Research: Science and Education
A Survey of Computer Use in Undergraduate Physical Chemistry Danny G. Miles, Jr.* Department of Science, Mount St. Mary’s College, Emmitsburg, MD 21727-7796; *
[email protected] Theresa A. Francis Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA 17257-2299
In an effort to determine the extent of computer use in undergraduate physical chemistry, a Web-based questionnaire was designed. Responses to the survey help assess the degree of utilization and implementation of a variety of computer technologies. The response rate was unfortunately low and probably skewed toward those faculty who actively use computers in their courses. The data may thus indicate an emerging trend in physical chemistry instruction rather than a snapshot of the current state of computer use among physical chemistry faculty. The survey is an ongoing project which will be updated periodically. Procedure The questionnaire was originally placed on the Web during the summer of 1999. The survey can be found at http:// www.msmary.edu/college/html/undergraduate/science/ survey2.htm (accessed Aug 2002) and at http:// www2.monmouth.edu/physical_chemistry/survey.html (accessed Aug 2002). The respondent can indicate whether use of symbolic math software, spreadsheets, molecular modeling software, computer programming skills, graphing calculators, Web resources, and simulation software is required or recommended for the lecture or laboratory components of thermodynamics, kinetics, quantum chemistry, and spectroscopy. The general categories of symbolic math software, spreadsheets, molecular modeling software, and computer programming skills are subdivided into specific items, for example, under symbolic math software are Maple, Mathcad, and Mathematica. The survey takes less than ten minutes to complete. An Excel macro was written to sort the data. An email message requesting participation in the survey was sent to the members of George Long’s physical chemistry online discussion group, http://pcol.ch.iup.edu (accessed Aug 2002). After this trial run, the email request was sent to physical chemistry faculty listed in the American Chemical Society 1996 College Chemistry Faculties directory (1). Approximately 1560 email requests were sent, of which about 400 could not be delivered. An email version of the survey was also made available. Results and Discussion There was about an 8.4% (98/1160) response rate for the survey. Results obtained are shown in Table 1. The last column of the table gives the total number of responses to each major item, for example, 32 of the 98 responding teachers use Web resources in some component of their courses. The same respondent could have chosen more than one option within each category.
The rate of return is disappointing and precludes any type of rigorous analysis; it cannot be determined whether the group of respondents is representative of physical chemistry faculty as a whole. However, it is likely that the respondents have an interest in computer use since they were motivated to submit a completed survey. The data presented here are thus skewed toward a self-selected group of faculty who use computers. About 80% (78/98) of the respondents indicated that some type of spreadsheet is required or recommended in their physical chemistry courses. This is not surprising given that spreadsheets are commonly available and easily mastered for routine applications. Students have probably been exposed to spreadsheets in other courses and so already have some familiarity with the software. Spreadsheets are used extensively in all four areas of the physical chemistry curriculum, especially in the laboratory components where spreadsheets allow data manipulation and analysis, repetitive calculations, and graphical analysis to be performed easily. Table 1 shows that the respondents heavily favor Excel. Molecular modeling software is required or recommended by about 57% (56/98) of the respondents, mainly in the quantum chemistry and spectroscopy portions of the course. Spartan and HyperChem are the two most popular types of molecular modeling software; relatively few respondents chose CAChe or Alchemy. About half of the respondents (51/98) require or recommend some type of symbolic math software. Mathcad and Maple are the most popular choices; Mathcad use is fairly evenly distributed throughout the curriculum (in both lecture and laboratory), while Maple use is greatest in quantum chemistry lecture. The Mathcad Documents for Physical Chemistry Web site, http://www.monmouth.edu/~tzielins/ mathcad (accessed Aug 2002), deserves credit for increasing the awareness of Mathcad among physical chemistry teachers. Mathematica was the choice of very few respondents. (For comparison, a search in the Journal online index gives sixteen citations with Mathcad in the title, ten with Mathematica, and three with Maple.) Some students may arrive in physical chemistry with a working knowledge of Maple, Mathematica, or Mathcad from their calculus courses, but then have to learn a different application. Increased communication between physical chemistry and mathematics faculty could lead to better integration of software needs (2). Web resources are required or recommended by about one-third (32/98) of the respondents, with greatest use in thermodynamics. A list of Web resources cited by some respondents is given in the Appendix. Relatively few respondents require or recommend use of computer programming skills, specific simulation software,
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 12 December 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1477
Research: Science and Education
or graphing calculators (about 15% each). The first two results are not surprising since the necessity for programming has declined as more user-friendly software has become available, and specific simulation software (such as Diatomic) applies to a particular topic. However, it might be expected that a higher percentage of respondents would choose graphing calculators, given that students probably already have used graphing calculators in their calculus courses, or even in high school (2). This may imply poor communication between physical chemistry and mathematics faculty.
such information can be of assistance to both beginning and experienced teachers as they make decisions for their own courses regarding computer use. It should be emphasized that successful integration of computers into a curriculum requires a substantial time commitment by both teachers and students; time requirements should be carefully considered before attempting to teach new computer skills (3). Given the likely bias of the respondent population, that group may constitute a core of active computer users among physical chemistry faculty. We speculate that the results obtained in the survey may reflect an emerging trend in the use of computers for physical chemistry instruction, rather than the manner in which the general population of physical chemistry teachers use computers. The most widely used application among the respondents is the spreadsheet; use of molecular modeling and symbolic math software lags behind. We think physical chemistry
Summary The survey results presented here are probably skewed toward a self-selected group of faculty who use computers. The results give physical chemistry teachers a general indication of how some of their colleagues are using computers;
Table 1. Survey Results by Topic in Physical Chemistry Type of Computer Usage
Thermodynamics Lecture
Lab
Kinetics
Quantum Chemistry
Spectroscopy
Lecture
Lab
Lecture
Lab
Lecture
Lab
29
49
20
36
23
46
Spreadsheets Excel
78 29
47
Quattro Pro
4
7
6
8
2
3
3
7
Other
5
11
2
10
3
10
3
7
Alchemy
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
CAChe
0
1
0
0
3
3
2
2
HyperChem
0
4
0
1
13
20
7
12
Spartan
2
2
1
3
24
24
13
16
Other
0
1
0
0
6
8
1
1
9
6
9
6
18
7
14
8
Molecular Modeling Software
56
Symbolic Math Software Maple Mathcad
Number of Responses
51 16
12
17
14
21
17
15
16
Mathematica
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
Other
1
4
1
5
0
2
1
2
23
18
17
9
16
18
10
10
Basic
5
4
4
3
4
1
2
2
Fortran
1
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
Pascal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C++
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
0
5
0
2
0
2
0
1
Simulation
4
7
0
1
8
4
2
2
17
12
10
8
4
12
8
7
6
15
Web Resources Programming
Graphing Calculator
1478
32 14
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 79 No. 12 December 2002 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education
teachers should view the results as both a challenge and an opportunity to develop more computer-based activities which utilize software other than spreadsheets, take full advantage of Web resources, and effectively transfer technical skills. Acknowledgments We acknowledge helpful discussions with Jerrold Jacobsen, Robert Keefer, and Theresa Zielinski. D. G. M. thanks Mount St. Mary’s College, the University of Wisconsin–Madison Department of Chemistry, and the New Traditions systemic chemistry initiative (NSF DUE 9455928) for support during sabbatical leave. We especially thank our physical chemistry colleagues who graciously responded to the survey.
NIST Chemistry Webbook; thermodynamic and spectral data. http://webbook.nist.gov/ (accessed Aug 2002). Mathcad documents for physical chemistry. http:// www.monmouth.edu/~tzielins/mathcad (accessed Aug 2002). Course page for physical chemistry (uses Atkins text). http://www.public.asu.edu/~laserweb/woodbury/classes/ chm341.htm (accessed Aug 2002). Site on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. http:// www.secondlaw.com (accessed Aug 2002). Website for Atkins text. http://www.whfreeman.com/ pchem/index.htm (accessed Aug 2002). World of physical chemistry. http://www-wilson.ucsd.edu/ education/pchem (accessed Aug 2002).
Other Sites Literature Cited 1. College Chemistry Faculties 1996, 10th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C., 1996. 2. Bressoud, D. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 578–581. 3. Zielinski, T. J.; Brooks, D. W.; Crippen, K. J.; March, J. L. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 714–715.
ChemLinks modules. http://chemlinks.beloit.edu/modules/ modules.html (accessed Aug 2002). IrYdium project: Java-enhanced chemical education. http:/ ir.chem.cmu.edu/irproject (accessed Aug 2002). Total ozone mapping spectrometer. http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov (accessed Aug 2002). Unit conversions. http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/units.html (accessed Aug 2002).
Appendix of Relevant Web Sites The Web sites below were cited by some respondents in the survey.
Direct Applications to Physical Chemistry Physical chemistry online virtual learning community. http://pcol.ch.iup.edu/ (accessed Aug 2002).
Biography of Niels Bohr. http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/ history/Mathematicians/Bohr_Niels.html (accessed Aug 2002). Website for publication Scientific Computing and Instrumentation. http://www.scamag.com (accessed Aug 2002). SciCentral. http://www.sciquest.com (accessed Sept 2002). Chemistry at University of Sheffield. http:// www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry (accessed Aug 2002).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 79 No. 12 December 2002 • Journal of Chemical Education
1479
