Advertisement

Examining the Effects of and Students’ Perception toward the Simulation-Based Learning

Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 144)

Abstract

Teaching computer networking concepts is difficult for its abstract concepts and complex, dynamic process among various devices and protocols. To improve students’ understanding, instructors seek the facilitation of technology. Among computer-assisted pedagogical methods, simulation-based learning (SBL) tool is regarded as a highly flexible and effective computer instruction application. While most previous studies mainly addressed the functionalities and design pattern of SBL tools, little attention has been devoted in examining what learner’s perceptions of the SBL are and its relationships with learner’s individual differences. However, teaching is an interactive process, how learners perceive the novel instruction tools be may further influence their usage of instruction tool and learning outcome subsequently. This study seeks to fill the literature gap by investigating students’ perception toward the SBL and its relationships with students’ learning outcome. Data were gathered through a survey conducted in two classes of a university in Northern Taiwan. Results suggest that simulation tool’s appeals to student (positive perceptions) are highly associated with their learning outcome as well as sophisticated learning conception. Meanwhile, students with higher learning outcome tend to engage with simulation tool more and possess more cohesive learning conception than those with lower learning outcome do. Implications of results are also discussed in this study.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldstein, C., et al.: Using a network simulation tool to engage students in active learning enhances their understanding of complex data communications concepts. In: Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing education, vol. 42, pp. 223–228. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Newcastle (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yehezkel, C., Eliahu, M., Ronen, M.: Easy CPU: Simulation-based Learning of Computer Architecture at the Introductory Level. International Journal of Engineering Education 25(2), 228–238 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frezzo, D., Behrens, J., Mislevy, R.: Design Patterns for Learning and Assessment: Facilitating the Introduction of a Complex Simulation-Based Learning Environment into a Community of Instructors. Journal of Science Education and Technology 19(2), 105–114 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chin, W.W., Gopal, A.: Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs. In: DATA BASE Advances, vol. 26(2-3), pp. 42–64 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, W.-T., Wang, C.-C.: An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education 53(3), 761–774 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frezzo, D.C., et al.: Psychometric and Evidentiary Approaches to Simulation Assessment in Packet Tracer Software. In: 2009 Fifth International Conference on Networking and Services, Valencia, Spain (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wrzesien, M., Alcañiz Raya, M.: Learning in serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education 55(1), 178–187 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ellis, R.A., et al.: Engineering students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning through discussions in face-to-face and online contexts. Learning and Instruction 18(3), 267–282 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tsai, C.-C.: Conceptions of learning versus conceptions of web-based learning: The differences revealed by college students. Computers & Education 53(4), 1092–1103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Information and Computer EducationChinese Culture UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of Information Management, School of Continue EducationChinese Culture UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations