Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Podolefsky, Noah S ^a   Perkins, Katherine K ^a   Adams, Wendy K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649337156     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020117     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. A. A. diSessa, Changing Minds (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000)
2. M. C. Linn and S. Hsi, Computers, Teaching, Peers: Science Learning Partners (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 2000)
3. S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (Basic Books, Inc, 1993).
4. http://phet.colorado.edu
5. W. K. Adams, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, and C. E. Wieman, A Study of Educational Simulations Part I-Engagement and Learning, J. Interact. Learn. Res. 19, 397 (2008).
6. W. K. Adams, S. Reid, S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, and C. E. Wieman, A Study of Educational Simulations Part II-Interface Design, J. Interact. Learn. Res. 19,551 (2008).
7. N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, K. K. Perkins, C. E. Wieman, and PhET Team, ''High tech tools for teaching physics: the Physics Education Technology Project, Journal of Online Teaching and Learning 2, No. 3, 109 (2006).
8. K. K. Perkins, W. K. Adams, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, S. Reid, C. E. Wieman, and R. LeMaster, PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics, Phys. Teach. 44, 18 (2006).
9. D. Bodemer, R. Ploetzner, I. Feuerlein, and H. Spada, The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations, Learn. Instr. 14,325 (2004).
10. J. van der Meij and T. de Jong, Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based environment, Learn. Instr. 16, 199 (2006).
11. M. R. Lepper and T. W. Malone, Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectivness in computer-based education, Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, edited by R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987).
12. T. W. Malone, What makes computer games fun?, BYTE 6, 258(1981).
13. W. K. Adams, A. Paulson, and C. E. Wieman, What levels of guidance elicit engaged exploration with interacive simulations, Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Educatoin Research Conference (AIP Press, New York, 2008).
14. D. Gentner and D. R. Gentner, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and D. R. Gentner (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
15. N. S. Podolefsky and N. D. Finkelstein, Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: An example from electromagnetic waves, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010109 (2007).
16. N. S. Podolefsky and N. D. Finkelstein, Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020104 (2007).
17. E. Wong, Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 1259 (2006).
18. D. Brown and J. Clement, Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction, Instr. Sci. 18,237 (1989).
19. D. Gentner, Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cogn. Sci. 7, 155 (1983).
20. K. J. Holyoak and P. Thagard, The analogical mind, Am. Psychol. 52,35 (1997).
21. J. S. Krajcik, P. C. Blumenfeld, R. W. Marx, and E. Soloway, A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teach- ers learn project-based instruction, Elem. Sch. J. 94, No. 5 483 (1994).
22. A. Sfard, When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Makking sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint, J. Learn. Sci. 14,565 (2007).
23. C. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn, Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A re- sponse to Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark 2006, Educ. Psychol. 42,99 (2007).
24. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the ailure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educ. Psychol. 41, 75 (2006).
25. J. J. Gibson, in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, edited by R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977).
26. D. Norman, The Psychology of Everyday Things (Basic Books, Inc, New York, NY), 1988.
27. W. M. Roth, C. Woszczyna, and G. Smith, Affordances and constraints of computers in science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 995 1996.
28. ''In our view, all sims have analogies built in, whether explicit or implicit. How.''
29. A. A. diSessa, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. B. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,1988).
30. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidiscilinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89-120.
31. D. L. Schwartz, R. Lindgren, and S. Lewis, in Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?, edited by T. Duffy and S. Tobias.
32. J. D. Bransford and D. L. Schwartz, Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications, Rev. Educ. Res. 24,61 1999.
33. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 1998.
34. S. R. Goldman, Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learn. Instr. 13, 239 2003.
35. R. Kozma, The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding, Learn. Instr. 13,205 2003.
36. S. R. Singer, M. L. Hilton, H. A. Schweingruber, National Research Council, America's Lab Report (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C, 2006).
37. J. Clement, Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving, Cogn. Sci. 12, 563 1988.
38. C. Sandifer, Spontaneous student generated analogies, Proceedings of the 2003 Physics Education Research Conference (AIP Press, New York, 2003).
39. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 1977.
40. D. I. Cordova and M. R. Lepper, Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice, J. Educ. Psychol. 88, 715 1996.