Earth surface modeling for education: How effective is it? Four semesters of classroom tests with WILSIM-GC

This paper presents results from a randomized experimental design replicated over four semesters that compared students' performance in understanding landform evolution processes as measured by the pretest to posttest score growth between two treatment methods: an online interactive simulation tool and a paper‐based exercise. While both methods were shown to be effective at enhancing students' learning of the landform concepts and processes, there was no statistically significant difference in score growth between the two instructional methods. However, the attitudinal survey indicated that students consistently favored the simulation approach over the paper‐based exercise. With the simulation method, female students showed greater score growth than males, especially for test items requiring higher level thinking. This indicates that the visually rich interactive simulation tool may be integrated to better support female students' learning in geoscience. Science major students generally outperformed non‐science major students in terms of score growth, which suggests that background knowledge played an important role in realizing the potential of computer modeling in enhancing students' learning. Sufficient scaffolding is necessary to maximize the effect of interactive earth surface modeling in geoscience education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Emily B. Moore,et al.  Implicit scaffolding in interactive simulations: Design strategies to support multiple educational goals , 2013, 1306.6544.

[2]  Emily B. Moore,et al.  Towards research-based strategies for using PhET simulations in middle school physical science classes , 2012 .

[3]  Ozlem Baydas,et al.  An examination of interactions in a three-dimensional virtual world , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Iwona Miliszewska,et al.  Analysis of Student Attitudes towards E-learning: The Case of Engineering Students in Libya , 2014 .

[5]  Terence Day,et al.  Undergraduate teaching and learning in physical geography , 2012 .

[6]  Samia Khan,et al.  New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations , 2011 .

[7]  Noemi Waight,et al.  Teachers and Students’ Conceptions of Computer-Based Models in the Context of High School Chemistry: Elicitations at the Pre-intervention Stage , 2013, Research in Science Education.

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

[9]  Lily Shashaani.  Gender Differences in Computer Attitudes and Use among College Students , 1997 .

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

[11]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A critical review of the literature , 2012 .

[12]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[13]  J. Meneses,et al.  Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Towards Information and Communication Technology Professionals in a Sample of Spanish Secondary Students , 2016 .

[14]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Prospects for Scientific Visualization as an Educational Technology , 1995 .

[15]  S. I. Wassenburg,et al.  Gender differences in mental simulation during sentence and word processing , 2017 .

[16]  Mihindo W. Jane,et al.  Effects of Computer-Based Simulations Teaching Approach on Students’ Achievement in the Learning of Chemistry among Secondary School Students in Nakuru Sub County, Kenya , 2017 .

[17]  K. Whipple,et al.  Geomorphic constraints on the age of the western Grand Canyon , 2015 .

[18]  Jaan Mikk,et al.  SEX DIFFERENCES IN READING ACHIEVEMENT , 2009 .

[19]  Jianxia Du,et al.  Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[20]  J. Pelletier.  Numerical modeling of the late Cenozoic geomorphic evolution of Grand Canyon, Arizona , 2008 .

[21]  Carol J. Ormand,et al.  Advantages of Computer Simulation in Enhancing Students' Learning About Landform Evolution: A Case Study Using the Grand Canyon , 2016 .

[22]  H. Yau,et al.  Gender Difference of Confidence in Using Technology for Learning , 2012 .

[23]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  Characterizing Complexity of Computer Simulations and Implications for Student Learning , 2010 .

[24]  Ronald I. Dorn,et al.  Learning Desert Geomorphology Virtually versus in the Field , 2008 .

[25]  K. Whipple,et al.  9.28 Bedrock Rivers , 2013 .

[26]  Claire Wladis,et al.  The Online STEM Classroom—Who Succeeds? An Exploration of the Impact of Ethnicity, Gender, and Non-traditional Student Characteristics in the Community College Context , 2015 .

[27]  May Lin Wee,et al.  Investigating the Effect of 3D Simulation Based Learning on the Motivation and Performance of Engineering Students , 2010 .

[28]  R. Bell,et al.  The Use of a Computer Simulation to Promote Scientific Conceptions of Moon Phases , 2008 .

[29]  P. Shawn Irvin,et al.  Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains† , 2011 .

[30]  B. Whitley.  Gender Differences in Computer-Related Attitudes and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[31]  E. Wentz,et al.  Comparing Strategies for Presenting Concepts in Introductory Undergraduate Geography: Physical Models vs. Computer Visualization , 2007 .

[32]  Dietrich Albert,et al.  Text-based Learning vs . Learning with Computer Simulations : Does Gender Matter ? , 2008 .

[33]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  Support for Augmented Reality Simulation Systems: The Effects of Scaffolding on Learning Outcomes and Behavior Patterns , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[34]  Ton de Jong.  Computer simulations. Technological advances in inquiry learning. , 2006, Science.

[35]  M. Dolores,et al.  Gender differences in reading comprehension achievement in English as a foreign language in Compulsory Secondary Education , 2013 .

[36]  Wendy K. Adams,et al.  What Levels of Guidance Promote Engaged Exploration with Interactive Simulations , 2008 .