Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 527–537 | Cite as

The Use of Interactive Computer Animations Based on POE as a Presentation Tool in Primary Science Teaching

  • Ercan AkpınarEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of using interactive computer animations based on predict–observe–explain (POE) as a presentation tool on primary school students’ understanding of the static electricity concepts. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test control group design was utilized in this study. The experiment group consisted of 30 students, and the control group of 27 students. The control group received normal instruction in which the teacher provided instruction by means of lecture, discussion and homework. Whereas in the experiment group, dynamic and interactive animations based on POE were used as a presentation tool. Data collection tools used in the study were static electricity concept test and open-ended questions. The static electricity concept test was used as pre-test before the implementation, as post-test at the end of the implementation and as delay test approximately 6 weeks after the implementation. Open-ended questions were used at the end of the implementation and approximately 6 weeks after the implementation. Results indicated that the interactive animations used as presentation tools were more effective on the students’ understanding of static electricity concepts compared to normal instruction.

Keywords

Interactive animation Static electricity Predict–observe–explain Science teaching 

References

  1. Akçay H, Durmaz A, Tüysüz C, Feyzioğlu B (2006). Effects of computer based learning on students’ attitudes and achievements towards analytical chemistry. Turkish Online J Educ Technol 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net
  2. Akpınar E (2006) Computer assisted Instruction in constructing of abstract concepts in science teaching: the unit of electricity in our life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Dokuz Eylül, İzmir, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. Akpınar E, Ergin Ö (2007) The effect of interactive computer animations accompanied with experiments on grade 6th students’ achievements and attitudes toward science. iJET 2(2):1–10Google Scholar
  4. Altın K (2001) Using computer in physics course: teaching course by using simulation [Fizik dersinde bilgisayar kullanımı: bir simülasyon yazılımı ile ders geliştirilmesi]. Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, pp 242–247. İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardac D, Akaygün S (2004) Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representation on students’ understanding of chemical change. J Res Sci Teach 41(4):317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ateş S (2005) The effectiveness of the learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to prospective female and male science teachers. Res Sci Technol Educ 23(2):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azar A (2001) Analysis of university students’ misconceptions in electricity subject [Üniversite öğrencilerinin elektrik konusunda kavram yanılgılarının analizi]. Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, pp 345–350. İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  8. Başer M, Geban Ö (2007) Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students’ understanding of static electricity concepts. Res Sci Technolo Educ 25(2):243–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadmus RR Jr (1990) A video technique to facilitate the visualization of physical phenomena. Am J Phys 58:397–399. doi: 10.1119/1.16483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Çalik M, Kolomuç A, Karagölge Z (2010) The effect of conceptual change pedagogy on students’ conceptions of rate of reaction. J Sci Educ Technol 19:422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally College, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsen DD, Andre T (1992) Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. J Comput-Based Instr 19:105–109Google Scholar
  13. Çepni S, Taş E, Köse S (2006) The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Comput Educ 46:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambers SK, Andre T (1997) Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulation in learning about direct current. J Res Sci Teach 34(2):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen YL, Pan PR, Sung YT, Chang KE (2013) Correcting misconceptions on electronics: effects of a simulation based learning environment backed by a conceptual change model. Educ Technol Soc 16(2):212–227Google Scholar
  16. Chiu ML, Chiu MH, Ho CY (2002) Using cognitive-based representations to diagnose students’ conceptions of the characteristics of matter. Proc Natl Sci Counc ROC (D) 12(3):91–99Google Scholar
  17. Çömek A, Bayram H (2006) The teaching heat topics in science lesson using computer-aided materials. [Fen bilgisi öğretiminde “ısı” konusunun bilgisayar destekli öğretim materyalleri ile öğretilmesi]. VI. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, pp 192–197. İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  18. Ebenezer JV (2001) A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: animation of the solution process of table salt. J Sci Educ Technol 10(1):73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Escalada LT, Zollman DA (1997) An investigation on the effects of using interactive digital video in a physics classroom on student learning and attitudes. J Res Sci Teach 34(5):467–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans C, Gibbons NJ (2007) The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Comput Educ 49:1147–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frailich M, Kesner M, Hofstein A (2007) The influence of web-based chemistry learning on students’ perceptions, attitudes, and achievements. Res Sci Technol Educ 25(2):179–197. doi: 10.1080/02635140701250659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geban Ö, Ertepınar H, Yılmaz G, Atlan A, Şahpaz F (1994). The effect of computer assisted instruction on students’ science achievement and attitudes toward science [Bilgisayar destekli eğitimin öğrencilerin fen bilgisi başarılarına ve fen bilgisine ilgilerine etkisi]. I. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildirileri. İzmirGoogle Scholar
  23. Georghiades P (2004) Making pupils’ conceptions of electricity more durable by means of situated metacognition. Int J Sci Educ 26(1):85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gülbahar Y (2002) Assessment of web based courses: a discussion and analysis of learners’ individual differences and teaching–learning process. Unpublished Master Dissertation. METU, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  25. Gunstone RR, Mitshell IJ (1997) Metacogniton and conceptual change. In: Mintzes JJ, Wandersee JH, Novak JD (eds) Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Guruswamy C, Somars MD, Hussey RG (1997) Students’ understanding of the transfer of charge between conductors. Phys Educ 32:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaakkola T, Nurmi S (2008) Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. J Comput Assist Learn 24(4):271–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karamustafaoğlu O (2012) How computer-assisted teaching in physics can enhance student learning. Educ Res Rev 7(1):297–315Google Scholar
  29. Kearney M (2002) Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks to elicit and promote discussion about students’ physics conceptions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Kearney M, Treagust DF (2001) Constructivism as a referent in the design and development of a computer program which uses interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. Aust J Educ Technol 17(1):64–79Google Scholar
  31. Kearney M, Treagust DF, Yeo S, Zadnik M (2001) Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding. Res Sci Educ 31(4):589–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16(5):413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kiboss JK, Ndirangu M, Wekesa EW (2004) Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theory. J Sci Educ Technol 13(2):207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee Y, Law N (2001) Explorations in prompting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. Int J Sci Educ 23(2):111–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mulhall P, Mckittrick B, Gunstone R (2001) A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity. Res Sci Educ 31:575–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Özdener N, Erdoğan B (2001) Bilgisayar destekli eğitimde kullanım amaçlı bir simülasyon tasarlanması ve geliştirilmesi [The design and development of a simulation for use of computer-assisted instruction]. Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, pp 235–241Google Scholar
  37. Pine K, Messer D, John KS (2001) Children’s misconceptions in primary science: a survey of teachers’ views. Res Sci Technol Educ 19(1):79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quinn C, Wild M (1998) Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional multimedia. Br J Educ Technol 29(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rezaei AR, Katz L (2002) Using computer assisted instruction to compare the inventive model and the radical constructivist approach to teaching physics. J Sci Educ Technol 11(4):367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rieber LP (2002) Supporting discovery-based learning with simulations. Invited presentation at the international workshop on dynamic visualizations and learning. Knowledge Media Research Center, Tubingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  41. Ronen M, Eliahu M (2000) Simulation—a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. J Comput Assist Learn 16:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russell DW, Lucas KB, McRobbie CJ (2004) Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. J Res Sci Teach 41:165–185. doi: 10.1002/tea.10129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanger MJ, Badger SM II (2001) Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve students’ understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility. J Chem Educ 78:1412–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanger MF, Greenbowe TF (2000) Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. Int J Sci Educ 22(5):521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sencar S, Eryilmaz A (2004) Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuit. J Res Sci Teach 41(6):603–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sharon KC, Thomas A (1997) Gender, prior knowledge, interest and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. J Res Sci Teach 34(2):107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sönmez G, Geban Ö, Ertepınar H (2001). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin elektrik konusundaki kavramları anlamalarında kavramsal değişim yaklaşımının etkisi [The effect of conceptual change approach on sixth grade students' understanding of electricity concepts]. Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, pp 35–38Google Scholar
  48. Spitulnik MW, Saul CZ, Krajcik JS (1998) Using hypermedia to represent emerging students understanding: science learners and preservice teachers. In: Wintzes JJ, Eandersee JH, Novak JD (eds) Teaching science for understanding. Academic Press, California, pp 229–261Google Scholar
  49. Tao P-K, Gunstone RF (1999) The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. J Res Sci Teach 36:859–882. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<859:AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tianyu W, Thomas A (1991) Conceptual change versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemp Educ Pschol 16:116–130Google Scholar
  51. Tsai C-C (2003) Using conflict map as an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits. Int J Sci Educ 25(3):307–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Üstüner I, Sancar M (1999) The effect of computer software on physics students’ learning and using computer. [Genel Kullanım amaçlı yazılımların fizik öğrencilerinde öğrenme ve bilgisayar kullanım alışkanlıklarına etkisi]. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 10:165–171Google Scholar
  53. Wang T, Andre T (1991) Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemp Educ Psychol 16:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White RT, Gunstone RF (1992) Probing understanding. Falmer Press, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  55. Williamson V, Abraham M (1995) The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J Res Sci Teach 35(2):145–160Google Scholar
  56. Windsehitl M, Andre T (1998) Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the role of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. J Res Sci Teach 35(2):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolfgram DE (1994) Creating multimedia presentations. QUE, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  58. Yiğit N, Akdeniz AR (2003) The Effect of computer-assisted activities on students’ achievement in physics course: Electric circuits sample [Fizik öğretiminde bilgisayar destekli etkinliklerin öğrenci kazanımları üzerine etkisi: Elektrik devreleri örneği]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 23(3):99–113Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Instructional Technologies, Education FacultyDokuz Eylül UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations