Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students' conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation

Instructional Science

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 575-596

  Olympiou, Georgios ^a   Zacharias, Zacharia ^a   deJong, Ton ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Abstract representations; Conceptual understanding; Concrete representations; Inquiry based experimentation; Simulations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874978564     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61.
4. Ainsworth, S., & van Labeke, N. (2001). A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating multirepresentational learning environments. Paper presented at the 9th EARLI conference, Fribourg.
5. Ainsworth, S., & van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
6. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
7. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1-18.
8. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33, 73-95.
9. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 895-935.
10. Chang, K.-E. C., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486-1498.
11. ChanLin, L. (1999). Visual treatment for different prior knowledge. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 213-219.
12. Clement, J. J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2002). Step-wise evolution of mental models of electric circuits: A "learning-aloud" case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 389-452.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073-1091.
16. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). 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.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-41). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
17. Deslauriers, L., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7, 010101.
18. Duit, R., & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modelling. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe: Current Issues and Themes. London: Falmer.
19. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1, 1-8.
20. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 806-836.
21. Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 183-204.
22. Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13, 239-244.
23. Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86, 106-121.
24. Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653-697.
25. Hatzikraniotis, E., Bisdikian, G., Barbas, A., Psillos, D. (2007). Optilab: Design and development of an integrated virtual laboratory for teaching optics. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science, CBLIS, Crete, Greece.
26. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732-748.
27. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
28. Huk, T., Steinke, M., & Floto, C. (2010). The educational value of visual cues and 3D-representational format in a computer animation under restricted and realistic conditions. Instructional Science, 38, 455-469.
29. Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 803-821.
30. Ingerman, A., Linder, C., & Marshall, D. (2009). The learners' experience of variation: Following students' threads of learning physics in computer simulation sessions. Instructional Science, 37, 273-292.
31. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2010). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 71-93.
32. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89-103.
33. Kozma, R., Russell, J., Jones, T., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1996). The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
34. Limniou, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Whitehead, C. (2009). Integration of simulation into pre-laboratory chemical course: Computer cluster versus WebCT. Computers & Education, 52, 45-52.
35. Liu, H.-C., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The impact of learner's prior knowledge on their use of chemistry computer simulations: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 466-482.
36. Martinez, G., Naranjo, F. L., Perez, A. L., Suero, M. I., & Pardo, P. J. (2011). Comparative study of the effectiveness of three learning environments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic simulations and traditional laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020111-1-020111-12.
37. Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students' development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301-326.
38. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
39. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth 1000 words e Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.
40. McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity, Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003.
41. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. (1996). Physics by inquiry (Volume II). New York: Wiley.
42. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999-2009). Computers & Education, 56, 769-780.
43. Minogue, J., Gail Jones, M., Broadwell, B., & Oppewall, T. (2006). The impact of haptic augmentation on middle school students' conceptions of the animal cell. Virtual Reality, 10, 293-305.
44. Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Algorithms, visualization, and mental models: High school students' interactions with a relative motion simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(4), 311-325.
45. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47.
46. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanical systems: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3& 4), 429-449.
47. Petre, M., Blackwell, A. F., & Green, T. R. G. (1998). Cognitive questions in software visualization. In J. Stasko, J. Domingue, M. Brown, & B. Price (Eds.), Software visualization: Programming as a multi-media experience (pp. 453-480). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 235-241.
49. Pozzer-Ardenghi, & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219-241.
50. Rapp, D. N. (2005). Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (pp. 43-60). Dordrecht: Springer.
51. Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24-30.
52. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation-A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14-26.
53. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127-152.
54. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1050-1078.
55. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190.
57. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
58. Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1337-1370.
59. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54, 1078-1088.
60. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
61. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199-212.
62. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
64. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
65. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.
66. Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers' explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1741-1767.
67. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132.
68. Zacharia, Z. C., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students' conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618-629.
69. Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students' conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76, 425-430.
70. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317-331.
71. Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1021-1035.