Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Do Secondary Science Teachers Perceive the Use of Interactive Simulations? The Affordance in Singapore Context

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research has shown that teaching science with a modeling-oriented approach, particularly with interactive simulations, will promote student engagement and understanding. To date, many interactive simulations have been developed and adopted for classroom practices. The purpose of this study was to explore secondary school science teachers’ perceived affordance of interactive simulation as well as their practical experience with simulation implementation in class. Twelve science teachers from seven schools were interviewed individually and the data was triangulated with their teaching plans and student assignments. Their past experiences of simulation implementation revealed that most teachers adopted simulations for demonstration purpose in teacher-led instruction. Their attempts to provide students opportunities to use the simulations to explore alternative modeling by themselves did not seem to work well. There are various reasons for this, such as the shortage of facilities, Internet bandwidth, and technological knowledge. There was also a pressing need for teachers to complete the required syllabus in limited classroom time. The majority of teachers’ future intent to use simulation in class was quite weak, especially with the less proficient students who had some difficulty understanding simulations. Although interactive simulations have great potential to promote students’ understanding in abstract science concepts, overcoming the difficulties of implementation may require other alternatives such as a flipped classroom approach. Future studies can investigate how to design learning activities outside class, to engage students in exploring modeling in simulations.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0025-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., & Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modelling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue of the journal of science education and technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9544-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Longhurst, M. L., Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., & Coster, D. C. (2015). Technologies and reformed-based science instruction: The examination of a professional development model focused on supporting science teaching and learning with technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 562–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9548-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, D. D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(4), 105–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education, 79, 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian, W., Esquembre, F., & Barbato, L. (2011). Open source physics. Science, 334(6059), 1077–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2008). Six levels of organization for curriculum design and teaching. In J. Clement & M. A. Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 255–272). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2010). Competing priorities: Singaporean teachers’ perspectives on critical literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(6), 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2002). Student-centered teaching in a standards-based world: Finding a sensible balance. Science & Education, 11(4), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modelling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology & Society, 4(1), 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modelling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2017). Models in science. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017 ed.). Spring.

  • Fulmer, G. W., & Liang, L. L. (2013). Measuring model-based high school science instruction: Development and application of a student survey. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9374-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geban, Ö., Askar, P., & Özkan, Ï. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem-solving approaches on high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, K. S. A., Wee, L. K., Yip, K. W., Toh, P. Y. J., & Lye, S. Y. (2013). Addressing learning difficulties in Newtons 1st and 3rd Laws through problem based inquiry using Easy Java Simulation. Paper presented at the the 5th redesign pedagogy, Singapore.

  • Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based on the literature review titled a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved from https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.

  • Hershkovitz, A., de Baker, R. S. J., Gobert, J., Wixon, M., & Pedro, M. S. (2013). Discovery with models: A case study on carelessness in computer-based science inquiry. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1480–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, D., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Maung Aye, K., Loo, S. C., Sheng, Y. Z., & Luo, W. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in secondary 3 English and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1(1), 57–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hounshell, P. B., & Hill, S. R. (1989). The microcomputer and achievement and attitudes in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 543–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, S. K., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers' integration of laptops in secondary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2012). Personalising learning in teacher education through the use of technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2008). What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In J. Clement & M. A. Ramirez (Eds.), Model based learning and instruction in science (pp. 139–150). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, K. H., Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2012). Creating thinking schools through authentic assessment: The case in Singapore. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Arvidsson, T. S., Lesperance, R., & Corprew, R. (2017). Can engaging in science practices promote deep understanding of them? Science Education, 101(2), 232–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating Model-Based Reasoning in Science Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In quest of productive modelling-based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers' theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 907–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100.

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.": ERIC.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 921–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, Y. G., Bollen, L., de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 502–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology: Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, township and rural high schools: The context-specificity of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrum, L. (1995). Educators and the internet: A case study of professional development. Computers & Education, 24(3), 221–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modelling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modelling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodelling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modelling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Meyer, J., & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modelling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modelling: Making scientific modelling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: science in the classroom (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, L. K., & Mak, W. K. (2009). Leveraging on Easy Java Simulation tool and open source computer simulation library to create interactive digital media for mass customization of high school physics curriculum. Paper presented at the the 3rd redesigning pedagogy international conference, Singapore.

  • Wee, L. K. L., Lim, A. P., Goh, K. S. A., LyeYE, S. Y., Lee, T. L., Xu, W., … Lim, E.-P. (2012). Computer Models Design for Teaching and Learning using Easy Java Simulation. Paper presented at the the world conference on physics education, İstanbul, Turkey.

  • Wee, L. K., Lee, T. L., Chew, C., Wong, D., & Tan, S. (2015). Understanding resonance graphs using easy java simulations (EJS) and why we use EJS. Physics Education, 50(2), 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaman, M., Nerdel, C., & Bayrhuber, H. (2008). The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1784–1794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Mediated effects of technology competencies and experiences on relations among attitudes towards technology use, technology ownership, and self efficacy about technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 394–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • 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(8), 792–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., Liu, X., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Expert models and modelling processes associated with a computer-modelling tool. Science Education, 90(4), 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Education Research Funding Programme, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, project number OER 10/15 GWF. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of NIE. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their input and the support of participating teachers and project collaborator Mr. Wee Loo Kang from the Ministry of Education.

Funding

This study was funded by the NIE’s Education Research Funding Programme (project number OER 10/15 GWF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore

    Wenjin Vikki Bo

  2. Department of Teaching & Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Gavin W. Fulmer

  3. National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Christine Kim-Eng Lee & Victor Der-Thanq Chen

Authors
  1. Wenjin Vikki Bo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gavin W. Fulmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Kim-Eng Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Victor Der-Thanq Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gavin W. Fulmer.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures involving human participants were approved by and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Nanyang Technological University Institutional Review Board (NTU/IRB), and consistent with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Semi-structured interview questions:

  1. 1.

    What did you think of the simulations/teaching with simulations?

    1. a.

      Did you find them easy to use? [how so, whether yes/no]

    2. b.

      Were they interesting? [how so, whether yes/no]

    3. c.

      What feedback do you have about the simulations themselves?

  2. 2.

    Did you try the simulations in your class (give examples: such as lesson plans and student artifact to support)?

    1. a.

      What ways did you use the simulation? [e.g., context, platform, topic/content, purpose of the lesson, activity design, duration,]

    2. b.

      How did the students respond to/interact with the simulations?

    3. c.

      What are the challenges you encountered while using simulation in class?

  3. 3.

    Do you have plans to continue using the simulations? Why/Why not?

    1. a.

      If yes, how will you be using them in the future? [e.g., frequency, context, platform, topic/content]

    2. b.

      What feedback would you give on using the simulations in class? [e.g., format, materials, supplementary worksheets, etc.]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bo, W.V., Fulmer, G.W., Lee, C.KE. et al. How Do Secondary Science Teachers Perceive the Use of Interactive Simulations? The Affordance in Singapore Context. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 550–565 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9744-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9744-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation