Abstract
This paper presents a study on discovery learning of scientific concepts with the support of computer simulation. In particular, the paper will focus on the effect of the levels of guidance on students with a low degree of experience in informatics and educational technology. The first stage of this study was to identify the common misconceptions about density, starting from a literature review. Forty eight students (25 M and 23 F) from two high schools in Vanuatu were then involved in the study. These students were divided into three groups according to the different levels of guidance they received (Unguided; Minimum guidance, Maximum guidance). A pre and post activity questionnaire was designed containing 12 questions. The students underwent a training session with computer simulation about density. Using a descriptive and an inferential statistics method, scores obtained from the three different groups were compared during pre-test and post-test analyses. From the analyses it was found that the construction of knowledge from discovery learning activities occurs with or without guidance, however the amount of guidance received has an influence on the depth of conceptual understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NY, US: Prentice Hall.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/a0021017.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R. F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31–53.
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.
Christoph, G., Goldhammer, F., Zylka, J., & Hartig, J. (2014). Adolescents’ computer performance: the role of self-concept and motivational aspects. Computers & Education, 81, 1–12.
Concari, S., Giorgi, S., Cámara, C., & Giacosa, N. (2006). Didactic strategies using simulations for physics teaching. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education, 3, 2042–2046.
Çepni, S., & Şahin, Ç. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2). Retrieved from http://eurasianjournals.com/index.php/ejpce/article/viewArticle/739. Accessed 14 December 2014.
Çepni, S., Şahin, Ç., & Ipek, H. (2010). Teaching floating and sinking concepts with different methods and techniques based on the 5E instructional model. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 11, pp. 1–39). Hong Kong Institute of Education. 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/download/v11_issue2_files/sahin.pdf?origin=publication_detail. Accessed 02 December 2014.
Damassa, D. A., & Sitko, T. D. (2010). Simulation technologies in higher education: uses, trends and Implications. ECAR Research Bulletin, 3, 2010.
Dawkins, K. R., Dickerson, D. L., McKinney, S. E., & Butler, S. (2008). Teaching density to middle school students: preservice science teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(1), 21–26.
Derradj, C. (2014). La problematisation dans l’enseignement des sciences physique. University of Aix-Marseille: Master MEEF Parcours. Unpublished dissertation.
Hardiman, P. T., Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1986). Learning to understand the balance beam. Cognition and Instruction, 3(1), 63–86.
Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst south African students. Physics Education, 15(2), 92.
Hewson, M. G. A. (1986). The acquisition of scientific knowledge: analysis and representation of student conceptions concerning density. Science Education, 70(2), 159–170. doi:10.1002/sce.3730700210.
Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13(1), 1–13.
Hitt, A. M. (2005). Attacking a dense problem: a learner-centered approach to teaching density. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42(1), 25–29.
Honomichl, R. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). The role of guidance in children’s discovery learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(6), 615–622. doi:10.1002/wcs.1199.
Iding, M., & Singh, M. (2013). Improving Computer-Based Education in the Pacific Islands: From Coconut Wireless to Wi-Fi. Retrieved from http://wcce2013.umk.pl/publications/v2/V2.27_103-Iding-FPN.pdf
Iding, M., Skouge, J., & Peter, J. (2008). The computer and the canoe: web-based communities across the Pacific Islands. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 4(1), 5–16.
ITU. (2013). H.E. Moana Carcasses Katokai Kalosil, PM, Vanuatu - speech at Connect Asia-Pacific 2013 Summit - YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu5euKvam68
Jong, T. D. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and Computing, 6(3–4), 217–229. doi:10.1016/0167-9287(91)80002-F.
Jong, T. D., & Joolingen, W. R. V. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kohn, A. (1993). The risks of rewards. NY, US: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Hagemans, M. G. (2008). The influence of domain knowledge on strategy use during simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 580–592. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.001.
Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 113–132.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.
McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., Malley, C., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 406–417. doi:10.1119/1.2885199.
Miyake, N. (2007). Computer supported collaborative learning. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of E-learning research (pp. 248–266). UK: SAGE.
Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18. doi:10.1119/1.2150754.
Piaget, J. (2013). Child’s construction of quantities: selected works (Vol. 8). New York, NY, US: Routledge.
Psycharis, S. (2011). The computational experiment and its effects on approach to learning and beliefs on physics. Computers & Education, 56(3), 547–555. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.011.
Radovanovic, J., & Slisko, J. (2012). Approximate value of buoyant force: a water-filled balloon demonstration. The Physics Teacher, 50(7), 428–429. doi:10.1119/1.4752051.
Ren, A. Z., & Xie, X. Y. (2004). The simulation of post-earthquake fire-prone area based on GIS. Journal of Fire Sciences, 22(5), 421–439. doi:10.1177/0734904104042440.
Santos, R. P. Dos. (2012). Second Life as a Platform for Physics Simulations and Microworlds: An Evaluation. In Proceedings of the CBLIS 2012-10th Conference on Computer-Based Learning in Science, Barcelona, 26th to (pp. 173–180). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2441549
Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: the case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–283.
Smitha, V. P. (2012). Inquiry training model and guided discovery learning for fostering critical thinking and scientific attitude (Firts ed.). Kozhikode: Vilavath Publication.
Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: to simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S37–S41. doi:10.1119/1.19517.
Ünal, S., & Coştu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float. In Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 6, p. 1). Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/download/v6_issue1_files/costu.pdf?origin=publication_detail
Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2006). A powerful tool for teaching science. Nature Physics, 2(5), 290–292.
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683.
Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227. doi:10.1119/1.3361987.
Xie, Q., & Tinker, R. (2006). Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 77. doi:10.1021/ed083p77.
Zhang, M. (2014). Who are interested in online science simulations? Tracking a trend of digital divide in internet use. Computers & Education, 76, 205–214.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
1.1 Examples of questions take from the questionnaire based on the work of Çepni & Şahin, (2012)
1.1.1 Questions n.: 3
Sketch the representation of the three bottles of water when dropped in the water-aquarium.
Circle a letter of choice which gives a best explanation for your choice in question 3.1.
Choice | Possible explanation |
|---|---|
A | Each bottle’s position in the water is determined by the amount of water in it. |
B | Each bottle’s position in the water is determined by its weight alone |
C | Each bottle’s position in the water is determined by the amount of air in the bottle |
D | Each bottle’s position in the water is determine by the density of liquid it contains |
1.1.2 Question n. 10
This aquarium is filled with oil. Sketch the representation of these wooden and metal balls when dropped into it.
Circle a letter of choice which gives a best explanation for your choice in question.
Choice | Possible explanation |
|---|---|
A | Each ball’s position in the oil is similar to that of water |
B | Some part of both ball’s will be emerged on the surface of the oil |
C | Both ball’s will be at the bottom of the aquarium |
D | A larger part or larger fraction of the wooden ball will be emerged and the metal ball will maintain its position compared to that if it was in water |
E | Both ball’s hang in the oil with the wooden ball above the metal ball |
1.1.3 Question n. 12
In the pictures below, substances with the same volume are placed into the barrels filled with water. Which one of these substances will cause equal amounts of water from the barrels to over flow?
Circle a letter of choice which gives a best explanation for your choice in question 11.1.
Choice | Possible explanation |
|---|---|
A | Because the mass of both objects are equal |
B | Because both of those two objects are heavier than water |
C | Because the amount of overflowing water of the submerged object is equal |
D | Because the displaced water is equal to the submerged volume of water |
E | Because both objects are under the water |
F | Because parts of both objects are above the water |
Appendix B
Task from the activity on density proposed in the training sessions (Retrieved online from http://phet.colorado.edu/sims/density-and-buoyancy/density_en.html the 17/12/2014):
Material | Mass (kg) | Volume (L) | Density (kg/L) | Does it Float? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Styrofoam | ||||
Wood | ||||
Ice | ||||
Brick | ||||
Aluminum |
In the custom setting, choose the ‘My block’ option in the material drop down box. Set the mass of your object to 4 kg. Adjust the volume to find the minimum volume needed to make the object float.
Volume_________________ Density__________________.
How does the density of a large piece of aluminium compare to a small piece?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moli, L., Delserieys, A.P., Impedovo, M.A. et al. Learning density in Vanuatu high school with computer simulation: Influence of different levels of guidance. Educ Inf Technol 22, 1947–1964 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9527-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9527-4