Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Teachers’ Construction of Knowledge About Simulations and Population Size Via Performing Inquiry with Simulations of Growing Vs. Descending Levels of Complexity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fostering Understanding of Complex Systems in Biology Education

Part of the book series: Contributions from Biology Education Research ((CBER))

Abstract

Arab junior high school science teachers with minimal simulations background were closely examined for their inquiry performance using three consecutive simulations. The simulations modelled the same phenomenon - changes in a food chain population sizes, but composed of different elements (animal, plants) and different levels of complexity expressed in the number of variables for manipulation (i.e., 2, 4, and 6 variables). Half of the teachers experienced the three simulations in an ascending order of complexity (from 2 to 6 variables) whereas the other half - in a descending order of complexity (from 6 to 2 variables). The order effect was examined as related to teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about simulations and their use in teaching, teachers’ disciplinary knowledge, and their inquiry procedures. Data were collected via pre-post-questionnaires, observations, video-recordings of computer screens, audio-recordings of teachers’ think aloud and post individual interviews. Findings suggested that the teachers exposed to an ascending complexity were better able to construct a more comprehensive and accurate mental model of an effective simulation inquiry and of the population size phenomenon than did teachers who began with the highest complexity. Implications for developing a pedagogy for teaching with simulations are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (Ed.). (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition (2011th ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2013). CTSiM: A computational thinking environment for learning science through simulation and modeling. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computer supported education (pp. 369–378). Aachen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggrow, E. P., Ha, M., Nehm, R. H., Pearl, D., & Boone, W. J. (2014). Assessing scientific practices using machine-learning methods: How closely do they match clinical interview performance? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 160–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucker, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Learning with dynamic and static visualizations: Realistic details only benefit learners with high visuospatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 330–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, C. M., Baliga, V. B., De Nesnera, K. L., Fiack, D., Goetz, K., Tarjan, L. M., & Ash, D. (2016). Exploring models in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, E. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 572–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40(2), 213–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilam, B., & Reisfeld, D. (2017). A curriculum unit for promoting complex system thinking: The case of combined system dynamics and agent-based models for population growth. Journal of Advances in Education Research, 2(2), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.22606/jaer,2017.22001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. R., Greenleaf, C., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Brown, W., Ko, M. L. M., Emig, J. M., Wallace, P., Blaum, D., & Britt, M. A. (2019). Explanatory modeling in science through text-based investigation: Testing the efficacy of the project READI intervention approach. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1148–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., Seoane, E., & Arriassecq, I. (2014). Epistemological issues concerning computer simulations in science and their implications for science education. Science & Education, 23(4), 897–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualization and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henze, I., van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modeling in the context of a new syllabus on public understanding of science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, M. E., & Nakhleh, M. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions. The Chemical Educator, 4(4), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., So, H.-J., & Lee, J. (2011). The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems. Instructional Science, 39, 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teacher’s professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning Research and Practice, 1(1), 51–65.

    Article  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 

  • Kornhauser, D., Rand, W., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Visualization tools for agent-based modeling in NetLogo (pp. 15–17). Agent2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Firestone, J., & Etopio, E. (2018). A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landriscina, F. (2013). Simulation and learning: A model-centered approach (pp. 47–89). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S., Dervent, F., Ko, B., Wang, T., & Ward, P. (2016). Measuring pedagogical content knowledge in pre service teachers in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(S2), A115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multi-Media learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, N. (2019). Virtual experiments and simulations in science classroom. Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects., 972. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/972

  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pathak, S. A., Jacobson, M. J., Kim, B., Zhang, B. H., & Feng, D. (2008). Learning the physics of electricity with agent-based models: paradox of productive failure. In T. W. Chan, G. Biswas, F.C. Chen, C. Chou, M. Jacobson, Kinshuk, F. Klett, C. K. Looi, T. Mitrovic, R. Mizoguchi, K. Nakabayashi, P. Reimann, D. Suthers, s. Yang & J. C. Yang (Eds.), International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 221–228).

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing problematic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruebush, L., Sulikowski, M., & North, S. (2009). A simple exercise reveals the way students think about scientific modeling. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(3), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauve, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Marquis, J. S. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulation: A systematic review. Education Technology & Society, 10(3), 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, E., Anastopoulou, S., Kerawalla, L., & Mulholland, P. (2011). How technology resources can be used to represent personal inquiry and support students’ understanding of it across contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 516–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevinc, S., & Lesh, R. (2018). Training mathematics teachers for realistic math problems: A case of modeling-based teacher education courses. ZDM Mathematics Education (Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik), 50(1–2), 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Teacher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinken-Rösner, L. (2020). Simulations in science education. Progress in Science Education, 3(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.25321/prise.2020.996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasquier, G., Levrini, O., & Dillon, J. (2016). Exploring students’ epistemological knowledge of models and modeling in science: Result from a teaching/learning experience on climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1148828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toh, P. L. L., & Kapur, M. (2017). Is having more prerequisite knowledge better for learning from productive failure? Instructional Science, 45(3), 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(22), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vo, T., Forbes, C. T., Zangori, L., & Schwarz, C. V. (2015). International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2411–2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., Butterfield, J., Curran, R., & Craig, C. (2010). Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small-scale assembly task? Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 84–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, C. T., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, S. H. F., Liu, C. C., Hwang, F. K., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The learning analytics of model-based learning facilitated by a problem-solving simulation game. Instructional Science, 46(6), 847–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling. Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

    Billie Eilam & Seena Yaseen Omar

Authors
  1. Billie Eilam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seena Yaseen Omar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Billie Eilam .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program for Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Orit Ben Zvi Assaraf

  2. Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Marie-Christine P. J. Knippels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eilam, B., Omar, S.Y. (2022). Science Teachers’ Construction of Knowledge About Simulations and Population Size Via Performing Inquiry with Simulations of Growing Vs. Descending Levels of Complexity. In: Ben Zvi Assaraf, O., Knippels, MC.P.J. (eds) Fostering Understanding of Complex Systems in Biology Education. Contributions from Biology Education Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98144-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98144-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98143-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98144-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation