Keywords
3D molecular modelling
conceptual understanding of molecular structures
pre-service chemistry teachers
How to Cite
Abstract
This study addresses persistent difficulties in understanding abstract chemical concepts such as hybridization, hybrid orbitals, and molecular geometry in chemistry teacher education. Due to their invisible and highly abstract nature, these topics are often associated with misconceptions and limited spatial reasoning among pre-service teachers. The study examines how technology-supported three-dimensional (3D) modeling and printing practices are incorporated into learning processes and how these practices relate to conceptual understanding. A mixed-methods research design was adopted to examine both conceptual outcomes and participants’ perspectives. Quantitative data were collected through a two-tier Molecular Geometry Diagnostic Test administered before and after a semester-long instructional implementation. Qualitative data were obtained through focus group interviews. The findings indicate notable improvements in participants’ understanding of hybridization, molecular structures consistent with the octet rule, and valence shell electron pair repulsion–based molecular geometries, alongside a reduction in common misconceptions. Qualitative findings revealed that interaction with both digital and physically printed 3D models supported the concretization of abstract concepts, enhanced spatial reasoning, and promoted meaningful learning through a combination of visual and tactile engagement. Participants emphasized that hands-on modeling activities helped them establish stronger connections between symbolic representations and molecular-level structures. Despite these pedagogical benefits, limitations related to technical infrastructure and insufficient prior training were identified as challenges to sustainable implementation. Overall, the results highlight the practical value of integrating 3D visualization and modeling practices into chemistry teacher education programs, underscoring the need for systematic professional development opportunities to support pre-service teachers’ technological and pedagogical competencies.
References
[1] J. K. Gilbert, C. J. Boulter, and R. Elmer, “Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education,” in Developing Models in Science Education, Dordrecht: Springer, 2000, pp. 3–17. (in English).
[2] C. V. Schwarz and B. Y. White, “Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling,” Cognition and Instruction, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 165–205, 2005, doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1. (in English).
[3] R. Justi and J. Gilbert, “Models and modelling in chemical education,” in Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice, Dordrecht: Springer, 2002, pp. 47–68. (in English).
[4] A. G. Harrison and D. F. Treagust, “Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple‐model use in grade 11 chemistry,” Science Education, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 352–381, 2000, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J.(in English).
[5] R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, “Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 671–688, 2003, doi: 10.1080/09500690305016. (in English).
[6] J. D. Gobert and B. C. Buckley, “Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 891–894, 2000, doi: 10.1080/095006900416839. (in English).
[7] L. E. Mnguni, “The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education,” SpringerPlus, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 184, 2014, doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-184. (in English).
[8] D. M. Cullen, “Modeling instruction: A learning progression that makes high school chemistry more coherent to students,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 92, no. 8, pp. 1279–1286, 2015, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00544. (in English).
[9] B. C. Gross et al., “Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 3240–3253, 2014, doi: 10.1021/ac403397r. (in English).
[10] M. Abdinejad et al., “Student perceptions using augmented reality and 3D visualization technologies in chemistry education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09880-2 .(in English).
[11] A. H. Johnstone, “The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 70, no. 9, p. 701, 1993, doi: 10.1021/ed070p701.(in English).
[12] H. K. Wu and P. Shah, “Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning,” Science Education, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 465–492, 2004, doi: 10.1002/sce.10126.(in English).
[13] Z. Wang et al., “Chemistry teachers’ knowledge and application of models,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 211–226, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9455-7.(in English).
[14] A. S. Grumman and F. A. Carroll, “3D-printing electron density isosurface models,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 1133–1137, 2019, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00597.(in English).
[15] V. F. Scalfani and T. P. Vaid, “3D printed molecules and extended solid models,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 91, no. 8, pp. 1174–1180, 2014, doi: 10.1021/ed400887t.(in English).
[16] M. R. Penny et al., “Three-dimensional printing of a scalable molecular model and orbital kit for organic chemistry teaching and learning,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1265–1271, 2017, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00953.(in English).
[17] H. Agrawaal and J. E. Thompson, “Additive manufacturing (3D printing) for analytical chemistry,” Talanta Open, vol. 3, Art. no. 100036, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.talo.2021.100036.(in English).
[18] O. A. H. Jones and M. J. S. Spencer, “A simplified method for the 3D printing of molecular models for chemical education,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1231–1234, 2017, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00533.(in English).
[19] A. Aslan, Ü. G. Durukan, and D. Batman, “An overview of the 3D solid model design and usage needs of physics, chemistry, and biology teachers,” International Journal of 3D Printing Technology and Digital Industry, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 515–534, 2021. doi: 10.46519/ij3dptdi.991955.(in English).
[20] C. Thyssen and M. Meier, “3D printing as an element of teaching—Perceptions and perspectives of teachers at German schools,” Frontiers in Education, vol. 8, Art. no. 1233337, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1233337.(in English).
[21] A. V. Savchenkov, “Designing three-dimensional models that can be printed on demand and used with students to facilitate teaching molecular structure, symmetry, and related topics,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 97, pp. 1682–1687, 2020, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00192.(in English).
[22] M. J. Song, “Overcoming barriers to the implementation of 3D printing in schools,” in Integrating 3D Printing into Teaching and Learning: Practitioners’ Perspectives, N. Ali and M. S. Khine, Eds. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense, 2020, pp. 72–89, doi: 10.1163/9789004415133_005.(in English).
[23] S. Ford and T. Minshall, “Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education,” Additive Manufacturing, vol. 25, pp. 131–150, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.(in English).
[24] E. Dinc, “Prospective teachers’ perceptions of barriers to technology integration in education,” Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 381–398, 2019, doi: 10.30935/cet.000000.(in English).
[25] P. A. Ertmer and A. T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, “Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning,” Computers & Education, vol. 64, pp. 175–182, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008. (in English).
[26] J. Keengwe, G. Onchwari, and P. Wachira, “Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 560–565, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5.(in English).
[27] H. D. Osorio Vanegas, Y. d. M. Segovia Cifuentes, and A. Sobrino Morrás, “Educational technology in teacher training: A systematic review of competencies, skills, models, and methods,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 1036, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15081036.(in English).
[28] J. W. Creswell and V. L. Plano Clark, “Revisiting mixed methods research designs twenty years later,” in The SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods Research Design, C. N. Poth, Ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2023, pp. 21–36, doi: 10.4135/9781529682663.n6.(in English).
[29] M. A. Uyulgan, N. Akkuzu, and Ş. Alpat, “Assessing the students’ understanding related to molecular geometry using a two-tier diagnostic test,” Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 839–855, 2014, doi: 10.33225/jbse/14.13.839.(in English).
[30] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.(in English).
[31] M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 1994.(in English).
[32] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.(in English).
[33] C. D. Kenneally and B. Bentley, “A cognitive load approach to molecular geometries: Augmented reality technology and visuospatial abilities in chemistry,” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 9, Art. no. 1036, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14091036.(in English).
[34] E. Novak and S. Wisdom, “Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about teaching science,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 412–432, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10956-018-9733-5.(in English).
[35] H. Endeshaw, C. Akowuah, T. A. Asaed, V. E. Brown, K. Cua, M. Dang, E. Giwa, J. Gonzalez, A. Gsibat, S. Lo, S. Serrano, H. Sise, and D. J. O’Leary, “Multicolor 3D-printed molecular orbital models for a first-semester organic chemistry course,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 194–206, 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00945.(in English).
[36] R. de Cataldo, K. M. Griffith, and K. H. Fogarty, “Hands-on hybridization: 3D-printed models of hybrid orbitals,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 95, no. 9, pp. 1601–1606, 2018, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00078.(in English).
[37] M. Teplá, P. Teplý, and P. Šmejkal, “Influence of 3D models and animations on students in natural subjects,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 9, Art. no. 65, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00382-8.(in English).
[38] D. Elford, S. J. Lancaster, and G. A. Jones, “Exploring the effect of augmented reality on cognitive load, attitude, spatial ability, and stereochemical perception,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 322–339, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10956-022-09957-0.(in English).
[39] V. Köstler and M.-S. Wolff, “Promoting digital competencies in pre-service teachers: the impact of integrative learning opportunities,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 337, 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15030337.(in English)
[40] S. Çolak Yazıcı, “Is knowing technology enough? Barriers and perceptions of prospective teachers towards the use of technology in chemistry courses”, Research in Science & Technological Education, pp. 1–23, 2026, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2026.2631612. (in English)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Emeti Sargın, Melis Arzu Uyulgan