry class (CHEM 209) at the University of 

Calgary. We administered a baseline assessment of spatial ability via a student engagement tool 

called TopHat. TopHat involves the projection of a question on the lecture hall screen, and 

students answer the question using their smartphones or computers. For the baseline assessment 

we used the Vanderberg and Kuse style spatial ability assessments (as used in the study by 

Caissie, Vigneau, & Bors, 2009) and we made similar questions using molecules to match. 

 

Figure 1. The exact slides used for the base line assessment. The first image from the left 

contains Vaderberg and Kuse models adapted from Caissie et al. (2009) the second image shows 

our own images made using molecules. 

 

We then ran experiments in one week’s worth of tutorial sections. Our main educational 

interventions (for spatial ability improvement) were incorporated into one week’s worth of 

tutorial sections of the CHEM 209 course (there were 11 total tutorial sections and each section 

contained 30 students on average). This resulted in a total of 343 participants who were included 

in this study. The tutorials regularly consist of a 35-minute group activity and a 15-minute 

independent assessment. Six tutorial sections were randomly assigned to the first educational 

intervention and five were assigned to the second. The first intervention had students use the 

VR/AR/WBVE system as an aid for the group activity, and the second intervention had students 

use a traditional model kit. The group activity had students complete a variety of molecular 

structure questions requiring the use of spatial ability (see figure below). The VR/AR/WBVE 

system gave students access to any of the VR, AR, and WBVE technologies through their mobile 

phones. 



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

72 

 

Figure 2. These images depict the VR and AR aspects of the VR/AR/WBVE system. The first 

image from the shows a cardboard headset that the mobile phones were inserted into, and the top 

right of that image shows an example of what students saw (in our case the students experienced 

only one molecule in the virtual environment). The second image depicts a molecule augmented 

onto a physical surface (very similar to what students experienced). WBVE consisted of a 

molecule on a phone screen that could be manipulated by swiping the screen. 

 

This was made possible by the Sketchfab app that students were required to download. The 

use of the VR/AR/WBVE system and the model kit were not allowed during the 15-minute 

tutorial assessment. The same assessment was administered to all sections.  

 

Figure 3. These images are two of the questions that were posed in the assessment. The question 

on the final exam was similar to these. 

 

A final assessment was also administered as a question on the final exam (question similar 

to assessment question).  

RESULTS 

 We conducted a t-test to compare the mean scores of the assessments of the two 

treatments. The students who underwent the VR/AR/WBVE treatment had a mean score of 6.45 

and a standard deviation of 1.82. and those of the model kit treatment had a mean score of 7.21 

with a standard deviation of 1.64. Our null hypothesis stated that the two means are equal. The t-



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

73 

test resulted in a t value of -4.35 and a p value less than 0.05, allowing us to reject our null 

hypothesis that the means are equal. Thus, we conclude that the model kits helped students 

perform significantly better on a standard molecular structure spatial ability assessment. 

 We also conducted a permutation test to compare the mean baseline assessment score to 

the mean final assessment score. The students scored a mean of 1.04 with a standard deviation of 

0.47 on the baseline assessment and a mean of 1.71 with a standard deviation of 2.41 on the final 

assessment. Our null hypothesis stated that both means are independent of their respective 

treatment (making them interchangeable i.e. no difference). The permutation test resulted in a z 

score of -3.945 and a p-value less than 0.05. Thus, we conclude that students had significantly 

higher scores after having gone through spatial ability assessments.  

 

 
Figure 4. Table depicting the results of the main statistical analyses performed. 

DISCUSSION 

 We have observed that the findings displayed in the study by Lord (1985) have been 

replicated in our study. Student scores on spatial ability tests were significantly higher at the end 

of the term, after our own spatial ability interventions. This is true for individuals from both 

treatment groups, meaning that both the model kit and the VR/AR/WBVE system were effective 

tools for improving spatial ability. However, this then begs the question: which is better? 

In terms of which strategy is more practical, arguments can be made for both the model kit 

and the viewing technologies. However, in present day time it is safe to say that the vast majority 

of students are carrying their technology everywhere, whether it is a mobile phone or computer. 

As a result, the viewing technologies are more accessible than the model kit. However, in terms 

of effectiveness for the sake of learning, the answer is less clear. In our study we found the mean 

assessment scores of those participants who had the model kit available as an aid to be 

significantly higher than those who had the VR/AR/WBVE system. This leads us to conclude 

that the model kit has helped students more in terms of being an aid to improving spatial ability. 

This is to say that the more economical versions of the VR or AR or WBVE tested here have not 

proven to be a sufficient replacement of the model kit. While more expensive versions of these 

technologies have established their place in the classroom, these results have not yet translated to 

the lower tiers of technology that are more accessible to students. There is still room for 

improvement for these technologies and improved upon they should be as their practicality is 

clear. 

 While the model kit did outperform the VR/AR/WBVE system, the discrepancy is not that 

large. The difference between the means is less than 1 point with the mean of the VR/AR/WBVE 

group (plus its standard deviation) extending beyond the mean of the model kit group. This 

means that it is common for deviant data points (from the mean in the VR/AR/WBVE group) to 

score higher than the mean of the model kit group. These results suggest that the group who used 

the viewing technologies are not far off from the group who used the model kit. Furthermore, our 



Omar & Mozol (2020) 

74 

study was limited in that it did not randomly assign individual participants or separate 

technologies in the VR/AR/WBVE system. Improving upon these aspects would give us more 

insight as to the exact relationship between spatial ability improvement and emerging 

technologies. 

As the literature quoted above suggested (Blatnick, 1986; Hyman; 1982), we are inclined 

to say that it is not necessarily the physical manipulation that is likely to have been important, 

but rather that the model kit was a better learning tool than the VR/AR/WBVE system. This may 

be due to the learning curve associated with using the technology as opposed to the intuitive use 

of the model kit. While students using the technology were tutored in the use of the technology, 

we did observe that many students still needed time to become proficient with the technologies. 

This is compounded by the fact that there is the option of using three different technologies, each 

of which the student needs to be acquainted with. This process of learning to use the technology 

took time and thus took time away from actual spatial ability learning time. Students using the 

model kit were able to jump right into spatial ability learning as using the model kit is intuitive 

and already recommended and instituted in chemistry classrooms in university and even high 

school. 

Another important thing to note here is the fact that the viewing technologies were all 

clumped into one experience. We also left it to students to decide what they wanted to use of the 

three technologies; thus it is not a completely fair comparison of the individual technologies, but 

rather it is an evaluation of the Sketchfab system. Thus, in future studies, it would be important 

and interesting to separate these technologies and give more time for learning to use the 

technology and evaluate their individual utility.  

CONCLUSION 

 Research has demonstrated that individuals who can efficiently and accurately use their 

spatial abilities (that is to mentally identify, manipulate, and reason with 3D objects) achieve 

higher scores in chemistry related evaluations (Harle & Towns, 2011; Sorby, 2009). Thus it is 

important to find ways to help students improve their spatial abilities. One such way is to involve 

a tool that has become very important to the modern student experience: technology. Our study 

has demonstrated that there is a benefit in having “spatial ability aids” both traditional and 

technological. In our study, lower tier viewing technologies have not unequivocally surpassed 

the model kit, but they are not far behind. We also acknowledge some of the aspects of 

experimentation that can be improved upon from this study that perhaps may give the viewing 

technologies a fairer evaluation. In conclusion, it is important that we look at lessons learned 

from our past and apply them to our future. Our past tells us here that spatial ability is important 

and needs to be looked after and improved, and technology may be our greatest tool to 

accomplishing this.  

REFERENCES 

Asai, K., & Takase, N. (2011). Learning molecular structures in a tangible augmented reality 

environment. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments. 

2(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2011010101 

BlackPast, B. (2007) (1964) Malcolm X’s Speech at the Founding Rally of the Organization of 

Afro-American Unity. Retrieved from https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-

history/1964-malcolm-x-s-speech-founding-rally-organization-afro-american-unity/ 

https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2011010101
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1964-malcolm-x-s-speech-founding-rally-organization-afro-american-unity/
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1964-malcolm-x-s-speech-founding-rally-organization-afro-american-unity/


Omar & Mozol (2020) 

75 

Blatnick, R. A. (1986). The effect of three-dimensional models on ninth-grade chemistry scores: 

visualization, molecular models. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest 

Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8626739) 

Caissie, A. F., Vigneau, F., & Bors, D. A. (2009). What does the Mental Rotation Test measure? 

An analysis of item difficulty and item characteristics. Open Psychology Journal, 2(1), 

94-102. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350100902010094 

Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on 

gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse 

samples. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 697.  

Galton, S. F. (1880). Mental imagery. Fortnightly Review, 28, 312-324.  

Guizzo, F., Moè, A., Cadinu, M., & Bertolli, C. (2019). The role of implicit gender spatial 

stereotyping in mental rotation performance. Acta psychologica, 194, 63-68. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.01.013 

Harle, M., & Towns, M. (2011). A review of spatial ability literature, its connection to 

chemistry, and implications for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 351-

360. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900003n 

Hyman, B. S. (1982). The role of student manipulation of molecular models and spatial 

visualization ability on achievement in college level organic chemistry. (Unpublished  

doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, New 

York. 

Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences 

with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational 

Technology, 24(1), 108-122.  

King, M. J., Katz, D. P., Thompson, L. A., & Macnamara, B. N. (2019). Genetic and 

environmental influences on spatial reasoning: A meta-analysis of twin 

studies. Intelligence, 73, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.01.001 

Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use 

technology. Educating the Next Generation, 1, 7-1.  

Lauer, J. E., Yhang, E., & Lourenco, S. F. (2019). The development of gender differences in 

spatial reasoning: A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 145(6), 537.  

Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo‐spatial aptitude of students. Journal of research in 

science teaching, 22(5), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220503 

Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation 

ability measured by the Purdue spatial visualization tests: Visualization of rotations 

(PSVT: R). Educational Psychology Review, 25(1), 69-94.  

O’Connor, M., Deeks, H. M., Dawn, E., Metatla, O., Roudaut, A., Sutton, M., ... & Wonnacott, 

M. (2018). Sampling molecular conformations and dynamics in a multiuser virtual reality 

framework. Science advances, 4(6), eaat2731. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2731 

Rafi, A., Anuar, K., Samad, A., Hayati, M., & Mahadzir, M. (2005). Improving spatial ability 

using a Web-based Virtual Environment (WbVE). Automation in construction, 14(6), 

707-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.12.003 

Sorby, S. A. (2009). Educational research in developing 3‐D spatial skills for engineering 

students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 459-480. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595839 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350100902010094
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.01.013
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed900003n
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.01.001
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220503
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2731
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595839