A Comparison of Students' Approaches to Inquiry, Conceptual Learning, and Attitudes in Simulation-Based and Microcomputer-Based Laboratories

Science Education

Volumn 98, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 905-935

  Chen, Sufen ^a   Chang, Wen Hua ^b   Lai, Chih Hung ^c   Tsai, Cheng Yue ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL DONG HWA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906057870     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21126     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2011). The TriLab, a novel ICT based triple access mode laboratory education model. Computers & Education, 56, 262-274.
2. Adams D. D., & Shrum, J. W. (1990). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 777-787.
3. Algina, J., Keselman, H. J., & Penfield, R. D. (2006). Confidence interval coverage for Cohen's effect size statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 945-960.
4. Beichner, R. J. (1990). The effect of simultaneous motion presentation and graph generation in a kinematics lab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 803-815.
5. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
6. Bird, K. D. (2004). Analysis of variance via confidence intervals. London: Sage.
7. Bisdikian, G., & Psillos, D. (2002). Enhancing the linking of theoretical knowledge to physical phenomena by real-time graphing. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 193-204). Boston: Kluwer.
8. Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95, 700-719.
9. Brassell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385-395.
10. Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. Science & Technology Education Library, 25, 1-14.
11. Calvo, P., & Gomila, T. (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. New York: Elsevier.
12. Chang, K.-E., Chen, Y.-L., Lin, H.-Y., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486-1498.
13. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90, 803-819.
14. Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1123-1130.
15. Chen, S., Chang, W.-H., Lieu, S.-C., Kuo, H.-L., Huang, M.-T., & Lin, S.-F. (2013). Development of an empirically based questionnaire to investigate young students' ideas about nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 408-430.
16. Chen, S., Lo, H.-C., Lin, J.-W., Liang, J.-C., Chang, H.-Y., Huang, F.-K., et al. (2012). Development and implications of technology in reform-based physics laboratories. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 020113.
17. Chen, S., Tsai, C.-Y., Chen, H.-L., & Chang, W.-H. (in revision). Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science. Instructional Science.
18. Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topic-Physics Education Research, 8, 010113.
19. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
20. Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53, 853-865.
21. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305-308.
22. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., et al. (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.
23. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343-357.
25. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455-479.
26. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 355-372). New York: Elsevier.
27. Gordon, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of Learning Science, 4, 249-279.
28. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
29. Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schmitz, B. (2010). Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1278-1288.
30. Hucke, L. & Fischer, H. E. (2002). The linking of theory and practice in traditional and in computer-based university laboratory experiments. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 205-218). Boston: Kluwer.
31. 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.
32. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24, 271-283.
33. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). 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.
34. Keller, C. (2004). Substituting traditional hands-on laboratories with computer simulations: What's gained and what's lost? Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys4810phys4810_fa04/final_projects/keller.pdf.
35. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183-203.
36. Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E. A., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece. Computers & Education, 52(2), 390-401.
37. Koretsky, M. D., Amatore, D., Barnes, C., & Kimura, S. (2008). Enhancement of student learning in experimental design using a virtual laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51, 76-85.
38. Lazonder, A. W., Hagemans, M. G., & de Jong, T. (2010). Offering and discovering domain information in simulation-based inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 511-520.
39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40. Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 885-918.
41. Martinez-Jimenez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J., & Climent-Bellido, M. S. (2003). Learning in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 346-352.
42. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
43. McElhaney, K. W. (2007). Learning kinematics by experimenting with visualizations in diverse classroom contexts. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
44. Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4, 235-248.
45. Miao, Y., Engler, J., Giemza, A., Weinbrenner, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2012). Development of a process-oriented scaffolding agent in an open-ended inquiry learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 105-28.
46. Ministry of Education. (2008). Senior high school curriculum guidelines. Taipei, Republic of China: Author.
47. Nakhleh, M. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1077-1096.
48. Nicolaou, C. T., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders' ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75-99.
49. Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2007). Undergraduates' NOS conceptions and the role of historical narratives: A very tangled web. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Group, Calgary, CA.
50. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96, 21-47.
52. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
53. Pierri, E., Karatrantou, A., & Panagiotakopoulos, C. (2008). Exploring the phenomenon of "change of phase" of pure substances using the microcomputer-based-laboratory (MBL) system. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 234-239.
54. Ploetzner, R., Lippitsch, S., Galmbacher, M., Heuer, D., & Scherrer, S. (2009). Students' difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 56-65.
55. Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133-147.
56. Ramasundaram, V., Grunwald, S., Mangeot, A., Comerford, N. B., & Bliss, C. M. (2005). Development of an environmental virtual field laboratory. Computers & Education. 45, 21-34.
57. Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23(1), 10-23.
58. Russell, D. W., Lucas, K. B., & McRobbie, C. J. (2004). Role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in thermal physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 165-185.
59. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136-153.
60. Settlage, J., Jr. (1995). Children's conceptions of light in the context of a technology-based curriculum. Science Education, 79, 535-553.
61. Sun, K.-T., Lin, Y.-C., & Yu, C.-J. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education, 50, 1411-1422.
62. Trey, L., & Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education, 51, 519-529.
63. Trindade, J., Fiolhais, C., & Almeida, L. (2002). Science learning in virtual environments: A descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 471-488.
64. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149-173.
65. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111-119.
66. Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195-204.
67. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.
68. Winberg, T. M., & Berg, C. A. R. (2007). Students' cognitive focus during a chemistry laboratory exercise: Effects of a computer-simulated prelab. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1108-1133.
69. Yang, K.-Y., & Heh, J.-S. (2007). The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 451-461.
70. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792-823.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. P. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 447-457.
74. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317-331.
75. 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.