Main Article Content


Three academic years have been considered for the evaluation of the impact of an online tutoring course of general and inorganic chemistry for freshmen students of the University of Camerino (Italy). The online material mainly consists of video tutorials, other open source web tools and multi-choice self-assessment exercises. During the academic year 2016-2017, the e-learning course was not available yet, but then the online course was first implemented (2017/18) and fully adopted (2018/2019).The online tutoring support was activated alongside a traditional general chemistry course, adopting a blended mode, with the aims of: (i) homogenising freshmen’s chemistry knowledge (ii) fostering the most appropriate method of study in a multi access modality (iii) implementing the Johnstone’s three levels’ knowledge and (iv) increasing students’ self-confidence, by the means of a self-evaluation training process. Differently from previous studies, the online course herein aimed mainly to develop a correct method of study of chemistry topics, with a punctual description of what-and-how to do. The results, i.e. the exam's scores, the time spent in the platform, and the successful percentage of students per year, have been collected and analysed through qualitative and quantitative methods. Apart a general satisfaction of the students perceived by the answers to a survey questionnaire, the analysis of the data shows an increase of 11 % of students passing the final exam within three exam sessions together with an improvement and a positive correlation between the time spent on the platform and the mid-term scores achieved.


Moodle Blended Learning Tutoring Online Chemistry Education

Article Details

How to Cite
Schettini, C., Amendola, D., Borsini, I., & Galassi, R. (2020). A blended learning approach for general chemistry modules using a Moodle platform for first year academic students. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(2), 61-72.


  1. Abrahim, S., Mir, B. A., Suhara, H., Mohamed, F. A., & Sato, M. (2019). Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis of social media use and education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 32.
  2. Bell, P., & Volckmann, D. (2011). Knowledge surveys in general chemistry: confidence, overconfidence, and performance. J. Chem. Educ., 88(11), 1469-1476.
  3. Benedict, L., & Pence, H. E. (2012). Teaching chemistry using student-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional barcodes. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 492-496.
  4. Brouwer, N. and McDonnell, C. (2009). Online Support and Online Assessment for Teaching and Learning Chemistry. in Eilks, I. & Byers, B. (Eds.), Innovative Methods of Teaching and Learning Chemistry in Higher Education. Cambridge UK: RSC Publishing, pp. 123-152.
  5. Capogna, S. (2012). University and E-learning Classes in Italy. E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(2), 143-156.
  6. Cardinale, A. M. (2008). A way to improve undergraduate engagement when learning chemistry: An online support for exercises and pre-lab activities. Message posted to online workspace for this chapter at www. surfgroepen. nl/sites/ECTN/default. aspx.
  7. Collis B., (2003), Course redesign for blended learning: modern optics for technical professionals, Int. J. Cont. Eng. Educ. Life. Learn., 13 (1-2), 22-38.
  8. Dori Y.J., Rodrigues S., Schanze S. (2013) How to Promote Chemistry Learning Through the use of Ict. In: Eilks I., Hofstein A. (eds) Teaching Chemistry – A Studybook. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
  9. Garrison, D. R. and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education, Internet High. Educ., 7(2), 95-105.
  10. Graham, C. R. and Robison R. (2007). Realizing the transformational potential of blended learning: Comparing cases of transforming blends and enhancing blends in higher education. in Picciano A.G. and Dziuban C.D. (Eds), Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. New York: The Sloan Consortium, pp 83-110.
  11. Gulacar, O., Overton, T. L., Bowman, C. R., & Fynewever, H. (2013). A novel code system for revealing sources of students' difficulties with stoichiometry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(4), 507-515.
  12. He, Y., Swenson, S. and Lents, N. (2012). Online video tutorials increase learning of difficult concepts in an undergraduate analytical chemistry course. J. Chem. Educ., 89(9), 1128-1132.
  13. Hill, J. R. and Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 49(3), 37-52.
  14. Johnstone, A. H. (1982). Macro and micro chemistry. Sch Sci Rev, 64, 377-379.
  15. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comp. Assist. Learn., 7, 75-83.
  16. Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry teaching-science or alchemy? 1996 Brasted lecture. J. Chem. Educ., 74(3), 262.
  17. Kennepohl, D., Guay, M., & Thomas, V. (2010). Using an online, self-diagnostic test for introductory general chemistry at an open university. J. Chem. Educ., 87(11), 1273-1277.
  18. Kleinman R.W., Griffin H.C. and Kerner N.K., (1987), Images in chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 64, 766-770.
  19. Kozielska, M. (2004) Developing creativity of students in a computer-assisted learning process, Eur. J. Phys., 25 (2), 279-285.
  20. Lau González, M., Jáuregui Haza, U., Pérez Gramagtes, A., Fariñas León, G., & Le Bolay, N. (2014). Supporting students’ learning to learn in general chemistry using Moodle. J. Chem. Educ., 91(11), 1823-1829.
  21. Lijnse P.L., Licht P., Waarlo A.J. and de Vos W. (Eds.), (1990), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles, Proceedings of Conference at Utrecht Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Utrecht, and references therein.
  22. Lovatt, J., Finlayson, O. E. and James, P. (2007). Evaluation of student engagement with two learning supports in the teaching of 1st year undergraduate chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8, 390-402.
  23. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2012). Increasing interactivity and authenticity of chemistry instruction through data acquisition systems and other technologies. J. Chem. Educ., 89(4), 477-481.
  24. Nakhleh M.B. and Mitchell R.C., (1993), Conceptual learning vs problem solving, J. Chem. Educ., 70, 190-192.
  25. Roggenkämper, D. and Waitz, T. (2017). Connecting Exercises and Video Tutorials to Support Teaching/Learning Processes in University Chemistry Education. Libreriauniversitaria. it Edizioni, New Perspectives in Science Education, Florence, Italy, 16-17 March 2017, (p. 290).
  26. Russell, J. W., Kozma R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N. and Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts, J. Chem. Educ., 74(3), 330.
  27. Saltzberg, S. Polyson, S. (1995). Distributed learning on the world wide web. Syllabus Journal, 9(1), 10-12.
  28. Sanger, M. J. Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students' misconceptions in electrochemistry regarding current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge, J. Chem. Educ. , 74(7), 819-823.
  29. Schettini C., Zamponi S., Galassi R. and Amendola D. (2018). On line tutorial modules to address students to a timely adoption of an appropriate method for studying key concepts of General Chemistry in an undergraduate course. Libreria universitaria. it Edizioni, New Perspectives in Science Education, Florence, Italy, 16-17 March 2017, (pp. 172-176).
  30. Stowe, R. L., & Cooper, M. M. (2019). Assessment in Chemistry Education. Isr. J. Chem. 59, 598-607.
  31. Tallmadge, W. and Chitester, B. (2010). Integrating concepts using online tutorials in a freshman chemistry course, Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 4(2), 1-7.
  32. Tasker, R. and Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 7(2), 141-159.
  33. Tekane, R. R., Pilcher, L. A. and Potgieter, M. (2019). Blended learning in a second year organic chemistry class: students' perceptions and preferences of the learning support, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., DOI: 10.1039/C9RP00099B.
  34. Velázquez-Marcano, A., Williamson, V. M., Ashkenazi, G., Tasker, R. and Williamson, K. C. (2004). The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 13(3), 315-323.
  35. Vician, C. and Charlesworth, P. (2003). Leveraging technology for chemical sciences education: an early assessment of WebCT usage in first-year chemistry courses, J. Chem. Educ., 80 (11), 1333-7.
  36. Vishnumolakala, V. R., Southam, D. C., Treagust, D. F., Mocerino, M., & Qureshi, S. (2017). Students’ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences in a modified process-oriented guided inquiry learning undergraduate chemistry classroom. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract, 18(2), 340-352.
  37. Williams, N. A., Bland, W. and Christie, G. (2008). Improving student achievement and satisfaction by adopting a blended learning approach to inorganic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9 (1), 43-50.
  38. Williamson, V. M. and Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 32(5), 521-534.
  39. Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. Int. J. Science Educ., 25(9), 1081-1094.