New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 215-232

  Khan, Samia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computer simulations; Computers; Pedagogy; Science education; Teacher; TPACK; TPCK

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957462022     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Anderson RA, Crabtree BF, Steele DJ, McDaniel RR Jr (2005) Case study research: the view from complexity science. Qual Health Res 15(5): 669-685.
2. Becker HS (2000) Generalizing from case studies. In: Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 233-242.
3. Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educ Policy Anal Arch 8(1): 1-44.
4. de Jong T (1991) Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Educ Comput 6: 217-229.
5. de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2): 179-201.
6. de Jong T, Martin E, Zamarro J-M, Esquembre F, Swaak J, van Joolingen WR (1999) The integration of computer simulation and learning support: an example from the physics domain of collisions. J Res Sci Teach 36(5): 597-615.
7. Donmoyer R (1990) Generalizability and the single case study. In: Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 175-200.
8. Eckstein H (2002) Case study and theory in political science. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method: Key issues, key texts. Sage, London, pp 119-163.
9. Edelson D (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 35(3): 355-385.
10. Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS, Reid S, LeMaster R (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 1(1): 010103.
11. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
12. George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
13. Glaser BG (2002) Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods 1(2): 1-31.
14. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, IL.
15. Gobert J, Snyder J, Houghton C (2002) The influence of students' understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
16. Goetz J, LeCompte M (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
17. Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (2000) Case study method: Key issues, key texts. Sage Publications, London.
18. Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers' development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 1(9): 25-45.
19. Hafner R,Stewart J(1995)Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: problem solving in the context of discovery.Sci Educ 79(2):111-146.
20. Hasenekoglu I, Timuçin M (2007) Biology teacher and expert opinions about computer assisted biology instruction materials: a software entitled nucleic acids and protein synthesis. Paper presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus. 1-7. Retrieved from the Eric Database (ED500191) database.
21. Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, Deaney R, Brawn R, la Velle L, McFarlane A, Ruthven K, Winterbottom M (2007) Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Comput Educ 48: 137-152.
22. Kenny WR, Grotelueschen AD (1984) Making the case for the case study. J Curric Stud 16(1): 37-51.
23. Keys CW, Bryan LA (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. J Res Sci Teach 38(6): 631-645.
24. Khan S (2007) Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Sci Educ 91(6): 877-905.
25. Khan S (2008) What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In: Clement JJ, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model-based learning and instruction. Springer Publishing, Netherlands, pp 139-150.
26. Kozma RB (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobsen MJ, Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 11-46.
27. Lajoie SP, Lesgold A (1992) Apprenticeship training in the workplace: computer-coached practice environment as a new form of apprenticeship. In: Farr MJ, Pstokas J (eds) Intelligent instruction by computers: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis, Washington.
28. Lavoie DR, Good R (1988) The nature and use of prediction skills in a biological computer simulation. J Res Sci Teach 25(5): 335-360.
29. Lewis EL, Stern J, Linn M (1993) The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educ Technol 33: 45-58.
30. Li SC, Law N, Lui FA (2006) Cognitive perturbation through dynamic modelling: a pedagogical approach to conceptual change in science. J Comput Assis Learn 22(6): 405-422.
31. Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002a) The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method. Sage, London, pp 27-44.
32. Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002b) The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method. Sage, London, pp 27-44.
33. MacDonald B, Walker R (1977) Case study and the social philosophy of educational research. In: Hamilton D (ed) Beyond the numbers game: A reader in educational evaluation. MacMillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp 181-189.
34. Mathison S (1988) Why triangulate? Educ Res 17(2): 13-17.
35. Merriam SB (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
36. Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6): 1017-1054.
37. Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2008) Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, pp 1-16.
38. Njoo M, de Jong T (1991) Giving hints, supporting learning processes, and providing hypotheses. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
39. Quinn J, Alessi S (1994) The effects of simulation complexity and hypothesis-generation strategy on learning. J Res Comput Educ 27(1): 75-91.
40. Rieber L, Parmley MW (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. J Educ Comput Res 13(4): 359-374.
41. Rieber LP, Tzeng S-C, Tribble K, Chu G (1996) Feedback and elaboration within a computer-based simulation: a dual coding perspective. In: Proceedings of selected research and convention presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
42. Rivers RH, Vockell E (1987) Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 24(5): 403-415.
43. Rueschemeyer D (2003) Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In: Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D (eds) Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 305-336.
44. Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2): 4-14.
45. Simmons PE, Lunetta VN (1993) Problem-solving behaviors during a genetics computer simulation: beyond the expert/novice dichotomy. J Res Sci Teach 30(2): 153-173.
46. Singer J, Marx R, Krajcik J, Chambers J (2000) Constructing extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science education reform. Educ Psychol 3(35): 165-178.
47. Slotta J, Linn MC (2009) Wise science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press, New York.
48. Smaling A (2003) Inductive, analogical, and communicative generalization. Int J Qual Methods 2(1): 1-31.
49. Soderberg P, Price F (2003) An examination of problem-based teaching and learning in population genetics and evolution using EVOLVE, a computer simulation. Int J Sci Educ 25(1): 35-55.
50. Swaak J, van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1998) Supporting simulation-based learning: the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learn Instruc 8(3): 235-252.
51. Valanides N, Angeli C (2008a) Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom: An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions about light and color. J Res Technol Educ 40(3): 309-336.
52. Valanides N, Angeli C (2008b) Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers. Res Sci Technol Educ 26(1): 3-12.
53. van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1991) Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instr Sci 20: 389-404.
54. VanWynsberghe R, Khan S (2007) Redefining case study. Int J Qual Methods 6(2): 1-10.
55. Vasu ES, Tyler DK (1997) A comparison of the critical thinking skills and spatial ability of fifth grade children using simulation software or logo. J Comput Child Educ 8(4): 345-363.
56. Veenman MVJ, Elshout JJ (1995) Differential effects of instructional support on learning in simulation environments. Instr Sci 22: 363-383.
57. Vogel J, Vogel D, Cannon-Bowers C, Muse K, Wright M (2006) Computer gaming and interactive simulations: a meta-analysis. J Educ Comput Res 34(3): 229-243.
58. Webb ME (2005) Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. Int J Sci Educ 27(6): 705-735.
59. White BY, Frederiksen JR (2000) Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In: Minstrell JJ, van Zee E (eds) Teaching in the inquiry-based science classroom. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
60. Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instru 24(2): 171-209.
61. Yin R (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
62. Zacharia ZC (2007) Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. J Comput Assis Learn 23(2): 120-132.