Assessing Science Inquiry and Reasoning Using Dynamic Visualizations and Interactive Simulations

How can we leverage dynamic visualizations and interactive simulations to assess complex science learning? Science systems involve many dynamic processes, and visualizations of these processes are central components of scientific thinking and communication. Although multiple-choice items may effectively measure declarative knowledge such as scientific facts or definitions, they fail to capture evidence of science inquiry practices such as making observations, collecting data, or modeling dynamic systems. As computers become more widely accessible, interactive, simulation-based assessments have the promise of capturing information about students’ ability to apply these more complex science practice skills. Tasks using dynamic visualizations and simulations are likely to provide more valid measures of the scientific proficiencies called for internationally by science educators, such as those reflected in the United States’ National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Next Generation Science Standards. In this chapter, we describe the range of science content knowledge and practice skills we seek to measure, outline research-based assessment design principles, and review a test creation process that mitigates the potential limitations of dynamic assessments. Next, we provide examples of how the stimulus and response affordances of dynamic visualizations allow us to assess scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. Finally, we provide findings from an efficacy study that support the claim that dynamic and interactive assessments provide better measures of student proficiency with complex scientific inquiry and reasoning. Throughout the chapter, we give concrete examples of the principles and processes in the context of two science assessment platforms, SimScientists and ChemVLab+.

[1]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  "One Firm Spot": The Role of Homework as Lever in Acquiring Conceptual and Performance Competence in College Chemistry , 2007 .

[2]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2013 .

[3]  Ric Lowe,et al.  Learning from animation: Where to look, when to look , 2008 .

[4]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Comparing three online testing modalities: Using static, active, and interactive online testing modalities to assess middle school students' understanding of fundamental ideas and use of inquiry skills related to ecosystems , 2014 .

[5]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Conceptual classroom environment - a system view of learning , 2001 .

[6]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Similarity of form and substance: modeling material kind , 2001 .

[7]  Paul Horwitz,et al.  Looking inside the black box: assessing model-based learning and inquiry in BioLogicaTM , 2010, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[8]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Inquiry Based Science Supported by Technology: Achievement among Urban Middle School Students. , 2000 .

[9]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Anna N. Rafferty,et al.  ChemVLab+: Evaluating a Virtual Lab Tutor for High School Chemistry , 2012, ICLS.

[11]  M. Hegarty Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[12]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations , 2009, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[13]  Richard Lowe,et al.  A Composition Approach to Design of Educational Animations , 2017 .

[14]  Mireille Betrancourt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[15]  Fernando Flores,et al.  Preconceptions and relations used by children in the construction of food chains , 1994 .

[16]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Inferences through imagined actions: Knowing by simulated doing. , 1999 .

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

[18]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Next-Generation Environments for Assessing and Promoting Complex Science Learning. , 2013 .

[19]  D. Schwartz,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Spatial Representations and Imagery in Learning , 2005 .

[20]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[21]  Michael J. Timms,et al.  Research Article Science Assessments for All: Integrating Science Simulations Into Balanced State Science Assessment Systems , 2012 .

[22]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The use of diagrams in analogical problem solving , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Paul Horwitz,et al.  Learning Genetics from Dragons: From Computer-Based Manipulatives to Hypermodels , 2010 .

[24]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Understanding Complex Natural Systems by Articulating Structure-Behavior-Function Models , 2011, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[25]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[27]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  The role of meaning in interpreting graphical and textual feedback during a computer-based simulation , 1996, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[30]  B. Homer,et al.  Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations , 2006 .

[31]  Edys S. Quellmalz,et al.  Supporting and Assessing Complex Biology Learning with Computer-Based Simulations and Representations , 2013 .

[32]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation principles in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[33]  Z. C. Zacharia,et al.  Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[34]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix , 2004 .

[35]  Marios Papaevripidou,et al.  Modeling complex marine ecosystems: an investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[36]  Ngss Lead States Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[37]  James W Pellegrino,et al.  Proficiency in Science: Assessment Challenges and Opportunities , 2013, Science.

[38]  C Loehlin John,et al.  Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis , 1986 .

[39]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  An Eye Tracking Comparison of External Pointing Cues and Internal Continuous Cues in Learning with Complex Animations , 2010 .

[40]  Björn B. de Koning,et al.  Attention Guidance Strategies for Supporting Learning from Dynamic Visualizations , 2017 .

[41]  Michael O. Martin,et al.  TIMSS 2015 Assessment Frameworks. , 2013 .

[42]  Marian Petre,et al.  Learning to Read Graphics: Some Evidence that 'Seeing' an Information Display is an Acquired Skill , 1993, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[43]  Michael J. Timms,et al.  The promise of simulation-based science assessment: the Calipers project , 2010, Int. J. Learn. Technol..

[44]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[45]  Liesbeth Kester,et al.  The Four-Component Instructional Design Model : Multimedia Principles in Environments for Complex Learning , 2014 .

[46]  Rolf Ploetzner,et al.  Learning from Dynamic Visualization , 2017 .

[47]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design , 2007 .

[48]  James W Pellegrino,et al.  Technology and Testing , 2009, Science.

[49]  Lei Liu,et al.  Focusing on Function: Thinking below the Surface of Complex Natural Systems. , 2008 .

[50]  David C. Webb,et al.  Mr. Vetro: A Collective Simulation for teaching health science , 2010, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[51]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The Educational Value of Multiple-representations when Learning Complex Scientific Concepts , 2008 .

[52]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning , 2006 .

[53]  M. Just,et al.  Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. , 1993 .

[54]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? , 2003 .

[55]  James D. Slotta,et al.  Helping Students Understand Challenging Topics in Science Through Ontology Training , 2006 .

[56]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning : Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles , 2005 .

[57]  Cheryl I. Johnson,et al.  Revising the Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning. , 2008 .