Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 481–495

Which Setting to Choose: Comparison of Whole-Class vs. Small-Group Computer Simulation Use

Article

Abstract

Studies considering whole-class use of computer simulations are limited, despite the increasing interest in this mode of use. The current study explored how a collection of computer simulations was integrated into both whole-class and small-group instructional settings during a high school chemistry unit on atomic structure. Participants included one teacher and all of the students in two of her classes. Descriptive statistics are reported for pre- and post-instruction quantitative assessments of student conceptual understanding. Analytic induction guided analysis of a variety of qualitative data sources, including classroom observations, artifacts and interviews. Findings indicated that, regardless of the setting, computer simulations positively contributed to students’ learning gains. Further, highly collaborative talk, coupled with meaningful teacher–student interactions, was more frequent in the whole-class group. These results suggest that both whole-class and small-group settings are appropriate for using simulations in science. Further, the effective incorporation of simulations into whole-class instruction may provide a solution to the dilemma of technology penetration versus integration in today’s classrooms.

Keywords

Computer simulations Collaborative learning Chemistry 

References

  1. Akpan JP, Andre T (2000) Using a computer simulation before dissection to help students learn anatomy. J Comp Math Sci Teach 19(3):297–313Google Scholar
  2. Barnes D (1992) From communication to curriculum. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell RL (2008) Teaching the nature of science through process skills: activities for grades 3–8. Allyn & Bacon/Longmann, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell RL, Trundle KC (2008) The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. J Res Sci Teach 45:346–372 Google Scholar
  5. Bennett J, Hogarth S, Lubben F, Campbell B, Robinson A (2010) Talking science: the research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teaching. Int J Sci Educ 32(1):69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown AL, Campione J (1990) Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Contributions Hum Dev 21:108–126Google Scholar
  7. Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid S (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu Res 18(1):32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull G, Garofalo J (2006) The 20-foot view. Learng Lead Technol 33(5):36–37Google Scholar
  9. Çalık M, Ayas A, Ebenezer JV (2005) A review of solution chemistry studies: insights into students’ conceptions. J Sci Educ Technol 14(1):29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsen WS (2007) Language and science learning. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  11. Chang K, Chen Y, Lin H, Sung Y (2008) Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Comput Educ 51(4):1486–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. deJong T, van Joolingen W (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2):179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duschl R, Schweingruber H, Shouse A (eds) (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle RA, Conant FC (2002) Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognit Instr 20(4):399–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erickson F (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock M (ed) Handbook of research on teaching. MacMillan, New York, pp 119–161Google Scholar
  16. Fienberg J, Leinhardt G (2002) Looking through the glass: reflections of identity in conversations at a history museum. In: Leinhardt G, Crowley K, Knutson K (eds) Learning conversations in museums. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 167–211Google Scholar
  17. Gabric K, Hovance C, Comstock S, Harnisch D (2006) Scientists in their own classroom: the use of type II technology in the science classroom. Comput Sch 22(3/4):77–91Google Scholar
  18. Gallimore R, Tharp R (1990) Teaching mind in society. In: Moll L (ed) Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and social applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garofalo J, Bull G, Bell R, van Hover S (2004) Interactive whole-class display systems. Learn Lead Technol 32(2):28–32Google Scholar
  20. Gerard L, Varma K, Corliss S, Linn M (2011) Professional development for technology—enhanced inquiry science. Rev Educ Res 81(3):408–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillies R (2006) Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. Br J Educ Psychol 76:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillies R (2008) Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. In: Gillies R, Ashman A, Terwel J (eds) The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. Springer, Brisbane, pp 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldenberg C (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom applications. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6q72k3k9
  24. Hausfather SJ (1996) Vygotsky and schooling: creating a social contest for learning. Act Teach Educ 18:1–10Google Scholar
  25. Hennessy S, Deaney R, Ruthven K (2006) Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulations into secondary science teaching. Int J Sci Educ 28(7):701–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higgins S, Beauchamp G, Miller D (2007) Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learn Media Technol 32(3):213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoek D, Seegers G (2005) Effects of instruction on verbal interactions during collaborative problem solving. Learn Environ Res 8:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2008) National Education Technology Standards. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx
  29. Jordan B, Henderson A (1995) Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. J Learn Sci 4(1):39–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly G (2007) Discourse in science classrooms. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 443–469Google Scholar
  31. Khan S (2011) New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. J Sci Educ Technol 20(3):215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King A (1990) Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. Am Educ Res J 27:664–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. University of Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee Y-H, Waxman H, Wu J-Y, Michko G, Lin G (2013) Revisit the effect of teaching and learning with technology. Educ Technol Soc 16(1):133–146Google Scholar
  35. Lemke JL (1990) Talking science: language, learning, and values. Ablex, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  36. Limniou M, Papadopoulos N, Whitehead C (2009) Integration of simulation into pre-laboratory chemical course: computer cluster versus WebCT. Comput Educ 52(1):45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lou Y, Abrami P, d’Apollonia S (2001) Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 71(3):449–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maeng JL, Mulvey BK, Smetana LK, Bell RL (2013) Preservice teachers’ TPACK: using technology to support inquiry instruction. J Sci Educ Technol. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z
  39. Meloth MS, Deering PD (1999) The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing during collaborative learning. In: O’Donnell AM, King A (eds) Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 235–255Google Scholar
  40. Mercer N (1996) The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learn Instr 6(4):359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mercer N (2000) Words and Minds: how we use language to think together. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mercer N, Wegerif R, Dawes L (1999) Children’s talk and development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educ Res J 25(1):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mortimer EF (1998) Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: an example from theory of matter. Int J Sci Educ 20(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mortimer EF, Scott PH (2003) Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  45. Nakhleh MB (1993) Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Chem Educ 70(1):52–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Palincsar AS (1998) Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol 49:345–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid DJ, Zhang J, Chen Q (2003) Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. J Comp Assist Learn 19:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rojas-Drummond SM, Pérez V, Vélez M, Gómez L, Mendoza A (2003) Talking for reasoning among Mexican primary school children. Learn Instr 13(6):653–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roschelle J (1992) Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. J Learn Sci 2(3):235–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross SM, Morrison GR, Lowther DL (2010) Educational technology research past and present: balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemp Educ Technol 1:17–35Google Scholar
  53. Scalise K, Timms M, Moorjani A, Clark L, Holtermann K, Irvin PS (2011) Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. J Res Sci Teach 48:1050–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slavin RE, Hurley EA, Chamberlain A (2003) Cooperative learning and achievement: theory and research. In: Reynolds WM, Miller GE (eds) Handbook of psychology: educational psychology, vol 7. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Smetana LK, Bell RL (2012) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 34(9): 1337–1370.Google Scholar
  56. Stake Robert (2005) Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 433–466Google Scholar
  57. Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry—incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tharp R. G, Gallimore R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5th0939d
  59. Tobin K, Tippins D, Gallard A (1994) Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In: Gabel DL (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 45–93Google Scholar
  60. Trundle KC, Bell RL (2010) The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi-experimental study. Comput Educ 54(4):1078–1088Google Scholar
  61. van Zee EH, Minstrell J (1997) Reflective discourse: developing shared understandings in a high school physics classroom. Int J Sci Educ 19:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Webb NM (1989) Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Int J Educ Res 13:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wegerif R, Mercer N, Dawes L (1999) From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learn Instr 9:493–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wertsch JV (1991) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvester Wheatsheaf, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu H, Huang Y (2007) Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Sci Educ 91(5):727–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu H, Krajcik J, Soloway E (2001) Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):821–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhou G, Brouwer W, Nocente N, Martin B (2005) Enhancing conceptual learning through computer-based applets: the effectiveness and implications. J Interact Learn Res 16(1):31–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations