Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 394-419

  Plass, Jan L ^a   Milne, Catherine ^a   Homer, Bruce D ^b   Schwartz, Ruth N ^a   Hayward, Elizabeth O ^a   Jordan, Trace ^a   Verkuilen, Jay ^b   Ng, Florrie ^a   Wang, Yan ^a   Barrientos, Juan ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

chemistry; cluster analysis; fidelity of implementation; multimedia simulations; scaling up

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATED TOPICS; CHEMISTRY TEACHERS; EFFECTIVE TOOL; FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION; GAS LAW; HIGH SCHOOL; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; KINETIC MOLECULAR THEORY; MULTIMEDIA SIMULATION; PHASE CHANGE; SCALING-UP; SCIENCE CLASSROOM; TEACHING TOOLS; URBAN CONTEXT;

CHEMISTRY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; SCHOOL BUILDINGS;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS;

EID: 84862780225     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21008     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alerby, E., &, Alerby, J. E., (2003). The sounds of silence: Some remarks on the value of silence in the process of reflection in relation to teaching and learning. Reflective Practice, 4, 41-51.
2. Ardac, D., &, Akaygun, S., (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 41, 317-337.
3. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., &, Soloway, E., (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149-164.
4. Board on Science Education. (2011). A framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5. Brown, M., &, Edelson, D. C., (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice ? Evanston, IL: LeTUS Report Series.
6. Brady, A. G., Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B. D., Jordan, T., &, Schwartz, R., (2011). Molecules and Minds: Examining students' behavioral activity patterns using online chemistry simulations. Poster presented at the Northeast Region of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Cornwall, NY.
7. Bruner, J., (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18, 1-21.
8. Carrigg, F., Honey, M., &, Thorpe, R., (2005). Moving from successful local practice to effective state policy: Lessons from Union City. In, C. Dede, J. P. Honan, &, L. C. Peters, (Eds.), Scaling up success: lessons from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 1-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9. Cazden, C., (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10. Carskadon, M. A., (1999). When worlds collide: Adolescent need for sleep versus societal demands. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 348-353.
11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 65-80.
12. Chang, Y. K., Plass, J. L., &, Homer, B. D., (2011) Behavioral Measure of Metacognitive Processes (BMMP): Examining Metacognitive Processes from User Interaction Data. Submitted for Publication.
13. Cortazzi, M., (1993). Narrative analysis. London: The Falmer Press.
14. Dede, C., (2006). Scaling up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In, R. K. Sawyer, (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 551-566). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15. Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D., Clarke, J., &, Bowman, C., (2004). Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on Learning Sciences, Mahweh, NJ.
16. de Jong, T., &, van Joolingen, W. R., (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-201.
17. Domagk, S., Schwartz, R., &, Plass, J. L., (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1024-1033.
18. Fishman, B., (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use: A collaborative framework. In, C. Dede, J. Honan, &, L. Peters, (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 48-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. Fishman, B. J., &, Pinkard, N., (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 63-80. (Pubitemid 33691929)
20. Flay, B. R., (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Preventive Medicine, 15, 451-474.
21. Fogleman, J., McNeil, K. L., &, Krajcik, J., (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle-school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 149-169.
22. Gabel, D., (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 548-554. (Pubitemid 129600870)
23. Glenn, J., (2000). Before it's too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. DoEd.
24. Graham, J. W., (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576.
25. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., &, Ruthven, K., (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 701-732. (Pubitemid 43840806)
26. Herman, D., (2003). Stories as a tool for thinking. In, D. Herman, (Ed.), Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences (pp. 163-192). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
27. Honaker, J., King, G., &, Blackwell, M., (2007). Amelia II: A program for missing data.
28. Honey, M. A., &, Hilton, M., (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. Inquirium. (2005-2008). Inqscribe Simple Transcription and subtitling: Release 2.0.5.
30. Institute of Education Sciences. (2011). Request for applications: Education research grants. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
31. Johnstone, A. H., (1982). Macro- and microchemistry. School Science Review, 64, 377-379.
32. Kim, M., &, Hannafin, M., (2011). Scaffolding problem-solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers and Education, 56, 403-417.
33. Kozma, R. B., (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In, M. Jacobson, &, R. Kozma, (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 11-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Kozma, R., &, Russell, J., (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In, J. K. Gilbert, (Ed.), Visualisation in science education (pp. 121-146). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
35. Krajcik, J. S., (1991). Developing students' understanding of chemical concepts. In, S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, &, B. K. Britton, (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Latour, B., (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
37. Lee, O., &, Luykx, A., (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in elementary science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 411-438. (Pubitemid 41498206)
38. Lee, O., Penfield, R., &, Maerten-Rivera, J., (2009). Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 836-859.
39. Lemke, J., (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
40. Lindgren, R., &, Schwartz, D. L., (2009). Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (3), 419-438.
41. Lynch, S., &, O'Donnell, C., (2005). The evolving definition, measurement, and conceptualization of fidelity of implementation in scale-up of highly rated science curriculum units in diverse middle schools. Paper presented at the symposium on Fidelity of Implementation at the Annual Meeting of the AERA Montreal, Canada. April 7, 2005.
42. McKenzie, D. L., &, Padilla, M. J., (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 571-579.
43. Means, B., &, Penuel, W. R., (2005). Scaling up technology-based educational innovations. In, C. Dede, J. P. Honan, &, L. C. Peters, (Eds.), Scaling up success: lessons from technology-based educational improvement. (pp. 176-197). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
44. Mills, S. C., &, Ragan, T. J., (2000). A tool for analyzing implementation fidelity of an integrated learning system. Educational Research and Development, 48 (4), 21-41.
45. Milne, C., Plass, J., Homer, B., Wang, Y., Jordan, T., Schwartz, R., â∥, Hayward, E., (2010) Exploring the possibilities for narrative in the use of multimedia simulations for the teaching and learning of Chemistry. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, 30 April-May 4, 2010.
46. Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., &, Bybee, D., (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340. (Pubitemid 37272778)
47. Nagin, D. S., (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametic, group based approach. Psychological Methods, 4, 1181-1196.
48. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. New York City Department of Education. (2011). Attendance. schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/data/stats/attendance/default.htm. Accessed on May 30, 2011.
50. O'Donnell, C., (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
51. Olitsky, S., &, Milne, C., (2012). Understanding engagement in science education: The psychological and the social. Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
52. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., &, Hayward, E., (2009a). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 31-61.
53. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Milne, C., Jordan, T., Kaluyga, S., Kim, M., &, Lee, H., (2009b). Design factors for effective science simulations: Representation of information. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-mediated Simulations, 1, 16-35.
54. Raudenbush, S. W., &, Bryk, A. S., (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55. Roth, W.-M., Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., &, Han, J. Y., (2005). Critical graphicacy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
56. Scerri, E. R., (2006). Normative and descriptive philosophy of science and the role of chemistry. In, D. Baird, E. Scerri, &, L. McIntyre, (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (pp. 119-128). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
57. Seidman, I., (2005). Interviewing as qualitative research. NY: Teachers College Press.
58. Smetana, L. K., &, Bell, R. L., (2011). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 1-34. iFirst Article. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.605182.
59. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., &, McDonald, S., (2003). Research towards an expanded understanding of inquiry science beyond one idealized standard. Science Education, 87, 490-516.
60. Songer, N. B., &, Gotwals, A. W., (2005). Fidelity of implementation in three sequential curricular units. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the. American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada: April, 2005.
61. StataCorp. (2007). Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
62. Taylor, N., &, Coll, R., (2002). A comparison of pre-service primary teachers' mental models of Kinetic Theory in three different cultures. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 3, 293-315.
63. Theobald, P., (2005). Urban and rural schools: Overcoming lingering obstacles. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 116-122. (Pubitemid 41542646)
64. Thompson, M., &, Wiliam, D., (2008). Tight but loose: A conceptual framework for scaling up school reforms. In, E. C. Wylie, (Ed.), Tight but loose: Scaling up teacher professional development in diverse contexts. (pp. 1-44). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.