Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology 6/2020

25.08.2020

Science Teachers’ Attitudes towards Computational Modeling in the Context of an Inquiry-Based Learning Module

verfasst von: Elon Langbeheim, David Perl, Edit Yerushalmi

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study focuses on science teachers’ first encounter with computational modeling in professional development workshops. It examines the factors shaping the teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards integrating computational modeling within inquiry-based learning modules for 9th grade physics. The learning modules introduce phenomena, the analysis of measurement data, and offer a method for coordinating the experimental findings with a theory-based computational model. Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy were studied using survey questions and workshop activity transcripts. As expected, prior experience in physics teaching was related to teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching physics in 9th grade. Also, teachers’ prior experience with programming was strongly related to their self-efficacy regarding the programming component of model construction. Surprisingly, the short interaction with computational modeling increased the group’s self-efficacy, and the average rating of understanding and enjoyment was similar among teachers with and without prior programming experience. Qualitative data provides additional insights into teachers’ predispositions towards the integration of computational modeling into the physics teaching.
Vorheriger Artikel Using Augmented Reality and the Structure–Behavior–Function Model to Teach Lower Secondary School Students about the Human Circulatory System
Nächster Artikel Student-Generated Stop-Motion Animation in Science Classes: a Systematic Literature Review

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
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
Aiken, J. M., Caballero, M. D., Douglas, S. S., Burk, J. B., Scanlon, E. M., Thomas, B. D., & Schatz, M. F. (2013). Understanding student computational thinking with computational modeling. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1513, No. 1, pp. 46-49). American Institute of Physics.
Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. J Res Sci Teach, 46(1), 1090–1113.
Allie, S., Buffler, A., Kaunda, L., Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (1998). First-year physics students’ perceptions of the quality of experimental measurements. Int J Sci Educ, 20(4), 447–459.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry-based research experience for teachers. Sci Educ, 93(2), 322–360.
Brown, D., & Cox, A. J. (2009). Innovative uses of video analysis. The Physics Teacher, 47(3), 145–150.
Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2008). Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course. Am J Phys, 76(4), 307–313.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children’ s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Dev, 70(5), 1098–1120.
Cromer, A. (1981). Stable solutions using the Euler approximation. Am J Phys, 49(5), 455–459.
De Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning suppojrt: An example from the physics domain of collisions. J Res Sci Teach, 36(5), 597–615.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.
Develaki, M. (2017). Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning: Epistemological and educational dimensions. Sci & Educ, 26(7–9), 1001–1027.
Develaki, M. (2019). Methodology and epistemology of computer simulations and implications for science education. J Sci Educ Technol, 28(4), 353–370.
DiSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Mit Press.
Dounas-Frazer, D. R., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2018). The modelling framework for experimental physics: Description, development, and applications. Eur J Phys, 39(6), 064005.
Etkina, E., Murthy, S., & Zou, X. (2006a). Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design. Am J Phys, 74(11), 979–986.
Etkina, E., Warren, A., & Gentile, M. (2006b). The role of models in physics instruction. Phys Teach, 44(1), 34–39.
Farris, A. V., Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2019). Learning to interpret measurement and motion in fourth grade computational modeling. Sci & Educ, 28(8), 927–956.
Fuhrmann, T., Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Should students design or interact with models? Using the bifocal modelling framework to investigate model construction in high school science. Int J Sci Educ, 40(8), 867–893.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Rev Educ Res, 81(3), 408–448.
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1987). Modeling instruction in mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 455–462.
Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. E. (2018). Introductory physics labs: We can do better. Phys Today, 71(1), 38–45.
Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. J Sci Educ Technol, 29(1), 83–100.
Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. J Res Sci Teach, 41(7), 748–769.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive science, 12(1), 1–48
Kolikant, Y. B. D., & Ben-Ari, M. (2008). Fertile zones of cultural encounter in computer science education. J Learn Sci, 17(1), 1–32.
Kuhn, D. (2011). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In Goswami, U. ed. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 497-523.
Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. J Res Sci Teach, 48(5), 534–551.
Langbeheim, E. Edri, H. Schulmann, N. Safran, S. A. & Yerushalmi, E. (2019). Extending the boundaries of High School Physics: Talented Students Develop Computer Models of Physical Processes in Matter. In Sunal, D. Ed. Research in Science Education (RISE) Series - Vol. 8, Physics Teaching and Learning: Challenging the Paradigm. Information Age Publishing. New York.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. J Res Sci Teach, 44(9), 1318–1347.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. Int J Sci Math Educ, 7(3), 575–596.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Orban, C. M., Teeling-Smith, R. M., Smith, J. R., & Porter, C. D. (2018). A hybrid approach for using programming exercises in introductory physics. Am J Phys, 86(11), 831–838.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. J Sci Teach Educ, 25(2), 177–196.
Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2019). Evaluating a course for teaching introductory programming with scratch to pre-service kindergarten teachers. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(3), 231–246.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. Am Educ Res J, 44(4), 921–958.
Phillips, A. M., Watkins, J., & Hammer, D. (2017). Problematizing as a scientific endeavor. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020107.
Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Comput Educ, 128, 365–376.
Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: MUPPET. Am J Phys, 61(3), 222–232.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci, 13(3), 273–304.
Repenning, A., Lamprou, A., & Wigger, P. (2020). The rise of the digital polymath: Switzerland is crossing the computer science education chasm through mandatory elementary pre-service teacher education. In Handbook of Research on Integrating Computer Science and Computational Thinking in K-12 Education (pp. 191-219). IGI Global.
Scherer, D., Dubois, P., & Sherwood, B. A. (2000). Vpython: 3d interactive scientific graphics for students. Computing in Science & Engineering, 2(5), 56–62.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. Int J Comput Math Learn, 6(1), 1–61.
Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ, 3(2), 91–118.
Tanel, R. (2013). Prospective physics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching and conceptual understandings for the subjects of force and motion. J Balt Sci Educ, 12(1), 6.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teach Teach Educ, 23(6), 944–956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four PD formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. Elem Sch J, 110(2), 228–245.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Rev Educ Res, 68(2), 202–248.
Tseng, C. H., Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (2013). How to help teachers develop inquiry teaching: Perspectives from experienced science teachers. Res Sci Educ, 43(2), 809–825.
VanLehn, K. (2013). Model construction as a learning activity: A design space and review. Interact Learn Environ, 21(4), 371–413.
Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2018). EvoBuild: A quickstart toolkit for programming agent-based models of evolutionary processes. J Sci Educ Technol, 27(2), 131–146.
Wilcox, B. R., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2018). A summary of research-based assessment of students' beliefs about the nature of experimental physics. Am J Phys, 86(3), 212–219.
Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zwickl, B. M., Hu, D., Finkelstein, N., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2015). Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results. Physical Review -Physics Education Research, 11(2), 020113.
Metadaten
Titel
Science Teachers’ Attitudes towards Computational Modeling in the Context of an Inquiry-Based Learning Module
verfasst von
Elon Langbeheim
David Perl
Edit Yerushalmi
Publikationsdatum
25.08.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09855-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

Journal of Science Education and Technology 6/2020 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

How Does a Math Review Impact a Student’s Arithmetic Skills and Performance in First-Semester General Chemistry?

Correction

Correction to: Self-Evaluative Scientific Modelling in an Outreach Gene Technology Laboratory

OriginalPaper

Understanding How the Perceived Usefulness of Mobile Technology Impacts Physics Learning Achievement: a Pedagogical Perspective

OriginalPaper

Self-evaluative Scientific Modeling in an Outreach Gene Technology Laboratory

ReviewPaper

Student-Generated Stop-Motion Animation in Science Classes: a Systematic Literature Review

OriginalPaper

Pop-up Questions Within Educational Videos: Effects on Students’ Learning

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
    Bildnachweise