SMALL GROUP VS. WHOLE CLASS USE OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SIMULATIONS: COMPARATIVE CASE STUDIES OF MATCHED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS CLASSES

Although it is generally felt that online simulations are better used in small groups working hands-on at computers, many teachers do not have ready access to the number of computer stations required. We ask whether teachers can engage students in effective, active learning when the students are not able to explore a simulation/animation on their own. Several teachers taught a number of high school physics topics in their classes using simulations in either of two conditions: a) small groups working hands-on at computers, and b) whole classes observing simulations projected from a single computer onto a screen before the class. We examine sets of matched classes to compare pre-post gains and teaching strategies used. The three teachers of the classes analyzed here anticipated that the small class format would work better, and students did appear at first glance to be more engaged in small groups. However, results showed that the whole class format produced similar—and in one comparison, significantly stronger—gains, as measured by pre-post tests. We use the pre-post results and videotape evidence to look at issues that may have affected student learning in the two kinds of situations.

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

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

[3]  John J. Clement,et al.  Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students , 2008 .

[4]  C. Creider Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought , 1994 .

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

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

[7]  John J. Clement,et al.  Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts , 1999 .

[8]  Vickie M. Williamson,et al.  Molecular Visualization in Science Education: An Evaluation of an NSF-Sponsored Workshop , 2005 .

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction* , 1998 .

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

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

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

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

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

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