Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers and Students’ Conceptions of Computer-Based Models in the Context of High School Chemistry: Elicitations at the Pre-intervention Stage

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined teachers’ and students’ initial conceptions of computer-based models—Flash and NetLogo models—and documented how teachers and students reconciled notions of multiple representations featuring macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic representations prior to actual intervention in eight high school chemistry classrooms. Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with 32 students and 6 teachers. Findings revealed an interplay of complex factors that functioned as opportunities and obstacles in the implementation of technologies in science classrooms. Students revealed preferences for the Flash models as opposed to the open-ended NetLogo models. Altogether, due to lack of content and modeling background knowledge, students experienced difficulties articulating coherent and blended understandings of multiple representations. Concurrently, while the aesthetic and interactive features of the models were of great value, they did not sustain students’ initial curiosity and opportunities to improve understandings about chemistry phenomena. Most teachers recognized direct alignment of the Flash model with their existing curriculum; however, the benefits were relegated to existing procedural and passive classroom practices. The findings have implications for pedagogical approaches that address the implementation of computer-based models, function of models, models as multiple representations and the role of background knowledge and cognitive load, and the role of teacher vision and classroom practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Mayer (2001) for detailed discussion of best practice principles to guide design and development of animation and simulations learning platforms. These principles include the modality principle, spatial contiguity principle, temporal contiguity principle, coherence principle, redundancy principle, and individual difference principle.

  2. Explanatory (as opposed to representational) models are designed to develop or support learning and understanding of established knowledge (Gilbert 2005; Gregorius 2010). Thus rather than representing all of the information for a concept, content signals function to guide the learner (along with other forms of instruction) to construct their own understanding of a phenomenon.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adadan, E., Trundle, K. C., & Irving, K. E. (2010). Exploring grade 11 students’ conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of multirepresentational instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1004–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multi-media based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual Solar System Project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 719–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94, 73–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modeling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1379–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 947–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Hameiri, M. (2003). Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: Symbol, macro, micro and process aspects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 219–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 289–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorius, R. M. (2010). Good animations: Pedagogy and learning theory in the design and use of multimedia. In R. E. Belford, J. W. Moore & H. E. Pence (Eds.), Enhancing Learning with Online Resources, Social Networking, and Digital Libraries (pp. 167–190). Washington: American Chemical Society.

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. A., Barnett, M., MaKinster, J. G., & Keating, T. (2004). The impact of three-dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomy concepts: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1555–1575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modeling, and implications for education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., & Um, T. (2002). Young adventurers: Modeling of complex dynamic systems with elementary and middle school students. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, Washington.

  • Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koballa, T., Graber, W., Coleman, D. C., & Kemp, A. C. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teachers’ conceptions of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression in children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 320–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1318–1347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2001). Multi–media learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 165–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. G., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Tjoe, E. (2010). Strategies in visuospatial working memory for learning virtual shapes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1095–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2004). Science teachers’ transformations of the use of computer modeling in the classroom: Using research to inform training. Science Education, 89, 56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 859–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1353–1369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, L. T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). From scientific practice to high school science: Transfer of scientific technologies and realizations of authentic inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 37–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo, Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.

  • Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students’ cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 792–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool. Science Education, 90, 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The materials reported in this paper are based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0918295. The authors sincerely thank the contributions made by Dr. Xiufeng Liu, Dr. Roberto Gregorius, Dr. Gail Zichittella, Silin Wei, and Saranya Harikrishnan. We also want to thank the teachers and students who graciously allowed us into their classrooms. Conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning and Instruction, University at Buffalo, SUNY, 513 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA

    Noemi Waight & Kristina Gillmeister

Authors
  1. Noemi Waight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina Gillmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noemi Waight.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Teacher and Student Interview Protocol

Teacher Interview

  1. 1.

    What are your reactions to the models?

  2. 2.

    How do you see these tools being helpful to your teaching?

  3. 3.

    What are some ways you can use these tools in your teaching? Give some specific examples.

  4. 4.

    What do you think students would learn from this process?

  5. 5.

    Which aspects of the models do you think were beneficial to students? Why?

  6. 6.

    With which aspects of the model did students have the most difficulty? Why?

  7. 7.

    In what kinds of ways can you as a teacher address these understandings? Difficulties?

  8. 8.

    How can these models better serve what you propose to do in the classroom?

  9. 9.

    What would you change and why?

Student Interview

  1. 1.

    What were your reactions to (a) the Flash models and (b) NetLogo models? What came to mind as you viewed these?

  2. 2.

    What were your experiences working with these models?

  3. 3.

    Do you think that the use of these models helped you to understand chemistry content (e.g., states of matter etc.) better? In what ways?

  4. 4.

    If not, why? Explain.

  5. 5.

    Now let’s look at some specific examples. Let’s take a look at the states of matter model.

  6. (a)

    Both models explored phase changes. Tell me a little about how this was represented in the Flash model?

  7. (b)

    How was this represented in the NetLogo model?

  8. (c)

    For both (a) and (b), follow up with this question: Where in the models can we see that?

  9. 6.

    What about the tool was beneficial in your learning process? What about the tool was not helpful?

  10. 7.

    What do you think your teacher could have done differently to help your learning and understanding of atomic structure?

  11. 8.

    Would you want your teacher to use these tools in your chemistry classroom?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waight, N., Gillmeister, K. Teachers and Students’ Conceptions of Computer-Based Models in the Context of High School Chemistry: Elicitations at the Pre-intervention Stage. Res Sci Educ 44, 335–361 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9385-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9385-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation