Affordances and challenges of computational tools for supporting modeling and simulation practices

This mixed‐methods sequential explanatory design investigates disciplinary learning gains when engaging in modeling and simulation processes following a programming or a configuring approach. It also investigates the affordances and challenges that students encountered when engaged in these two approaches to modeling and simulation. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 25:352–375, 2017; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.21804

[1]  Benedict duBoulay,et al.  Some Difficulties of Learning to Program , 1986 .

[2]  W.M. McCracken,et al.  Text to diagram to symbol: representational transformations in problem-solving , 2001, 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37193).

[3]  Jg Mackenzie,et al.  Amoco Computer Simulation in Chemical Engineering Education , 2001 .

[4]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[5]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Facilitating Problem Solving Transfer In Physics , 2008 .

[6]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Instructors' Intended Learning Outcomes for Using Computational Simulations as Learning Tools , 2012 .

[7]  Nataliya V. Ivankova,et al.  A Decade of Innovation and Success in Virtual Learning: A World-Wide Asynchronous Graduate Program in Educational Leadership and Higher Education. , 2004 .

[8]  Neeraj Buch,et al.  Aligning Computing Education with engineering workforce computational needs: New curricular directions to improve computational thinking in engineering graduates , 2009, 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.

[9]  Sean Brophy,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Engineering and Science Students' Perceptions of nanoHUB.org Simulations* , 2012 .

[10]  Stephen M. Alessi,et al.  Building Versus Using Simulations , 2000 .

[11]  Sean Brophy,et al.  The Transparency Paradox: Computational Simulations as Learning Tools for Engineering Graduate Education , 2010 .

[12]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Student views of engineering professors technological pedagogical content knowledge for integrating computational simulation tools in nanoscale science and engineering , 2012 .

[13]  T. Jong,et al.  Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: learning processes and instructional support , 1993 .

[14]  James P. Barber,et al.  Conscience and Critic: Peer Debriefing Strategies in Grounded Theory Research , 2009 .

[15]  Ali Shakouri,et al.  Computational simulations as virtual laboratories for online engineering education: A case study in the field of thermoelectricity , 2016, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[16]  M. Stieff.  Improving Representational Competence Using Molecular Simulations Embedded in Inquiry Activities , 2011 .

[17]  Sensen Li,et al.  A Framework For Using Graphical Representations As Assessments Of Engineering Thinking , 2010 .

[18]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[19]  Pamela Jordan.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[20]  Peggy Noel Van Meter,et al.  AC 2007-1617: EFFECTS OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING, MATH AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS ON PROBLEM-SOLVING IN STATICS , 2007 .

[21]  Chenglie Hu.  Integrating Modern Research into Numerical Computation Education , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[22]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal With Multiple Implications , 1999 .

[23]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Th e Use of Multiple Representations and the Social Construction of Understanding in Chemistry , 2012 .

[24]  SimonBeth,et al.  A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers , 2004 .

[25]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions , 2012 .

[26]  Alejandra J. Magana,et al.  Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking‐enabled engineering workforce , 2017, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[27]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students , 2001, ITiCSE-WGR '01.

[28]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  J. Carson.  Introduction to modeling and simulation , 2005, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005..

[30]  Wolff-Michael Roth.  Toward an Anthropology of Graphing: Semiotic and Activity-Theoretic Perspectives , 2003 .

[31]  Lorenzo Magnani,et al.  Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , 1999, Springer US.

[32]  Ann C.H. Kindfield,et al.  Biology Diagrams: Tools to Think With , 1994 .

[33]  Mordechai Shacham.  An introductory course of modeling and computation for chemical engineers , 2005, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[34]  John R. Bourne,et al.  The Effectiveness of Learning Simulations for Electronic Laboratories , 2002 .

[35]  Behrooz Vahidi,et al.  Teaching short circuit breaking test on high‐voltage circuit breakers to undergraduate students by using MATLAB‐SIMULINK , 2013, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[36]  Stephen Emmott,et al.  Towards 2020 Science , 2006 .

[37]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

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

[39]  Eric N. Wiebe,et al.  Graphic Literacy In Elementary Science Education: Enhancing Inquiry, Engineering Problem Solving, And Reasoning Skills , 2009 .

[40]  W. V. van Joolingen,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[41]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[42]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Lectures and Simulation Laboratories to improve Learners’ Conceptual Understanding , 2013 .

[43]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Preface: Inscriptions and science learning , 1999 .

[44]  A. Schoenfeld.  Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics (Reprint) , 2009 .

[45]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[46]  James J. Gibson,et al.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition , 2014 .

[47]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Students Becoming Chemists: Developing Representationl Competence , 2005 .

[48]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Representation of physics knowledge by experts and novices , 1980 .

[49]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implica-tions , 1999 .

[50]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  On the Cognitive Prerequisites of Learning Computer Programming. Technical Report No. 18. , 1983 .

[51]  R. Kozma,et al.  The Roles of Representations and Tools in the Chemistry Laboratory and Their Implications for Chemistry Learning , 2000 .

[52]  Xiang-Lian Zhou,et al.  Interactive computer for teaching biot poroelasticity modeling in civil engineering , 2016, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[53]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[54]  Albert J. Rosa,et al.  The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education , 2005 .

[55]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Studying the Novice Programmer , 1988 .

[56]  John J. Clement,et al.  The Role of Dissonance in Conceptual Change , 1998 .

[57]  P. V. Meter,et al.  The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis , 2005 .

[58]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Turning Experiments into Objects: The Cognitive Processes Involved in the Design of a Lab‐on‐a‐Chip Device , 2013 .

[59]  T. J. Watson.  The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education , 2005 .

[60]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design: From Theory to Practice , 2006 .

[61]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[62]  Yongyan Li,et al.  Case study research in education , 2010 .

[63]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of the Interaction between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[64]  Tim O'Shea,et al.  The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[65]  Mauricio Suárez,et al.  Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , 1999 .

[66]  Duncan M. Fraser,et al.  Enhancing the Learning of Fluid Mechanics Using Computer Simulations , 2007 .

[67]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Theoretical Perspectives, Methodological Approaches, and Trends in the Study of Expertise , 2011 .

[68]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Model-Based Reasoning in Conceptual Change , 1999 .

[69]  M. Metzger,et al.  Process control kits: a hardware and software resource , 2005 .

[70]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[71]  Wallace Feurzeig,et al.  Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education , 1999, Modeling Dynamic Systems.

[72]  Robert McCartney,et al.  A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers , 2004, ITiCSE-WGR '04.

[73]  B. Berg.  Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences , 1989 .

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

[75]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Case Study Research in Education : A Qualitative Approach , 1991 .

[76]  Richard Lesh,et al.  Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) as a Bridge Between Engineering Education Research and Mathematics Education Research , 2008 .

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

[78]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Digitizing Lizards , 1999 .