ok 2

Procedia Technology 13 ( 2014 ) 112 121

2212-0173 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the University of Tras-os- Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.015

ScienceDirect

SLACTIONS 2013: Research conference on virtual worlds - Learning with simulations

Contribution of a computer simulation to students learning of the physics concepts of weight and mass

Cndida Sarabandoa,*, Jos P. Cravinob,c, Armando A. Soaresb aAgrupamento de Escolas de Armamar, 5110-642 Tes, Armamar, Portugal

bPhysics Department, School of Science and Technology, Universidade de Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal

cResearch Centre Didactics and Technology in Education of Trainers (CIDTFF), Aveiro, Portugal

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of a computer simulation to students learning of physics concepts (weight and mass). Our simulation was produced using the software Modellus. This study evaluates progresses in understanding made by students (grade 7; 12-13 years old) after one lesson (90 minutes) in three different scenarios: using only hands-on activities, using only a computer simulation, and using both. The progresses were measured through pre- and post-tests. The results show that the total gains were higher when students used the computer simulation, alone or together with hands-on activities. However, we found that the total gains obtained depend on the teachers pedagogy when using the computer simulation to teach the concepts of weight and mass.

2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of [Organizer Name].

Keywords: Computer simulation; teaching; learning; physics; mass; weight; teacher mediation.

1. Introduction

Interest in the problem underlying the present research started from the analysis of some difficulties and misconceptions that basic school students have shown in the discipline of Physical and Chemical Sciences, 7th

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-259-350-356; fax: +351-259-350-356.E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the University of Tras-os- Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)

113 Cndida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 ( 2014 ) 112 121

grade (12-13 years old students). We realized that these difficulties and misconceptions are obstacles to the construction of scientific knowledge, particularly when students are learning the concepts of weight and mass.

It is in the basic education (7th grade) that many of the fundamental concepts of science are introduced. However, research results show that many students do not understand the scientific concepts of earth and space [1]. Some studies have shown that not only students but also teacher trainees have misconceptions in these areas [2]. These concepts are highly resistant to change through traditional interventions [3]. The idea that students develop alternative conceptions remains at the center of many empirical studies on the learning of science during the last twenty years. These studies show that students do not reach the classroom as blank states. Students bring to the classroom their previous ideas and develop concepts with lasting power exploratory. However, these views are inconsistent with the scientific concepts present in classroom teaching. The research has also shown that alternative conceptions lead students not to understand situations and laboratory demonstrations in the classroom [4].

Although the concepts of weight and mass are considered central in physics teaching, they are still not well understood by students [5], resulting in the need to use consistent definitions [6,7,8]. The students' learning about the concepts of weight and mass has raised interest in research over several decades. Most of these studies have been descriptive, with the aim of cataloging alternative conceptions of students [9,10,11,12]. As far as we know, there are not many studies focusing on the effects of teaching strategies on students' understanding of the concepts of weight and mass. Mullet and Gervais [13] showed that the concepts of weight and mass are both understood as one concept, that of weight, whereas the expression "quantity of matter is clearly related with the concept of mass.

The evidence based on experimental studies suggests that we can improve learning by integrating computer simulations on topics that students find conceptually difficult [14]. Given all the previously mentioned aspects, we focused the use of new technologies of information and communication (ICT), particularly computer simulations, as a possible contribution to the problems described, regarding the difficulties that basic school students show in learning the concepts of weight and mass.

Research on the use of technology in education has expanded and diversified to the extent that the technologies developed, and these rapid changes in technology make the investigation difficult, complex and challenging [15]. Currently, the landscape of research on the use of ICT in education in general, or even in the specific case of science education is vast, especially studies on the use of computer simulations.

Computer simulations have become increasingly powerful and available to teachers in the past three decades [16]. Currently, science teachers can select from a wide range of computer simulations available, for example through the internet. The computer simulations are designed to facilitate teaching and learning through visualization and interaction with dynamic models of natural phenomena [17,18,19].

Computer simulations offer idealized, dynamic and visual representations of physical phenomena and experiments which would be dangerous, costly or otherwise not feasible in a school laboratory [20]. Since the computer simulations show simplified versions of the natural world, they can focus students' attention more directly on the desired phenomenon [17,18,19]. Additionally, computer simulations may allow students to visualize objects and processes that are normally beyond the user control in the natural world [21]. In comparison with textbooks and lectures, a learning environment with a computer simulation has the advantages that students can systematically explore hypothetical situations, interact with a simplified version of a process or system, change the time-scale of events, and practice tasks and solve problems in a realistic environment without stress [22]. According to Psycharis [23], effective computer simulations are built upon mathematical models in order to accurately depict the phenomena or process to be studied, and a well-designed computer simulation can engage the learner in interaction by helping the learner to predict the course and results of certain actions, understand why observed events occur, explore the effects of modifying preliminary conclusions, evaluate ideas, gain insight, and stimulate critical thinking.

Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of computer simulations on student learning. Many of these studies focused on acquiring knowledge of specific content [24,25]. Some researchers also noted the success of computer simulations to develop skills of questioning and reasoning [26]. Other investigations have reported less impressive results in the use of computer simulations in science teaching. Some of them found no advantage in using computer simulations over traditional methods [27]. Further investigation also showed that the use of computer simulations was less effective than traditional instruction and hands-on laboratory strategies [28]. Even when the gains made by students were shown through the use of technologies such as computer simulations, some argue that this should be attributed to effective teaching methods and effects of teachers [29]. In addition, Abdulwahed and Nagy [30] have proposed that computer simulations might be most effective when they are integrated as a complementary part of a


course involving hands-on activities. Thus, despite high expectations for the computer simulations, we cannot guarantee a general conclusion about their effectiveness [31].

Clearly, the efficacy of computer simulations is closely linked to the pedagogy through which they are implemented [15]. Failure to take account of the pedagogy of technology use may explain some of the negative results obtained [28,32]. Only provide access to computers or software without careful attention to learning support and teaching models seems to not result in gains of teaching desired.

The effects of computer simulations in science education are caused by interplay between the computer simulation, the nature of the content, the student and the teacher [22]. In order for educational innovations such as computer simulations to be successful, teachers need to be provided with the necessary skills and knowledge to implement them [15]. Without proper teacher skills, the full potential of computer simulations, such as their suitability for practicing inquiry skills, may remain out of reach. Instead, they may be used as demonstration experiments or be completely controlled by the teacher [33]. Reducing the use of computer simulations to a step-by-step cookbook approach undermines their potential to afford students with a opportunity to freely create, test and evaluate their own hypotheses in a more richly contextualized environment [34].

The role of the teacher in the classroom is an important factor affecting the use of technology by teachers [15]. However, comparatively little research has inquired into the science teacher pedagogy of working with computer simulations [22,35].

The present study aims to compare the progress in understanding the concepts of weight and mass using the computer simulation "Weight and Mass", made by students from the 7th grade, taking into account the mediating role of the teacher.

2. Research questions

The purpose of this study was to compare the progress in understanding the concepts of weight and mass using the computer simulation "Weight and Mass", made by students from the 7th grade, as a result of learning mediated by the teacher. The study compared three different treatments: students performed only experimental activities ("hands-on"); students performed experimental activities ("hands-on") and used the computer simulation (CS); students used only the computer simulation. The main research question was:

- Are computer simulations combined with hands-on activities more effective, than simulations or hands-on activities alone, in promoting students learning about the concepts of weight and mass?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The study took place during the academic years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, in a lesson of Physical and Chemical Sciences (90 minutes). Since students were already divided into classes, it was not possible to make a random selection for the different treatments. The students were all from four schools in northern Portugal. The pilot study was developed by the teacher-researcher, and involved the participation of 51 students from three different 7th grade classes (12-13 years old students). The 2010/2011 intervention involved the participation of three teachers of Physical and Chemical Sciences and students from two of their classes (with a total of 142 7th grade students). Each teacher would teach two 7th grade classes (code named X and Y). Before the implementation of the 2010/2011 intervention, all teachers invited to participate in this study were informed about its aims, and all aspects to be considered during the implementation with students in the classroom.

3.2. Research design

According to the study design (see Table 1), students participating in the study were given a pretest in order to characterize their knowledge with regard to the concepts of weight and mass. The students were then subjected to different treatments and, after the lesson about weight and mass (90 minutes), were given a posttest (equal to the pretest) to evaluate the evolution of learning.


Table 1. Study Design Pretest (10 minutes)

Les

son

abou

t wei

ght a

nd m

ass

(90

min

utes

)

Teacher A Class X (24 students) HoA

Class Y (27 students) HoA+CS

Teacher D Class X (27 students) HoA

Class Y (24 students) CS

Teacher E Class X (19 students) HoA

Class Y (20 students) CS

Posttest (10 minutes)

During the implementation of the second intervention, the students of teacher A had only hands-on activities

(HoA) in class X and in class Y conducted hands-on activities with the computer simulation (HoA+CS). Students of teachers called D and E had only hands-on activities (HoA) in class X and, in class Y used only the computer simulation (CS).

Before this lesson about weight and mass, students had no other lessons about these concepts. Based on an activity guide, consisting of three tasks designed to assess students understanding of the concepts of weight and mass, students performed the experimental activities. In Task 1 students were asked about the relationship between weight and mass of a body. For Task 2 students were asked to explain how the weight of a body relates with the mass of the planet where it is. In Task 3, students were asked to identify the main differences between the two concepts (mass and weight).

In the groups that performed hands-on activities, students tried to do the tasks only manipulating with laboratory equipment (see Table 2). In the groups that performed hands-on activities with the computer simulation (CS), the students tried to answer Task 1 using laboratory equipment and Task 2 using the computer simulation (CS). In the groups using only the computer simulation (CS), the students tried to answer all tasks using the CS. In Task 3 students didnt need any equipment (laboratory equipment or computer simulation).

Table 2. Laboratory equipment and computer simulation used in classroom activities

Classroom Activities

TasK Class X (HoA) Class Y (HoA + CS) Class Y (CS)

Task 1 Laboratory equipment Laboratory equipment CS

Task 2 Laboratory equipment CS CS

3.3 Materials

Hands-on activities The implementation of hands-on activities involved the use of measuring instruments (beam balances and

dynamometers) and objects with different masses. The goal was to find out if there is any relationship between mass and weight.

Computer simulation

The computer simulation used Weight and Mass was built by our team based on the Modellus software.


A powerful Modellus feature is the multiple representations that can be seen simultaneously [36,37]. For example, the user can create, see, and interact with analytical, analogous and graphical representations of mathematical objects.

The computer simulation used in this study addresses the impractical space requirements typically associated with the experimental teaching of the concepts of weight and mass, which would involve measurements on other planets. The simulation, by allowing students to explore and test predictions, can also facilitate the development of students scientific understandings about the concepts of weight and mass.

3.4 Data collection and analysis

Data collection about teaching was conducted through semi-structured interviews, four weeks after instruction, with teachers participating in the study, to try to gather information about how they conducted their lessons. The interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes.

To assess students learning on the concepts of weight and mass, conceptual tests were administered: a pretest (before the teaching intervention) and a posttest (after the teaching intervention). The posttest questions were integrated in a regular formal assessment test. The time elapsed between the completion of the lesson about the concepts weight and mass, and the posttest ranged between 7 days (teacher A) and 35 days (teachers D and E).

The test was developed by our research team and refined after the pilot study. The pretest and posttest were both composed of the same two questions (see Table 3), formulated based on the concepts of weight and mass, which are integrated in the official Portuguese Curriculum for the 7th grade.

Table 3. Questions about weight and mass used in the tests Question 1 Mass and weight have

(a) The same physical meaning (b) Different physical meaning

Because, __________________________________________ Question 2 - When a body is transported from Earth to the Moon

(a) its weight and its mass not change (b) its weight and its mass change (c) The weight changes and its mass does not (d) its weight stays the same and its mass changes

Because, __________________________________________

Answers of the students that answered both tests (pretest and posttest) were analyzed according to criteria found in

Table 4 (based on [5]). These criteria were applied to the justification that students provided in their answers. These answers were analyzed independently by three researchers, obtaining in all cases a degree of agreement

exceeding 95.0% (the average was 98.6%). In situations where there was disagreement in the classification of the responses, the discrepancy was only of one level.

Table 4. Criteria used to describe the conceptual understandings

Level Criteria 3

2

1

- Answer that includes all the components of the validated answer

- Answer that shows some understanding of the concepts

- Answer incorrect or irrelevant, illogical, or a answer that is not clear, or blank answer

4. Results and discussion

Table 5 provides a summary of pretest and posttest results for students of teachers A, D and E.


Table 5. Frequencies in percentage for the three types of conceptual understanding about weight and mass (pre and posttest)

Question L ev el Teacher A Teacher D Teacher E

X Y X Y X Y

Pre

Q1

3 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 12.0 11.1 7.4 0.0 5.3 0.0

1 88.0 85.2 92.6 100.0 94.7 100.0

Q2

3 4.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 44.0 11.1 22.2 25.0 5.3 20.0

1 52.0 85.2 77.8 75.0 94.7 80.0

Post

Q1

3 20.0 14.8 7.4 54.2 31.6 5.0

2 32.0 48.1 44.4 12.5 5.3 40.0

1 48.0 37.1 48.2 33.3 63.1 55.0

Q2

3 20.0 14.8 0.0 12.5 10.5 5.0

2 40.0 63.0 33.3 33.3 26.3 60.0

1 40.0 22.2 66.7 54.2 63.2 35.0

For question Q1, students were asked to say if weight and mass have the same or different physical meaning, and

to identify the main differences between the two concepts (mass and weight). Validated answers should include knowledge that weight and mass have different physical meaning because mass is the quantity of matter of a body and weight is the gravitational attraction force that a planet exerts in a body. For question Q2, students were asked what happens to the weight and mass of a body when is transported from Earth to the Moon. Validated answers should include knowledge that weight changes and mass does not because mass does not change from place to place but weight changes because gravity in the moon is different.

The overall pretest findings indicate that prior to participating in their respective treatments, a large majority of students in each group respond incorrectly to the two questions of the tests.

After application of the different treatments, more students showed scientifically correct views of the physical meaning of the concepts weight and mass (Level 3 answers, see Table 5). Also, more students responded correctly to Q2, after the lesson about weight and mass (Level 3 answers, see Table 5).

The answers given by the students to Q1 and Q2 were analyzed simultaneously, first in the pretest and then in the posttest. The Very High Comprehension (VH) was defined for responses of level 3 in Q1 and Q2. Then, High Comprehension (H) was defined for responses of level 3 in one of the questions and level 2 in the other question. As a minimum comprehension were considered responses of level 2 in Q1 and Q2, or level 3 in one of the questions and level 1 in the other question Low Comprehension (L). Comprehension lower than minimum comprehension, corresponding to responses of level 2 in one of the questions and level 1 in the other question or level 1 in Q1 and Q2, was considered Very Low Comprehension (VL). Table 6 provides a summary of pretest and posttest results, when students responses to questions Q1 and Q2 are analyzed simultaneously.

To determine whether there was a significant difference among treatment groups X and Y, of each teacher, in terms of their content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass (Q1 and Q2), we used the Mann-Whitney test. The differences in groups content knowledge were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) before the lesson about weight and mass (Class X and Y - teacher A: U=325, n1=25, n2=27, p=0.699; Class X and Y - teacher D: U=324, n1=27, n2=24, p=1.000; Class X and Y - teacher E: U=190, n1=19, n2=20, p=1.000). Likewise, after the lesson about weight and mass, there was no significant difference among groups X and Y of teacher A (U=308.5, n1=25, n2=27, p=0.556) and of teacher E (U=185, n1=19, n2=20, p=0.872). However, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) among groups X and Y of teacher D in terms of their content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass after the lesson of weight and mass (U=203, n1=27, n2=24, p=0.010).


Table 6. Frequencies in percentage for the different types of comprehension about weight and mass (pre and posttest) and corresponding number of students

Teacher Class N Pretest

(Level of Comprehension) Posttest

(Level of Comprehension) VL L H VH VL L H VH

A X 25 84.0 (21) 16.0 (4) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 64.0 (16) 8.0 (2) 16.0 (4) 12.0 (3)

Y 27 88.9 (24) 3.7 (1) 7.4 (2) 0.0 (0) 48.1 (13) 25.9 (7) 22.2 (6) 3.7 (1)

D X 27 100.0 (27) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 70.4 (19) 29.6 (8) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

Y 24 100.0 (24) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 41.7 (10) 29.2 (7) 16.7 (4) 12.5 (3)

E X 19 100.0 (19) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 63.2 (12) 21.1 (4) 10.5 (2) 5.3 (1)

Y 20 100.0 (20) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 55.0 (11) 40.0 (8) 5.0 (1) 0.0 (0)

To compare the three X classes (from teachers A, D and E), and to compare the three Y classes (from teachers A,

D and E) we used the Kruskal-Wallis test. Pretest results were compared first to see whether the groups were equivalent at the beginning of the study. The

differences in groups content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass were not statistically significant before the lesson about weight and mass among the groups in class Y (H=5.031, p=0.081). However, there was a statistically significant difference among groups in class X (H=7.690, p=0.021).

The Kruskall-Wallis test tells us only that there is or is not a statistically significant difference, not where the difference lies. To find out where the difference lies we used the LSD method of Fisher. This test indicated that students of teacher A, in class X, obtained higher classifications in the pretest. After this lesson, there was no significant difference among groups in class X (H=1.341, p=0.511) and between groups in class Y (H=2.280, p=0.320), in terms of their content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass.

To determine whether there was a significant difference among the treatment groups in terms of change in their content knowledge from pre to posttest, for Q1 and Q2, it was used the Wilcoxon test. Results showed a statistical significant change in conceptual understanding from pretest to posttest for all groups of all the three teachers: Teacher A hands-on (Z=-2.762, p=0.006) and hands-on+CS (Z=-3.153, p=0.002); Teacher D hands-on (Z=-2.828, p=0.005) and CS (Z=-3.354, p=0.001); Teacher E hands-on (Z=-2.414, p=0.016) and CS (Z=-2.887, p=0.004).

Figure 1 provides the frequencies in percentage of nulls and positive variations obtained, based on Wilcoxon test. From figure 1 we see that there were no negative variations and the higher positive variations were obtained by students in class Y, from all the teachers (teacher A: 44.4%; teacher D: 58.3%; teacher E: 45.0%).

Fig. 1. Frequencies in % of null or positive variations, obtained by students of teachers A, D and E, in class X and Y, based on Wilcoxon test.

Table 7 provides the respective total gains (GT) for students of teachers A, D and E, taking into account gains of very high comprehension (VH), high comprehension (H) and low comprehension (L).

64 56

70

42

63 55

36 44

30

58

37 45

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

AX AY DX DY EX EY

Var

iatio

ns /

%

Group

Null

Positive


Table 7. Total gains (GT) in percentage for students of teachers A, D and E

From table 7 we can see that the total gains (GT) were higher for students who used the computer simulation (class

Y), from all teachers. Students manipulating the computer simulation visualize information in ways that students using laboratory equipment cannot see. When they were using the computer simulation, they could see a table with the values of the weight of a body in three planets (Earth, Mercury and Jupiter) and in moon and, simultaneously, they could see the weight vector representation in each of these planets (see Fig. 1). For instance, when they changed the mass value of the body, they could see what happened to the weight of the body in each of the planets (vector representation in the planet and respective value in the table).

This result is not very surprising and confirms previous findings (e.g., a recent review in [22]). Comparative studies indicate that traditional instruction may be successfully enhanced by using computer simulations. In most cases, the use of simulation leads to improvements in learning outcomes. The use of computer simulations appears to facilitate students conceptual understanding [38,39,40], requires less time [41], and improves the ability to predict the results of experiments [42].

In our study, the use of the simulation also seemed to help students learn the physics concepts of weight and mass. However, in spite of these results, we considered it was important to analyze each of the different gains, and not only the total gains (GT), and search for reasons that would allow us to understand why the performance of the groups that used the computer simulation was not similar for all the teachers.

Figure 2 provides the gains (post-pre) obtained by students of teachers A, D and E from pretest to posttest, in classes X and Y, of very high comprehension (GVH) , high comprehension (GH) and low comprehension (GL).

Fig. 2. Gains of very high comprehension (GVH), high comprehension (GH) and low comprehension (GL), as a percentage, obtained by students in classes X and Y.

From figure 2, we see that the students of teacher D in class Y, who used only the computer simulation, had better gains of very high comprehension (GVH=12.5%) and high comprehension (GH=16.7%) than were obtained by students of teachers A and E, in class Y. Students of teacher E in class Y obtained the higher gains for low comprehension (40.0%), but they obtained the lower gains for high or very high comprehension (5.0% and 0.0%, respectively). Students of teachers A and D in class Y obtained better gains for high or very high comprehension, than students of teacher E. However, the higher gains for high comprehension (16.7%) or very high comprehension (12.5%) were obtained by students of teacher D in class Y (used only the CS). In class X, students of teacher D had no gains for high or very high comprehension, but they obtained the higher gains for low comprehension (29.6%).

12,0

0,0 5,3 3,7

12,5

0,0 0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

A D E

GV

H /

%

Teacher

16,0

0,0

10,6 14,8

16,7

5,0

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

A D E

GH

/ %

Teacher -8,0

29,6

21,1 22,2 29,2

40,0

-10,0

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

A D E

GL

/ %

Teacher

Class X

Class Y

GT (GVH + GH + GL)

Teacher A Class X (N=25) (HoA) 20.0 %

Class Y (N=27) (HoA+CS) 40.7 %

Teacher D Class X (N=27) (HoA) 29.6 %

Class Y (N=24) (CS) 58.4 %

Teacher E Class X (N=19) (HoA) 36.9 %

Class Y (N=20) (CS) 45.0 %


The higher gains for high comprehension (16.0%) or very high comprehension (12.0%) were obtained by students of teacher A.

Since there was no statistically significant differences in the pretest among groups X and Y of each teacher, and among groups Y of the three teachers, the total gains obtained may be attributable to the use of the computer simulation but, also, to the teachers pedagogy when using the computer simulation to teach the concepts of weight and mass. What the teacher did in the classroom when using the computer simulation may explain the differences on students performance in class Y.

This conclusion is consistent with other research studies that suggest that the identification of the learning needs by the teacher, the choice of the simulation software and how it is integrated into the learning environment, are all crucially important to the learning outcomes [14].

Clearly, the efficacy of computer simulations depends on the teacher's role in its implementation. According to Lopes and colleagues [43], the task for the students, the mediating role of the teacher in the learning tasks and the available resources for that learning should be all connected. The teachers have an important role in selecting appropriate resources, sequencing and structuring learning activities and guiding students experimentation, generation of hypotheses and predictions, and critical reflection upon outcomes.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that, prior to the different treatments, most students presented scientifically incorrect conceptions about the concepts of weight and mass.

The gains obtained in this study by students may be considered quite reasonable given the difficulties related to these two concepts, weight and mass, as we mentioned in introduction.

Our results show that the use of the computer simulation Weight and mass helped students learn the physics concepts of weight and mass, either use alone or together with hands-on activities. The total gains (GT) were higher (~40-58%) for students who used the computer simulation, whereas for students who used only experimental activities the total gains were ~20-37%. However, students of teacher D in class Y obtained the best gains, corresponding to a better comprehension of the concepts of weight and mass. Thus, the efficacy of computer simulations depends on the teachers role in its implementation.

In any case, we should note that the gains obtained by students in this study may be considered quite reasonable given the documented difficulties in learning the concepts of weight and mass, as mentioned in the introduction.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded (or part-funded) by the European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE Programme and by the Fundao para a Cincia e a Tecnologia within project PTDC/CPE-CED/112303/2009.

References

[1] Libarkin JC, Anderson SW, Dahl J, Beilfuss M, Boone W. Qualitative analysis of college studentsideas about the earth: interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal Geosciences Education 2005;53:17-26.

[2] Trumper, R. A cross-college age study of science and nonscience students conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in pre-service training for high-school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2001;10:189-195.

[3] Dahl J, Anderson SW, Libarkin J. Digging into earth science: alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. Journal of Science Education 2005;6:65-68.

[4] Clement J. Students preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 1982;50:66-71. [5] Gnen S. A study on student teachers misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science

Education and Technology 2008;17:70-81. [6] Hecht E. There is no really good definition of mass. The Physics Teacher 2006;44:40-45. [7] Hecht E. On defining mass. The Physics Teacher 2011;49:40-44. [8] Morrison RC. Weight and gravity the need for consistent definitions. The Physics Teacher 1999;37:51-52. [9] Galili I. Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education 2001;23:1073-

1093. [10] Philips WC. Earth science misconceptions. Science Teacher 1991;58:21-23. [11] Sequeira M, Leite L. Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education. Science Education 1991;75:45-56. [12] Tural G, Akdeniz AR, Alev N. Effect of 5E teaching model on student teachers understanding of weightlessness. Journal of Science

Education and Technology 2010; 220:477-478.


[13] Mullet E, & Gervais H. Distinction between the concepts of weight and mass in high school students. International Journal of Science Education 1990;12:217-226.

[14] Webb I. Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education 2005;27:705-735.

[15] Osborne J, Dillon J. Good Practice in Science Teaching. What Research has to Say. 2nd ed. Open University Press; 2010. [16] Trundle KC, Bell RL. The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi- experimental study. Computers & Education

2010;54:1078-1088. [17] de Jong T, van Joolingen WR. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational

Research 1998;68:179-201. [18] Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C. PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The

Physics Teacher 2006;44:18-23. [19] Wieman CE, Perkins KK, Adams WK. Oersted medal lecture 2007: interactive simulations for teaching physics: what works, what doesnt,

and why. American Journal of Physics 2008;76:393399. [20] Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, Deaney R, Brawn R, Velle L, McFarlane A, Ruthven K, Winterbottom M. Pedagogical approaches for

technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education 2007;48:137-152. [21] de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 2013;340:305-308. [22] Rutten N, van Joolingen WR, van der Veen JT. The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education

2012;58:136-153. [23] Psycharis S. The computational experiment and its effects on approach to learning and beliefs on physics. Computers & Education

2011;56:547-555. [24] Trey L, Khan S. How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education

2008;51:519-529. [25] Huppert J, Lomask SM, Lazarowitz R. Computer simulations in the high school: students cognitive stages, science process skills and

academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education 2002;24:803-821. [26] Chang, Chen, Lin, Sung. Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education 2008;5:1486-1498. [27] Winn W, Stahr F, Sarason C, Fruland R, Oppenheimer P, Lee Y. Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct

experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006;43:25-42. [28] Marshall JA, Young ES. Preservice teachers theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching 2006;43:907-937. [29] Clark R. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 1994;42:21-29. [30] Abdulwahed M, Nagy ZK. The TriLab, a novel ICT based triple access mode laboratory education model. Computers & Education

2011;56:262-274. [31] Yaman M, Nerdel C, Bayrhuber H. The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations.

Computers & Education 2008;51:17841794. [32] Waight N, Abd-El-Khalick F. The impact of technology on the enactment of inquiry in a technology enthusiasts sixth grade science

classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007;44:154-182. [33] Lindgren R, Schwartz D. Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education 2009;31:419-

438. [34] Windschitl M, Andre T. Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the Roles of constructivist instruction and student

epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998;35:145160. [35] Khan S. New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2011;20:215-232. [36] Teodoro VD. From formulae to conceptual experiments: interactive modelling in the physical sciences and in mathematics. In International

CoLos conference new network-based media in education, Maribor, Slovenia; 1998. [37] Teodoro VD. Modellus Web Page. http://phoenix.sce.fct.unl.pt/modellus/; 2000. [38] Jimoyiannis A, Komis V. Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory

motion. Computers & Education 2001;36:183-204. [39] Stern L, Barnea N, Shauli S. The effect of a computerized simulations on middle school students understanding of the kinetic molecular

theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2008;17:305-315. [40] Zacharia ZC. Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students conceptual understanding of electric

circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007;23:120-132. [41] Gibbons NJ, Evans C, Payne A, Shah K, Griffin DK. Computer simulations improve university instructional laboratories. Cell Biology

Education 2004; 3:263-269 [42] McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Reid S, LeMaster R, Wieman CE. Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching

quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 2008;76:406417. [43] Lopes JB, Cravino JP, Branco MJ, Saraiva E, Silva AA. Mediation of student learning: dimensions and evidences in science teaching.

Problems of Education in 21 st Century 2008, 9:42-52.

ok 2

Documents

Transcript of ok 2