nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

08.09.2021

Comparing Simulation Sequencing in a Chemistry Online-Supported Project-Based Learning Unit

verfasst von: Mingyang Li, Dermot Francis Donnelly-Hermosillo, Jennifer Click

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Numerous studies illustrate the value of simulations or project-based learning approaches to enhance the learning of science. Simulations can help students connect across macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations of scientific phenomena, while project-based learning can provide a meaningful narrative and activities for students to engage in. Despite such studies, less is known about simulation sequencing within project-based learning and how such sequencing may influence conceptual understanding. This study investigates such simulation sequencing within an online-supported project-based learning unit that focuses on a drought narrative to teach solution chemistry concepts for 10th graders (n = 72). Specifically, we compare two treatments with students randomly assigned to using a simulation before (planning treatment; n = 37) or after (reflection treatment; n = 35) the design of desalination units. This quasi-experimental study includes a pre/post conceptual test, embedded conceptual measures, a student questionnaire, a teacher interview, and classroom observations. Results show significant pre/post gains for all students on solution chemistry concepts. Findings show no overall difference between the two treatments. Student and teacher comments, and classroom observations illustrate affordances and constraints for teaching solution chemistry concepts through a technology-supported project and point to future directions for iteration. We discuss the implications of this work for future technology-supported projects and science education.

Vorheriger Artikel Narrative-Based Learning Activities for Science Ethics Education: an Affordance Perspective

Nächster Artikel Affordances of Computational Models for English Learners in Science Instruction: Conceptual Foundation and Initial Inquiry

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084CrossRef

Adadan, E., & Yavuzkaya, M. N. (2018). Examining the progression and consistency of thermal concepts: A cross-age study. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1423711CrossRef

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRef

Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005a). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20076CrossRef

Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005b). A cross-age study on the understanding of chemical solutions and their components. International Education Journal, 6(1), 30–41.

Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Gire, E., & Rebello, N. S. (2010). Comparing the effects of physical and virtual experimentation sequence on students’ understanding of mechanics. In American Educational Research Association.

Chang, H., & Linn, M. (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 858–886. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21089CrossRef

Chen, C. -H., & Yang, Y. -C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001.CrossRef

Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010113–010121. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113CrossRef

Chiou, G., & Anderson, O. (2010). A study of undergraduate physics students’ understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology–process analysis. Science Education, 94(5), 825–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20385CrossRef

Clark, D., & Linn, M. (2009). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-210CrossRef

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.CrossRef

Craig, T. T., & Marshall, J. (2019). Effect of project-based learning on high school students’ state-mandated, standardized math and science exam performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(10), 1461–1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21582CrossRef

Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7). 791-820. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1032

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. Teacher College Press.

D’Angelo, C. M., Rutstein, D., & Harris, C. J. (2016). Learning with STEM simulations in the classroom: Findings and trends from a meta-analysis. Educational Technology, 56(3), 58–61. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430495

Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. (2008). Thai grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9072-0CrossRef

Davenport, J. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Yaron, D. J. (2018). Whether and how authentic contexts using a virtual chemistry lab support learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), 1250–1259. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00048CrossRef

Derman, A., & Eilks, I. (2016). Using a word association test for the assessment of high school students’ cognitive structures on dissolution. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 902–913. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00084cCrossRef

Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., & Glažar, S. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39(2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9077-2CrossRef

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014

Donnelly, D., Vitale, J., & Linn, M. (2015). Automated guidance for thermodynamics essays: Critiquing versus revisiting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9569-1

Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Gerard, L. F., & Linn, M. C. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers & Education, 146, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748

Ebenezer, J. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016672627842CrossRef

Farrell, I., & Hamed, K. (2016). Teaching with soap: Examples of project-based units for students and future educators. Science Activities, 53(2), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2016.1167007CrossRef

Georgiou, H., & Sharma, M. (2012). University students’ understanding of thermal physics in everyday contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1119–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9320-1CrossRef

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

Goodlad, J. J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Harlow, D. B., Dwyer, H. A., Hansen, A. K., Iveland, A. O., & Franklin, D. M. (2018). Ecological design-based research for computer science education: Affordances and effectivities for elementary school students. Cognition and Instruction, 36(3), 224–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1475390CrossRef

Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education: Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 343–364.

Inkinen, J., Klager, C., Juuti, K., Schneider, B., Salmela-Aro, K., Krajcik, J., & Lavonen, J. (2020). High school students’ situational engagement associated with scientific practices in designed science learning situations. Science Education, 104(4), 667–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21570CrossRef

Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.xCrossRef

Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386CrossRef

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2016). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE Publications.

Johnson, C. S., & Delawsky, S. (2013). Project-based learning and student engagement. Academic Research International, 4(4), 560–570.

Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20381CrossRef

Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2019). Using hands-on and virtual laboratories alone or together-Which works better for acquiring knowledge and skills? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0CrossRef

Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390100200105CrossRef

Kizkapan, O., & Bektaş, O. (2017). The effect of project based learning on seventh grade students’ academic achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 37–54. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1013a

Krajcik, J. (2015). Project-Based Science. Science. Teacher, 82(1), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst15_082_01_25CrossRef

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning science (pp. 317–333). Cambridge Press.

Levy, D. (2013). How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9424-6CrossRef

Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Routledge.CrossRef

Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224CrossRef

Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). An investigation of teacher impact on student inquiry science performance using a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20372CrossRef

Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1079–1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20441CrossRef

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153CrossRef

McBride,E. A. , Vitale, J. M., Applebaum, L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Use of interactive computer models to promote integration of science concepts through the engineering design process. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.

McBride, E. A., Vitale, J. M., & Linn, M. C. (2018). Learning design through science vs. science through design. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.

McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506CrossRef

McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20423CrossRef

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.CrossRef

O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. E. (2016). “I’m just not that comfortable with technology”: Student perceptions of and preferences for Web 2.0 technologies in reflective journals. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 392–411. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984594

Olympiou G., & Zacharia Z.C. (2018). Examining students’ actions while experimenting with a blended combination of physical manipulatives and virtual manipulatives in physics. In T. A. Mikropoulos (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education (pp. 257–278). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_16

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447CrossRef

Othman, J., Treagust, D., & Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1531–1550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701459897CrossRef

Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0CrossRef

Plass, J., Milne, C., Homer, B., Schwartz, R., Hayward, E., Jordan, T., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21008CrossRef

Quiroga, M., & Choate, J. K. (2019). A virtual experiment improved students’ understanding of physiological experimental processes ahead of a live inquiry-based practical class. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(4), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2019CrossRef

Robinson, J. (2013). Project-based learning: Improving student engagement and performance in the laboratory. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 405(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-012-6473-xCrossRef

Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., & Malkinson, N. (2018). Fostering the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.001CrossRef

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860CrossRef

Smetana, L., & Bell, R. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182CrossRef

Smith, G. W., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Examining the combination of physical and virtual experiments in an inquiry science classroom. In CBLIS Conference Proceedings 2010 Application of new technologies in science and education, University of Cyprus.

Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9100-zCrossRef

Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20438CrossRef

Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668CrossRef

Taber, K. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2CrossRef

Wong, C. L., Chu, H. -E., & Yap, K. C. (2016). Are alternative conceptions dependent on researchers’ methodology and definition?: A review of empirical studies related to concepts of heat. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9577-2CrossRef

Zacharia, Z., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.887083CrossRef

Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20443CrossRef

Titel: Comparing Simulation Sequencing in a Chemistry Online-Supported Project-Based Learning Unit
verfasst von: Mingyang Li
Dermot Francis Donnelly-Hermosillo
Jennifer Click
Publikationsdatum: 08.09.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09929-w

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Comparison of Computer Scoring Model Performance for Short Text Responses Across Undergraduate Institutional Types

Computational Thinking Integration into Science Classrooms: Example of Digestive System

Professional Growth of Novice and Experienced STEM Teachers

Identifying Sources of Anxiety in an Introductory Online Undergraduate Chemistry Course

Narrative-Based Learning Activities for Science Ethics Education: an Affordance Perspective

The Effects of Engineering Design-Based Instruction On 7th Grade Students’ Nature of Engineering Views

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten