Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 239–246 | Cite as

Effect of a Problem Based Simulation on the Conceptual Understanding of Undergraduate Science Education Students

Article

Abstract

A study of the effect of science teaching with a multimedia simulation on water quality, the “River of Life,” on the science conceptual understanding of students (N = 83) in an undergraduate science education (K-9) course is reported. Teaching reality-based meaningful science is strongly recommended by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). Water quality provides an information-rich context for relating classroom science to real-world situations impacting the environment, and will help to improve student understanding of science (Kumar, 2005a; Kumar and Chubin, 2000). The topics addressed were classes of organisms that form river ecosystem, dissolved oxygen, macroinvertebrates, composition of air, and graph reading skills. Paired t-test of pre- and post-tests, and pre- and delayed post-tests showed significant (p < 0.05) gains. The simulation had a significant effect on the conceptual understanding of students enrolled in a K-9 science education course for prospective teachers in the following areas: composition of air, macroinvertebrates, dissolved oxygen, classes of organisms that form a river ecosystem, and graph reading skills. The gain was more in the former four areas than the latter one. A paired t-test of pre- and delayed post-tests showed significant (p < 0.05) gains in the water quality and near transfer subsets than the dissolved oxygen subset. Additionally students were able to transfer knowledge acquired from the multimedia simulation on more than one concept into teachable stand-alone lesson plans.

Keywords

simulation problem solving science conceptual understanding. 

References

  1. Allen M. B. (2003) Eight question on teacher preparation: What does the research say?. Denver, CO, Education Commission of the StatesGoogle Scholar
  2. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993) Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33:52–70Google Scholar
  3. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992) Anchored instruction in science and mathematics: Theoretical basis, developmental projects, and initial research findings. In: Duschl R., Hamilton R. (eds) Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. New York, SUNY PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Kumar D. D. (2005a) Sustainability through science-technology-society education. In: Wildrer P. A., Schroeder E. D., Kopp H. (eds) Global sustainability. The impact of local cultures. A new perspective for science, engineering, economics and politics. Weinheim, Wiley - VCHGoogle Scholar
  5. Kumar, D. D. (2005b). Teaching science with a computer simulation on water quality. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Chemists, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  6. Kumar D. D., Morris J. D. (2005). Predicting scientific understanding of prospective elementary teachers: Role of gender, education level, courses in science, and attitudes toward science and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(4):387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kumar D. D., Crippen K. J. (2005). Science education in review: Response to secretary’s summit 2004. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2):143–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kumar D. D. (2004). Analysis of laptop computers in science. Science Education International, 15(3):201–208Google Scholar
  9. Kumar D.D. (2003). Trends in post-secondary science in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumar D. D., Altschuld J. W. (2003). Science education policy: A symposium. The Review of Policy Research, 20(4):561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar D. D., Chubin, D. E. (Eds.) (2000). Science, technology, & society: A sourcebook on research and practice, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum PublishersGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar D. D., Sherwood R. D. (1997) Hypermedia in science and mathematics: Applications in teacher education, problem solving and student testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milken Exchange on Education Technology (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Author, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  14. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future, New York, NY, Author.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  16. Schwartz D. L., Brophy S., Lin X., Bransford J. D. (1999) Software for managing complex learning: Examples from an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2):39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sherwood R. D. (2001). River of Life (Multimedia Program). Nashville, TN, Learning Technology Center, Vanderbilt UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Sherwood R. D. (2002). Problem-Based multimedia software for middle grades science: Development issues and an initial field study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2):147–165Google Scholar
  19. Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., and The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revison. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305–346). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationFlorida Atlantic UniversityDavieUSA
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and InstructionIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations