Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Research has shown that teaching science with a modeling-oriented approach, particularly with interactive simulations, will promote student engagement and understanding. To date, many interactive simulations have been developed and adopted for classroom practices. The purpose of this study was to explore secondary school science teachers’ perceived affordance of interactive simulation as well as their practical experience with simulation implementation in class. Twelve science teachers from seven schools were interviewed individually and the data was triangulated with their teaching plans and student assignments. Their past experiences of simulation implementation revealed that most teachers adopted simulations for demonstration purpose in teacher-led instruction. Their attempts to provide students opportunities to use the simulations to explore alternative modeling by themselves did not seem to work well. There are various reasons for this, such as the shortage of facilities, Internet bandwidth, and technological knowledge. There was also a pressing need for teachers to complete the required syllabus in limited classroom time. The majority of teachers’ future intent to use simulation in class was quite weak, especially with the less proficient students who had some difficulty understanding simulations. Although interactive simulations have great potential to promote students’ understanding in abstract science concepts, overcoming the difficulties of implementation may require other alternatives such as a flipped classroom approach. Future studies can investigate how to design learning activities outside class, to engage students in exploring modeling in simulations.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224–234. CrossRef
Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260. CrossRef
Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 118–126. CrossRef
Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346–372. CrossRef
Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36–45.
Campbell, T., & Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modelling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue of the journal of science education and technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9544-2. CrossRef
Campbell, T., Longhurst, M. L., Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., & Coster, D. C. (2015). Technologies and reformed-based science instruction: The examination of a professional development model focused on supporting science teaching and learning with technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 562–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9548-6. CrossRef
Carlsen, D. D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(4), 105–109.
Chang, K.-E., Chen, Y.-L., Lin, H.-Y., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498. CrossRef
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27. CrossRef
Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open source physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077–1078. CrossRef
Clement, J. (2008). Six levels of organization for curriculum design and teaching. In J. Clement & M. A. Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 255–272). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. CrossRef
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2010). Competing priorities: Singaporean teachers’ perspectives on critical literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(6), 184–194. CrossRef
DeBoer, G. E. (2002). Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible balance. Science & Education, 11(4), 405–417. CrossRef
Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modelling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.
Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modelling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589. CrossRef
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2017). Models in science. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017 ed.). Spring.
Geban, Ö., Askar, P., & Özkan, Ï. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem-solving approaches on high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5–10. CrossRef
Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705. CrossRef
Goh, K. S. A., Wee, L. K., Yip, K. W., Toh, P. Y. J., & Lye, S. Y. (2013). Addressing learning difficulties in Newtons 1st and 3rd Laws through problem based inquiry using Easy Java Simulation. Paper presented at the the 5th redesign pedagogy, Singapore.
Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026. CrossRef
Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–45.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved from https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
Hershkovitz, A., de Baker, R. S. J., Gobert, J., Wixon, M., & Pedro, M. S. (2013). Discovery with models: A case study on carelessness in computer-based science inquiry. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1480–1499. CrossRef
Hogan, D., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Maung Aye, K., Loo, S. C., Sheng, Y. Z., & Luo, W. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in secondary 3 English and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1(1), 57–106. CrossRef
Hounshell, P. B., & Hill, S. R. (1989). The microcomputer and achievement and attitudes in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 543–549. CrossRef
Howard, S. K., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers' integration of laptops in secondary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 360–369. CrossRef
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. CrossRef
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183–204. CrossRef
Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2012). Personalising learning in teacher education through the use of technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 75. CrossRef
Khan, S. (2008). What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In J. Clement & M. A. Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 139–150). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215–232. CrossRef
Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291–318. CrossRef
Koh, K. H., Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2012). Creating thinking schools through authentic assessment: The case in Singapore. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 135–149. CrossRef
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. CrossRef
Kuhn, D., Arvidsson, T. S., Lesperance, R., & Corprew, R. (2017). Can engaging in science practices promote deep understanding of them? Science Education, 101(2), 232–250. CrossRef
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462. CrossRef
Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers' theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 907–937. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.": ERIC.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 921–944. CrossRef
Mulder, Y. G., Bollen, L., de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 502–523. CrossRef
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17–38. CrossRef
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163–178. CrossRef
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. CrossRef
Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology: Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648–662. CrossRef
Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, township and rural high schools: The context-specificity of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 65–75. CrossRef
Schrum, L. (1995). Educators and the internet: A case study of professional development. Computers & Education, 24(3), 221–228. CrossRef
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90. CrossRef
Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modelling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744. CrossRef
Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modelling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–186. CrossRef
Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodelling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205. CrossRef
Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modelling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243–269. CrossRef
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modelling: Making scientific modelling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. CrossRef
Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: science in the classroom (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63–81. CrossRef
Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212–223. CrossRef
Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17–25. CrossRef
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354–369. CrossRef
Wee, L. K., & Mak, W. K. (2009). Leveraging on Easy Java Simulation tool and open source computer simulation library to create interactive digital media for mass customization of high school physics curriculum. Paper presented at the the 3rd redesigning pedagogy international conference, Singapore.
Wee, L. K. L., Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., LyeYE, S. Y., Lee, T. L., Xu, W., … Lim, E.-P. (2012). Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation. Paper presented at the the world conference on physics education, İstanbul, Turkey.
Wee, L. K., Lee, T. L., Chew, C., Wong, D., & Tan, S. (2015). Understanding resonance graphs using easy java simulations (EJS) and why we use EJS. Physics Education, 50(2), 189–196. CrossRef
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. CrossRef
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. CrossRef
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. CrossRef
Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–42. CrossRef
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173.
Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727–749. CrossRef
Yaman, M., Nerdel, C., & Bayrhuber, H. (2008). The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1784–1794. CrossRef
Yerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Mediated effects of technology competencies and experiences on relations among attitudes towards technology use, technology ownership, and self efficacy about technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 394–405. CrossRef
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823. CrossRef
Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618–629. CrossRef
Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 269–282. CrossRef
Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modelling processes associated with a computer-modelling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579–604. CrossRef
- How Do Secondary Science Teachers Perceive the Use of Interactive Simulations? The Affordance in Singapore Context
Wenjin Vikki Bo
Gavin W. Fulmer
Christine Kim-Eng Lee
Victor Der-Thanq Chen
- Springer Netherlands
in-adhesives, MKVS, Zühlke/© Zühlke, Nordson/© Nordson, ViscoTec/© ViscoTec, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH