Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations

Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Teaching science with computer simulations is a complex undertaking. This case study examines how an experienced science teacher taught chemistry using computer simulations and the impact of his teaching on his students. Classroom observations over 3 semesters, teacher interviews, and student surveys were collected. The data was analyzed for (1) patterns in teacher-student-computer interactions, and (2) the outcome of these interactions on student learning. Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) as a theoretical framework, analysis of the data indicates that computer simulations were employed in a unique instructional cycle across 11 topics in the science curriculum and that several teacher-developed heuristics were important to guiding the pedagogical approach. The teacher followed a pattern of “generate-evaluate-modify” (GEM) to teach chemistry, and simulation technology (T) was integrated in every stage of GEM (or T-GEM). Analysis of the student survey suggested that engagement with T-GEM enhanced conceptual understanding of chemistry. The author postulates the affordances of computer simulations and suggests T-GEM and its heuristics as an effective and viable pedagogy for teaching science with technology.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Computerized molecular drawing programs may not be considered simulations in the strictest sense, if they are limited to the construction of graphical models (e.g. selection of elements, bonds, charges, frames) and where users cannot view the outcome of changes to their model (e.g. changes to molecular weight, bond strength, forces).

References

  • Anderson RA, Crabtree BF, Steele DJ, McDaniel RR Jr (2005) Case study research: the view from complexity science. Qual Health Res 15(5):669–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker HS (2000) Generalizing from case studies. In: Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educ Policy Anal Arch 8(1):1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T (1991) Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Educ Comput 6:217–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2):179–201

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T, Martin E, Zamarro J-M, Esquembre F, Swaak J, van Joolingen WR (1999) The integration of computer simulation and learning support: an example from the physics domain of collisions. J Res Sci Teach 36(5):597–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donmoyer R (1990) Generalizability and the single case study. In: Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 175–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein H (2002) Case study and theory in political science. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method: Key issues, key texts. Sage, London, pp 119–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson D (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 35(3):355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS, Reid S, LeMaster R (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 1(1):010103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (2002) Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods 1(2):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert J, Snyder J, Houghton C (2002) The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA

  • Goetz J, LeCompte M (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press, Orlando, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (2000) Case study method: Key issues, key texts. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 1(9):25–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner R, Stewart J (1995) Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: problem solving in the “context of discovery”. Sci Educ 79(2):111–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasenekoglu I, Timuçin M (2007) Biology teacher and expert opinions about computer assisted biology instruction materials: a software entitled nucleic acids and protein synthesis. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus. 1–7. Retrieved from the Eric Database (ED500191) database

  • Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, Deaney R, Brawn R, la Velle L, McFarlane A, Ruthven K, Winterbottom M (2007) Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Comput Educ 48:137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny WR, Grotelueschen AD (1984) Making the case for the case study. J Curric Stud 16(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys CW, Bryan LA (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. J Res Sci Teach 38(6):631–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S (2007) Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Sci Educ 91(6):877–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S (2008) What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In: Clement JJ, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model-based learning and instruction. Springer Publishing, Netherlands, pp 139–150

  • Kozma RB (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobsen MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie SP, Lesgold A (1992) Apprenticeship training in the workplace: computer-coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. In: Farr MJ, Pstokas J (eds) Intelligent instruction by computers: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie DR, Good R (1988) The nature and use of prediction skills in a biological computer simulation. J Res Sci Teach 25(5):335–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis EL, Stern J, Linn M (1993) The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educ Technol 33:45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Li SC, Law N, Lui FA (2006) Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: a pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. J Comput Assis Learn 22(6):405–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002a) The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method. Sage, London, pp 27–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002b) The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method. Sage, London, pp 27–44

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald B, Walker R (1977) Case study and the social philosophy of educational research. In: Hamilton D (ed) Beyond the numbers game: A reader in educational evaluation. MacMillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp 181–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathison S (1988) Why triangulate? Educ Res 17(2):13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam SB (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2008) Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, pp 1–16

  • Njoo M, de Jong T (1991) Giving hints, supporting learning processes, and providing hypotheses. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL

  • Quinn J, Alessi S (1994) The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis-generation strategy on learning. J Res Comput Educ 27(1):75–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber L, Parmley MW (1995) To teach or not to teach? Comparing the use of computer based simulations in deductive versus inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. J Educ Comput Res 13(4):359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber LP, Tzeng S-C, Tribble K, Chu G (1996) Feedback and elaboration within a computer-based simulation: a dual coding perspective. In: Proceedings of selected research and convention presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

  • Rivers RH, Vockell E (1987) Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 24(5):403–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueschemeyer D (2003) Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In: Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D (eds) Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 305–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2):4–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons PE, Lunetta VN (1993) Problem-solving behaviors during a genetics computer simulation: beyond the expert/novice dichotomy. J Res Sci Teach 30(2):153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer J, Marx R, Krajcik J, Chambers J (2000) Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Educ Psychol 3(35):165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Slotta J, Linn MC (2009) Wise science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaling A (2003) Inductive, analogical, and communicative generalization. Int J Qual Methods 2(1):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderberg P, Price F (2003) An examination of problem-based teaching and learning in population genetics and evolution using EVOLVE, a computer simulation. Int J Sci Educ 25(1):35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaak J, van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1998) Supporting simulation-based learning: the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learn Instruc 8(3):235–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valanides N, Angeli C (2008a) Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom: An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions about light and color. J Res Technol Educ 40(3):309–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Valanides N, Angeli C (2008b) Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers. Res Sci Technol Educ 26(1):3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1991) Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instr Sci 20:389–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanWynsberghe R, Khan S (2007) Redefining case study. Int J Qual Methods 6(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasu ES, Tyler DK (1997) A comparison of the critical thinking skills and spatial ability of fifth grade children using simulation software or logo. J Comput Child Educ 8(4):345–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman MVJ, Elshout JJ (1995) Differential effects of instructional support on learning in simulation environments. Instr Sci 22:363–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, Vogel D, Cannon-Bowers C, Muse K, Wright M (2006) Computer gaming and interactive simulations: a meta-analysis. J Educ Comput Res 34(3):229–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb ME (2005) Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. Int J Sci Educ 27(6):705–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White BY, Frederiksen JR (2000) Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In: Minstrell JJ, van Zee E (eds) Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instru 24(2):171–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin R (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia ZC (2007) Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. J Comput Assis Learn 23(2):120–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia, 2125 Neville Scarfe Building, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

    Samia Khan

Authors
  1. Samia Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samia Khan.

Appendix 1: Pedagogy and Simulation Technology Student Survey

Appendix 1: Pedagogy and Simulation Technology Student Survey

This survey will be used to inform us about your experiences in chemistry. Thank you for your participation in this survey.

Please respond to the statements using the A to E scheme below.

  • A = strongly agree

  • B = generally agree

  • C = neutral or agree and disagree about the same

  • D = generally disagree

  • E = strongly disagree

  1. 1.

    A demonstration of a chemical phenomenon is more effective for my learning than an interactive simulation of the same chemical phenomenon.

  2. 2.

    There are more frequent opportunities to generate scientific ideas in this class than in most other classes.

  3. 3.

    An important advantage of the computer simulations is that they make unobservable processes in chemistry more explicit to me.

  4. 4.

    I have been asked to construct explanations about scientific information that was presented in a computer simulation.

  5. 5.

    When using computer simulations in class, if I do not understand the concept before hand, the in-class simulation compounds my confusion instead of clarifying the concept.

  6. 6.

    The use of simulations in class has contributed to the development of my ability to critically analyze a problem in chemistry.

  7. 7.

    Teacher guidance is necessary for the effective use of simulations.

  8. 8.

    I sometimes input extreme case data in the simulations to test the boundaries of my ideas about chemistry.

  9. 9.

    I find myself asking “what would happen if…” science questions more often in this course than other courses.

  10. 10.

    There are more frequent opportunities for students to make and test predictions in this class than in other most other classes.

  11. 11.

    I am asked to challenge or evaluate a scientific idea more often in this class than my other classes.

  12. 12.

    I modify my ideas about chemistry more often because of classroom discussion than from doing homework.

  13. 13.

    The computer graphics of molecular structures used in lecture contributed to my learning in this course in a way that went beyond what I learned from the pictures used in the text.

  14. 14.

    By the conclusion of class, I usually feel I understand the chemistry concept of that lesson.

  15. 15.

    The use of simulations has contributed to the development of my ability to critically analyze a problem in chemistry.

  16. 16.

    Having us generate, evaluate, and modify relationships is valuable to my understanding of the concepts in chemistry.

  17. 17.

    This class would be more effective for me if the instructor provided the information and rules instead of asking me to gather information from the simulations in class and generate relationships myself.

  18. 18.

    I find it difficult to see the patterns in the data from the computer simulations.

  19. 19.

    I sometimes input extreme case data in the simulations to test the boundaries of my ideas about chemistry.

  20. 20.

    I have had to modify some of my initial ideas about a chemical relationship by the conclusion of the lesson.

For statements 21–24, please use the following legend:

  • A = 0–19%

  • B = 20–39%

  • C = 40–59%

  • D = 60–79%

  • E = 80–100%

  1. 21.

    In general, I am able to complete _____% of the activities or exercises called for with the computer in chemistry.

  2. 22.

    I am able to comprehend _____% of the material discussed in the class.

  3. 23.

    I have been able to solve ____% of the homework problems on time.

  4. 24.

    I understand _____ % of the relationships in chemistry that are generated from the class by students.

For the questions below, please use the scheme below:

  • A = 1st

  • B = 2nd best

  • C = 3rd best

  • D = 4th best

  • E = 5th best

  • F = 6th best

  • G = 7th best

Rank where the greatest learning happens for you in chemistry between Q. 25 to 31 from 1 to 7th best. Assign each of the rankings only once between 25 and 31.

  1. 25.

    Classroom demonstrations

  2. 26.

    Classroom simulations

  3. 27.

    OWL (electronic homework system)

  4. 28.

    Laboratories

  5. 29.

    Peer discussion

  6. 30.

    Reading the textbook

  7. 31.

    Teacher discussion with students during class

For the second ranking question below, please use the following legend:

  • A = 1st

  • B = 2nd best

  • C = 3rd best

  • D = 4th best

  • E = 5th best

  • F = 6th best

  • G = 7th best

  • H = 8th best

  • I = 9th best

Rank where the greatest learning happens for you in chemistry between Q. 32 to 40 from 1 to 9th best. Assign each of the rankings only once between 32 and 40.

  1. 32.

    Reading the text

  2. 33.

    Collecting information from the simulation

  3. 34.

    Generating relationships in chemistry

  4. 35.

    Evaluating relationships in chemistry

  5. 36.

    Modifying the relationship because of new information

  6. 37.

    OWL (electronic homework system)

  7. 38.

    Laboratory

  8. 39.

    Peer discussion around the computer

  9. 40.

    Independent use of simulations outside of class

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khan, S. New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations. J Sci Educ Technol 20, 215–232 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2

Keywords

search

Navigation