Exploring the Impact of Self-Directed Learning with Interactive Notebooks on Students’ Experiences in a Chemical Thermodynamics Exercise

Abstract

The Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) Marketplace was a joint initiative by the vice rectorate for academic affairs and the vice rectorate for digitization and change management at Graz University of Technology to modernize lectures. As part of this initiative, an exercise course on chemical thermodynamics was redesigned as a learner-centered course and enriched with interactive learning materials designed to promote self-directed learning. The core of the method used to implement this redesign is interactive notebooks created in Wolfram Mathematica to enable students to work through the examples independently, in depth, and irrespective of time, with the required theoretical background integrated into the notebooks. In this paper, we ask the following questions: RQ1: How did students use and accept the interactive notebooks? RQ2: What was the impact of the interactive notebooks and the corresponding course design as perceived by the students? To answer these questions, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey with 45 course students and statistically analyzed the results. Key results for RQ1 show that $93.33\%$ of the participating students reported using the interactive notebooks, and technology acceptance (1 = low TA, 5 = high TA) was high in both the dimensions of perceived usefulness ($m=3.88$) and attitude ($m=4.24$). Regarding RQ2, our key results show that students perceived the notebooks to have a positive impact on their learning experience, especially regarding their self-directed learning. The results of this work are in alignment with observations by lecturers, which showed that this more student-centric course design and the integration of the interactive learning materials made it possible to clarify detailed questions during the independent learning phase, allowing the interactive part of the course to focus on the tactical approaches, solutions, and problems that arose during the calculations, which raised the overall level of content teaching.

1. Introduction

Chemical thermodynamics is a foundational subject in the field of chemical and process engineering and, in this context, is a fundamental prerequisite for thermal separation operations and the computer simulation of plants and processes, i.e., topics that are covered in studies such as chemical and process engineering or chemical and pharmaceutical engineering. Complementary to technical thermodynamics, chemical thermodynamics also covers phase equilibria and chemical reaction equilibria, with a particular focus on mixtures.

Because these topics are based on abstract concepts such as reference states in the context of phase equilibrium calculations or the characterization of mixtures by partial molar properties, chemical thermodynamics is considered a difficult and demanding subject for students and teachers (Sokrat et al., 2014).

The challenging nature of this subject area is also reflected in the lecturers’ many years of experience that, in feedback, students often report difficulties working through this material or need to take the final written exam of the exercise twice, where chemical thermodynamics is to be applied in practical calculations. This was the motivation to redesign an exercise in chemical thermodynamics, which was previously based mainly on frontal teaching, where examples were calculated in detail and little self-participation by the students was required.

The exercise course in chemical thermodynamics, which is the focus of this paper, is part of one bachelor’s program (Chemical and Process Engineering) and two master’s programs (Biorefinery Engineering, and Chemical and Pharmaceutical Engineering). The redesign of this course entailed (1) a didactic shift in the mode of teaching from frontal teaching to learner-centric teaching and self-directed learning, and (2) the development of interactive learning materials to support this endeavor. For this purpose, content and exercises in chemical thermodynamics were prepared as interactive, digital Wolfram notebooks (Wolfram Research, Inc., 2024) for each individual calculation task. By implementing manipulable diagrams and animated equations and supplementing theoretical content to create a complete, interactive textbook, students were enabled to interact with course content and thus learn independently, in depth, and irrespective of time, with the required theoretical background integrated into the notebooks (Panadero, 2017).

The redesign of this course was made possible by the Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) Marketplace of Graz University of Technology, a joint initiative by the vice rectorate for academic affairs and the vice rectorate for digitalization and change management to modernize university teaching and create sustainable innovations for learning (Bangerl et al., 2024; Dennerlein et al., 2020).

This paper makes a relevant contribution by presenting and reporting on a newly developed type of interactive learning material and corresponding course design, which were specifically developed to improve students’ motivation for learning and their comprehension of complex theoretical contents typical of chemical thermodynamics. We report on the course context, the course design, the setup of the exercise, and the learning intervention in terms of the interactive learning materials used. Further, this work entails methods and results of an accompanying questionnaire-based survey administered in the course regarding the interactive learning materials used by participating students in two semesters and experiences with this concept from the point of view of teachers.

In this paper, we answer the following research questions regarding questionnaire answers from students on their usage and perception of the interactive notebooks in the context of the general course and their learning experience in it:

• RQ1—Usage and Acceptance of Notebooks: How did students use and accept the interactive notebooks?
• RQ2—Perceived Impact: What was the impact of the interactive notebooks and the corresponding course design as perceived by the students?

The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, the challenges of the subject area, self-directed learning, and interactive learning materials are introduced. In Section 3, the methods and learning materials used in course design are presented, and the methodologies used for surveys and data analysis are described. Results are presented in Section 4. A discussion of results and an outlook on future work follows in Section 5. Conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

2. Related Work

2.1. Challenges of Teaching Chemical Thermodynamics

Chemical thermodynamics is regarded as a difficult and demanding subject for students and teachers (Sokrat et al., 2014). Due to the focus on abstract concepts such as reference states in the context of phase equilibrium calculations or the characterization of mixtures by partial molar properties, which require substantial theoretical and practical knowledge, learners can easily develop misconceptions and struggle to develop a holistic understanding of the learning contents (Sreenivasulu & Subramaniam, 2013). Research on teaching chemical thermodynamics has repeatedly shown that students require significant mathematical skills to understand and apply thermodynamic methods and models, but also benefit greatly from intrinsic motivation, personal interest in the course subjects, and a structured learning approach (Bain et al., 2014; Sokrat et al., 2014; Sözbilir, 2004). Thus, students studying chemical thermodynamics would benefit most from a student-centered teaching style that involves active and self-directed learning, as has been shown in several studies (e.g., Partanen, 2016; Ryan & Reid, 2016; Weber et al., 2024).

2.2. Self-Directed Learning

Self-directed learning denotes a proactive type of learning in which students take control of their own learning process, thereby “transform[ing] their mental abilities into academic skills” (Zimmerman, 2002, p. 65). Critically, self-directed learning is understood as an activity that is purposefully and independently carried out by the learner, as opposed to learning as a reaction to being taught by someone else (Zimmerman, 2002).

According to Garrison’s model (Garrison, 1997), self-directed learning has three critical dimensions, namely, self-management, self-monitoring, and motivation. Self-management refers to taking control over one’s learning strategies and materials. Self-monitoring includes taking responsibility for reflecting on, making sense of, and integrating the learning contents. Finally, motivation denotes a commitment to one’s learning, as well as maintaining concentration and building interests.

Much research has confirmed a positive relationship between self-directed learning abilities and (academic) performance (Dent & Koenka, 2016; Mega et al., 2014; Zimmerman, 1990). Further, empirical investigations on self-directed learning have indicated positive effects on learner satisfaction (Kuo et al., 2014; K. Li, 2019).

The encouragement of self-directed learning was a central part of the course redesign described in this work. The aim of promoting this method of learning was to allow students to learn about and apply the complex concepts and methods of chemical thermodynamics at their own pace to facilitate a deeper understanding of the subject (Greene, 2015).

2.3. Interactive Learning Materials

One approach to promoting self-directed learning among students and supporting them in engaging with the learning content is offering interactive learning materials.

A learner’s (self-directed) interaction with their learning materials, intending to understand and internalize the learning content, is a traditional and frequently practiced form of learning. Following Moore (1989), the interaction between learner and content thus corresponds to cognitive self-explanation. Interactive learning materials may support this process through interactability, i.e., the affordance of the learning material to be interacted with (Janlert & Stolterman, 2017). Interactability might be facilitated by the design of an object, e.g., learning materials, through qualities such as reactivity to the learner’s actions, or the offer of a rich environment for different learner–material interactions (Janlert & Stolterman, 2017).

Interactive learning materials can take many different forms, depending on the context of learning content, the group of learners, and the pedagogical and technological context. For example, Kaplar et al. (2022) developed interactive learning materials on mathematical reasoning for 12-year-olds, which included immediate feedback, manipulation of objects, quizzes, and gamification elements. Similarly, Lopes et al. (2020) created a tool for teaching statistics to university students, which included elements such as interactive assessment, a mathematical equation editor, and video lessons. Another example is provided by Mikroyannidis et al. (2015), who explored the development of ebooks with incorporated elements of interactivity, e.g., the design and simulation of online experiments. Hadaya and Hanif (2019) investigated the impact of employing interactive ebooks in a junior high school class and found significantly improved learning outcomes as a result of using the ebooks. In a qualitative study, Naftaliev and Yerushalmy (2022) investigated in detail how different learners used interactive diagrams in mathematical learning and concluded that independent interaction with the interactive materials supported self-directed understanding of the contents and curiosity regarding the learning topic. Finally, Hwang and Lai (2017) compared the usage of interactive ebooks with videos for flipped-classroom learning and found that students who used the interactive learning materials developed a greater self-efficacy in learning. Further, the usage of interactive learning materials led to improvements in learning outcomes throughout the group, irrespective of learners’ degree of self-efficacy.

In summary, the main promises of interactive learning materials, which have been identified in studies on interactive learning materials discussed above (Hadaya & Hanif, 2019; Hwang & Lai, 2017; Kaplar et al., 2022; S. Li et al., 2018), are (1) an improved understanding of course contents by students, corresponding to greater academic success, and (2) a fostering of interest, motivation, and self-directed learning of students, prompting them to actively engage with the course materials. However, due to the wide range of learning content, learner groups, and specific forms of interactive learning materials, it is difficult to draw general conclusions.

Each form of interactive learning material should ideally be investigated in its specific context of use. Therefore, we have conducted a survey investigating students’ usage and perception of interactive notebooks on chemical thermodynamics, which were developed by the authors and integrated into a university course on the same topic, as well as an investigation of students’ general learning experience and strategies in this course.

3. Materials and Methods

In this section, we provide a brief description of the course, the learning materials, and details on sampling and analysis.

3.1. Course Context

The objective of the exercise “Chemical Thermodynamics I”, awarding 1 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) credit, is to enable students to select and apply appropriate models to describe phase equilibria, particularly in preparation for the simulation of processes with commercial simulation programs like Aspen Plus (Sandler, 2015).

The topics covered in the corresponding lecture of the same name, which is held in parallel with this exercise and awards three ECTS credits, are as follows: (i) an introduction; (ii) phenomenological thermodynamics of phase diagrams; (iii) thermal equations of state for pure fluids; (iv) Gibbs’ calculus of thermodynamics; (v) the application of Maxwell’s relations; (vi) caloric standard data; (vii) mixtures; (viii) the calculation of nonideal phase equilibria; (ix) vapor–liquid equilibrium in detail; (x) an overview of process simulation and process design. The material is first taught theoretically in the lecture and then covered in the exercise.

The exercise, which is designed to teach practical calculation skills, picks up from above lecture chapters (ii) for the estimation of critical data, comprehensive application of saturation pressure equations, calculation of the enthalpy of evaporation, and drawing of diagrams for ideal binary systems; (iii) for the estimation of the acentric factor and application of equations of state to pure component systems; (v) for calculation of the saturation pressure with equation of states; (vi) for caloric calculations; (vii) for calculation of volumes and fugacity coefficients of mixtures; (ix) for drawing of diagrams for nonideal systems.

Typical difficulties in this exercise for students observed throughout the grading process over the years were confidence in converting physical units, transforming thermodynamic model equations according to specific variables, solving equations for one or two variables, developing a sense of scale, and fully utilizing all the capabilities of a calculator. The adapted course design described below is targeted at tackling these difficulties.

3.2. Course Design

The course is intended for students who have completed basic math training as well as training in technical thermodynamics. The theoretical concepts for the exercises are taught in a lecture of the same name during the same semester.

The aim of the exercise is to gain problem-solving skills by acquiring the ability to safely and accurately apply thermodynamic relationships and convert physical units with the use of a calculator and the formulary provided. The calculation skills acquired in the exercise serve as preparation for the final written exam.

The course design for the exercises features elements of the inverted classroom concept (Saichaie, 2020). Beyond going to the associated lecture and learning about fundamental thermodynamic concepts and methods there, students are intended to work through and understand the application of the taught methods in a self-directed manner. To enable and encourage this, the students are equipped with both the interactive notebooks and the corresponding detailed videos. Both learning materials first summarize the relevant lecture content and then explain and illustrate the step-by-step solutions of the exercise examples. The interactive notebooks include visualized examples with adjustable parameters, such as temperature or pressure (see Figure 1), allowing students to interact and experiment with the course contents on their own and at their preferred speed and level of detail. Subsequently, the notebooks are enriched with theoretical information, designed to help students understand the observed behavior in the visualizations. The videos were then offered as additional, easily accessible and specific inputs that explain the respective methods and contents relevant to the course exercises. Students were encouraged to use both materials to work on the course exercises and prepare for the exercise units.

The in-class units of the exercise involve weekly presentations on practical exercises, for which the interactive notebooks and videos serve as relevant preparatory materials. These presentations contribute 15% to the overall grade, in addition to a one-off homework assignment worth 25% and a final written exam worth 60% of the course grade. For the weekly presentations, 3–4 examples per exercise are to be prepared by all students, and 7–8 presenters are nominated one week in advance. In line with the structure of the interactive notebooks, each example is discussed using the framework displayed in

Table 1. Exercise presentation framework.

Task definition	What is the goal? What must be calculated in what way?
Specifications	Which data are given? Which formulae do we need from the formulary?
Plan of attack	What is the calculation procedure, step by step?
Calculation	What are the selected calculation steps of interest in detail—on the blackboard?
Watchpoints and pitfalls	Where did we have trouble figuring it out?

.

During the exercise, this framework is worked through, whereby each presenter is asked to detail particular aspects of the prepared examples, mainly addressing potential difficulties encountered in the calculation to eliminate ambiguities. In contrast to a detailed step-by-step calculation of the examples, this approach promotes a higher-level understanding of the examples.

Overall, this format was selected to encourage students to use the provided learning materials and try to apply and understand each method on their own, in a self-directed manner. The presentations in class are then used to discuss the course content in detail and clear up potential misunderstandings.

3.3. Learning Intervention

The teaching material comprises a formulary that contains conversion factors, essential thermodynamic relationships and physical property data, and 25 exercises, which are contained in a single Wolfram master-notebook. This material is available for download from the TeachCenter, i.e., the Moodle-based learning management system of Graz University of Technology. In addition, a video of a step-by-step calculation is available for each exercise. The textbook, written exclusively in the Wolfram Language, can be viewed without a license using the Wolfram Player (Wolfram Research, Inc., 2025) available for Windows, Linux, macOS, and iOS.

The Wolfram master-notebook provides an intuitive user interface that was created using low-level boxes and pane objects, as illustrated in Figure 1. The textbook provides the content of each page through a scrollable display panel on the right-hand side. The user can navigate between pages via the navigation bar buttons at the top. An overview of the entire content of the textbook and quick navigation between chapters is provided by a fold-out and resizable “Table of content” panel on the left-hand side.

The interactive plots utilize the manipulable functions available in the Wolfram Language, allowing the user to change input calculation parameters via sliders, buttons, checkboxes, or locators placed directly on the displayed diagrams. The calculation is updated dynamically using the “Dynamic” function to show immediate changes in intermediate and final results of the calculation process. The sliders can also be animated, allowing the user to lean back and view the influence of various parameters. The functions in the Wolfram Language used to create these plots have the same name as their object counterparts.

The diagrams in Figure 1 show the procedure for determining the “stable” phase, using the fugacity coefficient $\phi$ and the Soave–Redlich–Kwong (SRK) equation of state. Without automated calculation software this would be a tedious task, but with the help of the master-textbook, it is possible for the user to explore the change in $\phi$ at different temperature and pressure points with ease.

The 25 actual exercises are accessible from the master-notebook and are uniformly structured as follows:

• An explanation of the color scheme used in the notebook.
• The task definition.
• The specifications, i.e., all information required for the calculation that cannot be found in the formulary.
• An input field for entering the solution, which is checked within an accuracy limit and returns a true/false statement. This offers the student the possibility of self-control when calculating the example without first looking at the solution, as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
• The detailed step-by-step solution of the exercise highlighting intermediate results, information taken from the formulary, and final results.

3.4. Data Collection

We accompanied the change in course design and integration of the interactive notebooks with a two-part questionnaire-based survey, administered at the beginning and end of each semester in which the course took place. The first survey was conducted in the summer term of 2023, and the second in the summer term of 2024. Both had the same study design, which featured two connected questionnaires, mainly on quantitative self-report scales, but also including some open-question items. The first questionnaire was conducted at the beginning of the semester, and the second one near the end of the semester. Due to the identical course design and back-to-back survey, we present the results in a combined form.

All students from the course, in both 2023 and 2024, were invited to participate in the study. They were informed verbally and in writing about the details and conditions of their participation and could ask questions or drop out of the study at any point. The students were asked to give their written informed consent to participate. Students participated in the study with their study IDs (non-anonymously); however, to create a protected space for students to express their honest opinions, the study was conducted and the data was analyzed by a researcher who was not part of the teaching team. Course lecturers only received fully anonymized and aggregated results, and students were informed that their lecturers would not have access to their non-anonymized answers. As this course was taught in English, all questionnaires were available in both English and German, and students could choose the language they were more fluent in.

We only included students who filled in both the preliminary and end-of-semester questionnaires in the final sample. The valid, combined 2023 and 2024 sample consists of 45 students, of whom $51.11\%$ were male, and $48.89\%$ were female. The mean age in the sample was $m=23.21$ years ($md=23$, $sd=2.24$), with an age range between 19 and 31 years. A total of $48.89\%$ of this sample were bachelor-level students, and $51.11\%$ were master-level students. Of the 45 participants, 42 used the interactive notebooks.1

All data were collected via the two questionnaires, which are included in full in Appendix A. The preliminary questionnaire included questions on demographic information and questions about students’ prior knowledge and experiences for the course. On the topic of prior experience, students were asked to self-assess their level of preparedness for the course at the start of the semester. Finally, we asked students if they thought the subject of the course (chemical thermodynamics) was relevant to their professional education, and how confident they were about understanding the course methods and exercises. In the end-of-semester questionnaire, students were once again asked about their perceived relevance of the course subject and their confidence in mastering the course methods and exercises. The questionnaire also contained a series of questions on their course experience, such as the perceived difficulty of the course, course satisfaction, self-directed learning, and whether students expected to pass the course. To assess the impact of the interactive notebook as perceived by the participating students, we measured students’ agreement with statements regarding their learning, motivation, perceived course quality, and user-friendliness of the notebooks. These items were selected from an established questionnaire on learners’ experience in media-based courses by Paechter et al. (2007), which had previously been administered and improved for clarity and understandability in several different university courses in the context of the university-wide initiative that funded this project. Students further answered questions on whether, how, and for which purposes they had used the individual notebooks and other course materials. Finally, we included the scales on attitude and perceived usefulness from the Technology Acceptance Questionnaire by Ghani et al. (2019), based on Venkatesh et al. (2012)’s unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, to inquire about how students accepted the individual notebooks. All questionnaire items were selected or crafted in consultation with experts on Technology-Enhanced Learning. Wordings were chosen carefully, and students reported no issues regarding understandability.

3.5. Data Analysis

We analyzed all closed questionnaire answers by analyzing statistical distributions, performing descriptive statistical analyses, and calculating measures of central tendency. Factorability of questionnaire items on learning strategies and technology acceptance was assessed via the Kaiser–Meyer–Olking (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO measure yielded values > 0.8 (KMO_{learning strategies} = 0.852, KMO_{technology acceptance} = 0.900), and Bartlett’s tests were highly significant (learning strategies: ${\chi }^2$ = $257.11$, $p<0.001$; technology acceptance: ${\chi }^2$ = $355.42$, $p<0.001$), indicating meritorious levels of inter-item correlation (cp. Bartlett, 1954; Kaiser, 1974). For the scales on technology acceptance included in the questionnaire, we further assessed internal scale consistency via Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Both perceived usefulness ($\alpha =0.823$) and attitude ($\alpha =0.786$) reached acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values following Kuckartz et al. (2013); thus scale variables were calculated and used for analysis.

Open-question items were analyzed via inductive qualitative analysis, and similar responses were grouped into categories with numbers of mentions tracked (see, e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2006).

4. Results

4.1. Usage and Acceptance of the Individual Notebooks

The key results for RQ1—Usage and Acceptance of Notebooks regarding the usage of the individual notebooks show that $93.33\%$ of the participating students reported using the interactive notebooks, and technology acceptance (1 = low TA, 5 = high TA) was high in both the dimensions of perceived usefulness ($m=3.88$) and attitude ($m=4.24$).

The majority of students used the notebooks for specific classwork, as well as for a more in-depth understanding of subjects covered in the course. A total of $78.57\%$ of the students who worked with the notebooks reported using them for solving the course exercises, and $76.19\%$ used them for generally understanding the course content. In addition, $50.00\%$ of students further used the notebooks to prepare for the final course exam. Results on the usage of the interactive notebooks are illustrated in Figure 4.

To measure technology acceptance, we administered two scales from Ghani et al. (2019)’s Technology Acceptance Questionnaire on students’ perceived usefulness and attitude towards the interactive notebooks. The results on technology acceptance are illustrated in Figure 5.

The average usefulness score, ranging from 1 (not useful at all) to 5 (very useful), was $m=3.88$ ($md=4$, $sd=0.87$), which can be equated to perceiving the interactive notebooks as rather useful. Regarding attitude, students also found the notebooks rather to very positive, giving them an average score of $m=4.24$ ($md=4.4$, $sd=0.81$).

4.2. Perceived Impact of the Individual Notebooks and the Corresponding Course Design

The key results for RQ2—Perceived Impact (see Figure 6) show that students perceived a positive impact of the interactive notebooks in the areas of self-directed learning and motivation and further reported high satisfaction with the general course and their learning in it.

Students reported a somewhat strong average agreement of $m=4.32$ ($md=4$, $sd=1.38$) with the statement “The interactive notebooks make it easier for me to control my learning paths, strategies, and speed”. Students also reported an average agreement of $m=4.30$ ($md=4$, $1.30$) with the statement “The interactive notebooks can generate enthusiasm for the course subject”.

In two open questions, we also asked students what they liked about the interactive notebooks and what could be improved to make them more helpful or useful.

After summarizing answers, the three most frequently reported answers to the first question were that (1) students liked that the notebooks made it easier for them to understand and visualize course contents (14 mentions), (2) that the notebooks supported students in their learning process by providing structure (11 mentions), and (3) that the notebooks allowed for self-control, e.g., by providing correct answers to exercises (8 mentions).

Regarding the second question on what could be improved, the answers that were received most frequently were the following: (1) Students wanted the notebooks to be more extensive and asked for more content, more details, more visualizations, and more exercises (eight mentions). (2) Students asked for minor design corrections, such as a better navigation system or larger spaces to write in (seven mentions).

The impact of the notebooks on the overall quality of the course was also perceived positively with an average agreement of $m=4.86$ ($md=5$, $sd=1.23$), and students found the notebooks rather user-friendly and easy to understand ($m=4.75$, $md=5$, $sd=1.10$).

Very similar results were also obtained regarding the overall course quality as perceived by the participating students. A total of $82.22\%$ of students answered that they were “(very) satisfied” with the course quality, and no one reported any dissatisfaction.

At the start of the semester, students were asked to indicate how prepared they felt for the course on a scale from 0 (not prepared at all) to 10 (very well prepared). The majority of students rated themselves at a 5 ($33.33\%$) or lower ($38.10\%$), with less than a third of all students feeling better prepared ($28.57\%$).

Despite this initial perception, $73.33\%$ of students rated the difficulty of the course as appropriate, considering the credits awarded. Figure 7 visualizes these results and reveals that only a few students found the course difficulty (much) too low $6.67\%$, some found it somewhat too high ($20.00\%$), and no one found it much too high.

We also asked students (prior to the final course exam) whether they expected to pass the course this semester, and $97.78\%$ of the participating students expected to pass the course.

Finally, as displayed in Figure 8, when asked how much they had learned in the course for their studies and professional training, no one selected the option “very” or “rather little”. The majority of students ($68.89\%$) found that they had learned “rather” or “very much” in the course.

In general, the survey outcomes indicate a positive impact of the notebooks and the corresponding course design on students’ self-reported learning strategies, their motivation, and their perceived learning experience in the course. The individual notebooks were well-accepted by students, and the perceived impact of the notebooks was particularly high in the area of self-directed learning. This can be explained by the fact that, firstly, the notebooks suggest the structure for tackling the problems and, secondly, the special design of the interactive parts helps students to recognize and solve the typical difficulties of this subject area described in Section 3.1. Results also suggest areas for future work by including more content in the notebooks and optimizing the notebooks’ design for better user control.

5. Discussion and Future Work

Our key results on RQ1—Usage and Acceptance of Notebooks show that the individual notebooks were used and accepted by the vast majority of students, most frequently for the purpose of understanding course content. Regarding RQ2—Perceived Impact, our key results show that students perceived the notebooks to have a positive impact on their learning experience, especially regarding their self-directed learning. Despite not feeling initially very prepared for the course, nearly all students found the course appropriately difficult by the end of the semester and expected to pass. Further, they reported to have learned much from their studies and professional training in the course.

The outcomes of this study showed a high usage of the individual notebooks ($93.33\%$) among students, which even surpasses results from a prior study using interactive learning materials by Friedmann et al. (2020) ($61\%$). We argue that this result can be explained by the fact that the interactive learning materials featured in this work were not only developed in a bottom-up, user-centered design process (Bangerl et al., 2024) but also centrally integrated into the course design and connected with further activities, such as group exercises and discussions.

Further, our results indicated that the interactive notebooks were well-received and fulfilled their role as interactive learning materials by engaging students, helping them make better sense of the complex course materials, and fostering self-directed learning strategies among students. Similarly, a study by Naftaliev and Yerushalmy (2022) on interactive diagrams for learning equations found that using the system facilitated independent learning and understanding, which also positively impacted learners’ curiosity and interest in the learning content. Both S. Li et al. (2018) and Friedmann et al. (2020) also found that using interactive learning materials sparked the motivation and ambition of learners, corresponding to our results on engaging students.

Further, emergent observations by lecturers show that focusing the interactive part of the course on discussing the tactical approaches, solutions, and problems that arose during the calculations raises the overall level of content teaching. This may possibly be due to the fact that detailed calculations were transferred to the responsibility of the students using the interactive materials and, consequently, detailed questions were already answered in the course of the self-directed learning process. The confidence acquired in thermodynamic calculations in this way was also perceived as increased self-confidence on the part of the students. This result is also in line with results from an experimental study by Kaplar et al. (2022) who found that interactive learning materials facilitated significantly better learning outcomes. Results from a study by Yang et al. (2017) indicate that interactive learning materials can lower cognitive load, which could explain improved confidence and learning outcomes. Overall, our results are also in line with established theoretical work on self-directed learning Garrison (1997); Zimmerman (1990) and indicate that employing interactive learning materials is beneficial to self-directed learning and, in turn, has a positive effect on students’ learning experience and confidence.

In summary, our approach of providing students with interactive notebooks and adopting a learner-centered course design promoting self-directed learning instead of frontal teaching has proven successful based on our results: the newly implemented concept enables students to work independently, in depth, and irrespective of time; is broadly accepted by the students; and raises the overall level of content teaching. For this reason, and based on the existing literature, we recommend similar approaches for other university courses with similarly complex and challenging topics (e.g., courses that require challenging computational methods).

We note also that our work is limited in scope to the specific course in which the study was conducted and the students who voluntarily participated. Other students, e.g., those who participated less in the course, may have different opinions from those reported in the survey. Moreover, our survey has focused on students’ perceptions, rather than performance metrics. To investigate the impact of the interactive notebooks and adapted course design on students’ factual course performance, more rigorous empirical designs would be necessary.

Finally, our results have also provided directions for future adjustments of the interactive notebooks, as students asked for an expansion of the scope of the notebooks and proposed suggestions for a more user-friendly design. One measure resulting from this is the incorporation of the interactive plots and manipulable functions of the Wolfram master-notebook into the frontal lecture to make it easier to grasp complex relationships.

6. Conclusions

In this work, we have introduced interactive notebooks for improving university students’ understanding of chemical thermodynamics in a corresponding university course. We have implemented and investigated this innovation in two consecutive course semesters through a questionnaire-based survey to find out how students used and perceived the interactive notebooks, their impact, and the corresponding course design. Our results, based on answers from 45 course students, showed that (1) the notebooks were accepted and used by nearly all students, most frequently for understanding course contents and solving course exercises; (2) students perceived that the notebooks supported them in their self-directed learning; and (3) despite not feeling initially very prepared, students were confident in their learning and understanding of course contents by the end of the semester. These outcomes show that the interactive notebooks fulfilled their purpose of facilitating more engagement and improved understanding, at least from the students’ perception. However, we critically note that the acceptance and impact of interactive learning materials must be ensured, firstly, by pursuing a bottom-up, user-oriented technology design that addresses students’ needs and problems and, secondly, by integrating the technology into the course and devoting care to all parts of the course design. Such endeavors require both resources and expertise, and universities should support projects such as this one by providing long-term support to encourage the sustainable development and integration of interactive learning materials into higher education teaching and learning.