Use of physics simulations in whole class and small group settings: Comparative case studies

This study investigates student interactions with simulations, and teacher support of those interactions, within naturalistic high school classroom settings. Two lesson sequences were conducted, one in 11 and one in 8 physics class sections, where roughly half the sections used the simulations in a small group format and matched sections used them in a whole class format. Unexpected pre/post results, previously reported, had raised questions about why whole class students, who had engaged in discussion about the simulations while observing them projected in front of the class, had performed just as well as small group students with hands-on keyboards. The present study addresses these earlier results with case studies (four matched sets of classes) of student and teacher activity during class discussions in one of the lesson sequences. Comparative analyses using classroom videotapes and student written work reveal little evidence for an advantage for the small group students for any of the conceptual and perceptual factors examined; in fact, if anything, there was a slight trend in favor of students in the whole class condition. We infer that the two formats have counter-balancing strengths and weaknesses. We recommend a mixture of the two and suggest several implications for design of instructional simulations. Display Omitted Students used physics simulations in either whole class or small group settings.Whole class students had pre-post gains as large as those of small group students.Comparative analyses of classroom videotapes and written work investigate why.In 3 of 4 comparisons, whole class discussion spent more time on crucial concepts.The only small group students who gave any evidence for using key features were AP.

[1]  David Hammer,et al.  Multiple Epistemological Coherences in an Eighth-Grade Discussion of the Rock Cycle , 2006 .

[2]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Using Computer Animated Graphics in Science Instruction with Children , 1990 .

[3]  T. Andre,et al.  Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs , 1996 .

[4]  Peter W. Hewson,et al.  Effect of instruction using microcomputer simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning , 1986 .

[5]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[7]  David Stroupe,et al.  Proposing a Core Set of Instructional Practices and Tools for Teachers of Science , 2012 .

[8]  Sam Reid,et al.  A Study of Educational Simulations Part II – Interface Design , 2008 .

[9]  John J. Clement,et al.  Model based learning and instruction in science , 2008 .

[10]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[11]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Assessing Learning from the Use of Multimedia Chemical Visualiztion Software , 2005 .

[12]  Eleanor Duckworth,et al.  Science Education: A Minds-on Approach for the Elementary Years , 1990 .

[13]  L. Darden.  Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics , 1991 .

[14]  P. Ammon,et al.  Learning to Teach Inquiry Science in a Technology-Based Environment: A Case Study , 2004 .

[15]  Denise Pope,et al.  Doing School: How We Are Creating a Generation of Stressed-Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students , 1999 .

[16]  J. Clement.  Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation , 2008 .

[17]  Daniel Hellerstein,et al.  BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM Research, Economic Development, & Innovation Committee , 2005 .

[18]  Bob Campbell,et al.  Talking Science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching , 2010 .

[19]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[20]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. , 1997 .

[21]  Robert Glaser,et al.  Why Does It Go Up? The Impact of the MARS Curriculum as Revealed through Changes in Student Explanations of a Helium Balloon , 1998 .

[22]  M. Linn,et al.  Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations , 2013 .

[23]  N. Nersessian.  Should physicists preach what they practice? , 1995 .

[24]  E. Redish.  Oersted Lecture 2013: How should we think about how our students think? , 2013, 1308.3911.

[25]  Sam Reid,et al.  A Study of Educational Simulations Part 1 - Engagement and Learning , 2008 .

[26]  C. Wieman,et al.  PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics , 2006 .

[27]  Barbara C. Buckley.  Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology , 2000 .

[28]  Jim Minstrell,et al.  Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking , 1997 .

[29]  Lara K. Smetana,et al.  Simplifying Inquiry Instruction: Assessing the Inquiry Level of Classroom Activities , 2005 .

[30]  J. Mestre.  Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective , 2005 .

[31]  Andrew Elby,et al.  Resources , framing , and transfer , 2004 .

[32]  B. Reiser,et al.  Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners , 2009 .

[33]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy , 2008 .

[34]  Michelle Cook.  Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles , 2006 .

[35]  David Hammer,et al.  Student Inquiry in a Physics Class Discussion , 1995 .

[36]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education Research: Modeling student thinking , 2004 .

[37]  Grant M. Williams,et al.  Identifying Multiple Levels of Discussion-Based Teaching Strategies for Constructing Scientific Models , 2015 .

[38]  Ninth-Grade Student Engagement in Teacher-Centered and Student-Centered Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments , 2007 .

[39]  David Hammer,et al.  Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom , 2010 .

[40]  Christine Chin.  Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses , 2006 .

[41]  James G. Greeno,et al.  Achieving Alignment of Perspectival Framings in Problem-Solving Discourse , 2012 .

[42]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends , 2003 .

[43]  Jianwei Zhang,et al.  Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[44]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  The use of computer simulations in whole-class versus small-group settings , 2008 .

[45]  David Hammer,et al.  Student Behavior and Epistemological Framing: Examples from Collaborative Active-Learning Activities in Physics , 2007, ICLS.

[46]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .

[47]  D. Hestenes.  Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction , 1987 .

[48]  John J. Clement,et al.  Student recognition of visual affordances: supporting use of physics simulations in whole class and small group settings , 2012 .