The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 597-615

  De Jong, Ton ^a   Martin, Ernesto ^b   Zamarro, Jose Miguel ^b   Esquembre, Francisco ^b   Swaak, Janine ^a   Van Joolingen, Wouter R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038811441     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199905)36:5<597::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-6     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alessi, S.M. (1995, April). Dynamic vs. static fidelity in a procedural simulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
2. Bennett, K. (1992). The use of on-line guidance, representation aiding, and discovery learning to improve the effectiveness of simulation training. In J.W. Regian & V.J. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to automated instruction (pp. 217-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Berry, D.C., & Broadbent, D.E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209-231
4. Carlsen, D.D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome students preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 105-109.
5. Chambers, S.K., Haselhuhn, C., Andre, T., Mayberry, C., Wellington, S., Krafka A., Volmer, J., & Berger, J. (1994, April). The acquisition of a scientific understanding of electricity: Hands-on versus computer simulation experience; conceptual change versus didactic text Paper presented at the AERA 1994, New Orleans, LA.
6. Charney, D., Reder, L., & Kusbit, G.W. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learner exploration. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 323-342.
7. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann P. Sime J.-A., van Someren, M., Spada, H., & Swaak, J. (1998-a). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), The role of multiple representations in learning and problem solving (pp. 9-41). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
8. de Jong, T., de Hoog, R., & de Vries, F. (1993). Coping with complex environments: The effects of overviews and a transparent interface on learning with a computer simulation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 621-639.
9. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 279-288.
10. de Jong, T., Härtel, H., Swaak. J., & van Joolingen, W. (1996). Support for simulation-based learning: The effects of assignments in learning about transmission lines. In A. Díaz de Ilarazza Sánchez & I. Fernández de Castro (Eds.), Computer aided learning and instruction in science and engineering (pp. 9-27). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W., Scott, D., de Hoog, R., Lapied, L., & Valent, R. (1994). SMISLE: System for multimedia integrated simulation learning Environments. In T. de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds.), Design and production of multimedia and simulation based learning material (pp. 133-167). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
12. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202.
13. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W.R., Swaak, J., Veermans, K., Limbach, R., King, S., & Gureghian, D. (1998-b). Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 235-246.
14. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M.C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173-191.
15. Glaser, R., Schauble, L., Raghavan, K., & Zeitz, C. (1992). Scientific reasoning across different domains. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 345-373). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
16. Grimes, P.W., & Willey, T.E. (1990). The effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in the principles of economics course. Computers & Education, 14, 81-86.
17. Gruber, H., Graf, M., Mandl, H., Renkl, A., & Stark, R. (1995, August). Fostering applicable knowledge by multiple perspectives and guided problem solving. Paper presented at the conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
18. Hill, S.G., Iavecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C., Bittner, A.C., Zakland, A.L., & Christ, R.E. (1992). Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors, 34, 429-439.
19. Laurillard, D. (1992). Learning through collaborative computer simulations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 164-171.
20. Lavoie, D.R., & Good, R. (1988). The nature and use of predictions skills in a biological computer simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 335-360.
21. Lindström, B., Marton, F., Ottosson, T., & Laurillard, D. (1993). Computer simulations as a tool for developing intuitive and conceptual understanding in mechanics. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 263-281.
22. Moyse, R. (1991). Multiple viewpoints imply knowledge negotiation. Interactive Learning International, 7, 21-37.
23. Njoo, M., & de Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821-844.
24. Paas, F.G.W.C., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Adam, J.J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
25. Quinn, J., & Alessi, S. (1994). The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis generation strategy on learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 75-91.
26. Rieber, L.P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 135-140.
27. Rieber, L.P., Boyce, M., & Assad, C. (1990). The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 46-52.
28. Rieber, L.P., & Parmley, M.W. (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. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 359-374.
29. Rivers, R.H., & Vockell, E. (1987). Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 403-415.
30. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201-239.
31. Showalter, V.M. (1970). Conducting science investigations using computer simulated experiments. Science Teacher, 37, 46-50.
32. Shute, V.J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51-77.
33. Sime, J.-A. (1998). Model switching in a learning environment based on multiple models. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 109-125.
34. Simmons, P.E., & Lunetta, V.N. (1993). Problem-solving behaviors during a genetics computer simulation: Beyond the expert/novice dichotomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 153-173.
35. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The what-if test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 341-362.
36. Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W.R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Support for simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 5, 235-253.
37. Tabak, I., Smith, B.K., Sandoval, W.A., & Reiser, B.J. (1996). Combining general and domain-specific strategic support for biological inquiry. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 288-297). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
38. Teodoro, V.D. (1992). Direct manipulation of physical concepts in a computerized exploratory laboratory. In E. de Corte, M. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (NATO ASI series F: Computer and Systems Series) (pp. 445-465). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
39. White, B.Y. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton's laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 69-108.
40. White, B.Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
41. White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1989). Causal models as intelligent learning environments for science and engineering education. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 3, 83-106.
42. White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99-157.
43. Zietsman, A.I., & Hewson, P.W. (1986). Effect of instruction using microcomputers simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 27-39.