Simulations, games, and modeling tools for learning

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 256-266

  De Jong, Ton ^a   Lazonder, Ard ^b   Pedaste, Margus ^c   Zacharia, Zacharias ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049287266     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Achuthan, K., Sreelatha, S. K., Surendran, S. K., Diwakar, S., Nedungadi, P., Humphreys, S., et al. (2011, October-November). The VALUE @ Amrita virtual labs project: Using web technology to provide virtual laboratory access to students. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC).
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S. (2018). Multiple representations and multimedia learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 96-105). New York: Routledge.
4. 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.
5. Anderson, J. L., & Barnett, M. (2013). Learning physics with digital game simulations in middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 914-926.
6. Arena, D. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Experience and explanation: Using videogames to prepare students for formal instruction in statistics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 538-548.
7. Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65-79.
8. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345-363.
9. Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95, 700-719.
10. Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2013). SimSketch: Multiagent simulations based on learner-created sketches for early science education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6, 208-216.
11. Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. A. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 694-697.
12. Brant, G., Hooper, E., & Sugrue, B. (1991). Which comes first, the simulation or the lecture? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 469-481.
13. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-51.
15. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A system-atic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 79-122.
16. d’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
17. de Jong, T. (2016). Instruction based on computer simulations and virtual labs. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed., pp. 1123-1167). New York: Routledge.
18. de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371-390). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305-308.
20. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 1-16.
21. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2008). Model-facilitated learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merill, J. v. Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (3rd ed., pp. 457-468). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Games in the learning sciences: Reviewing evidence from playing and mak-ing games for learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 276-284). New York: Routledge.
23. Fincher, R. M. E., & Lewis, L. A. (2002). Simulations used to teach clinical skills. In G. R. Norman, C. P. M. van der Vleuten, & D. J. Newble (Eds.), International handbook of research in medical education (pp. 499-535). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
24. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8410-8415.
25. Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 41-64.
26. Gobert, J. D., Baker, R. S., & Wixon, M. B. (2015). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50, 43-57.
27. Gobert, J. D., Sao Pedro, M. A., Raziuddin, J., & Baker, R. S. (2013). From log files to assessment metrics: Measuring students’ science inquiry skills using educational data mining. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 521-563.
28. Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in a simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57, 2281-2290.
29. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
30. Hulshof, C. D., Eysink, T. H. S., & de Jong, T. (2006). The ZAP project: Designing interactive computer tools for learning psychology. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 43, 337-351.
31. Ibáñez, M. B., Di Serio, Á., Villarán, D., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13.
32. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1246-1252.
33. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Käser, T., Hallinen, N. R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2017). Modeling exploration strategies to predict student performance within a learning environment and beyond. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference.
35. 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.
36. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86, 681-718.
37. Lazonder, A. W., & Kamp, E. (2012). Bit by bit or all at once? Splitting up the inquiry task to promote chil-dren’s scientific reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 458-464.
38. Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2011). Instructional support in games. In S. Tobias & D. Fletcher (Eds.), Can computer games be used for instruction? (pp. 353-369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
39. Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2012). Adaptive advice in learning with a computer-based strategy game. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 653-665.
40. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
41. Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174-187.
42. Linn, M. C., McElhaney, K. W., Gerard, L., & Matuk, C. (2018). Inquiry learning and opportunities for tech-nology. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 221-233). New York: Routledge.
43. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining learning through modeling in K-6 science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 192-215.
44. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Medical Education, 44, 50-63.
46. Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23, 305-336.
47. Mulder, Y. G., Bollen, L., de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 502-523.
48. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21, 614-624.
49. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. Papaevripidou, M., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining how students’ knowledge of the subject domain affects their process of modeling in a computer programming environment. Journal of Computers in Education, 2, 251-282.
51. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
52. Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383-392). New York: Routledge.
53. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground-A literature review of empiri-cal research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education, 1-37. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1206351
54. Rosé, C. P. (2018). Learning analytics in the Learning Sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 511-519). New York: Routledge.
55. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
56. Ryoo, K., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Designing automated guidance for concept diagrams in inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1003-1035.
57. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
58. Tabak, I., & Kyza., E. (2018). Research on scaffolding in the learning sciences: A methodological perspective. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 191-200). New York: Routledge.
59. ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Wouters, P., Vandercruysse, S., Elen, J., & van Oostendorp, H. (2015). When a game supports prevocational math education but integrated reflection does not. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 462-480.
60. ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Wouters, P., Vandercruysse, S., Elen, J., & van Oostendorp, H. (2017). Computer game-based mathematics education: Embedded faded worked examples facilitate knowledge acquisition. Learning and Instruction, 50, 44-53.
61. Trout, L., Lee, C. L., Moog, R., & Rickey, D. (2008). Inquiry learning: What is it? How do you do it? In S. L. Bretz (Ed.), Chemistry in the national science education standards: Models for meaningful learning in the high school chemistry classroom (2nd ed., pp. 29-43): Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
62. 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.
63. van der Spek, E. D., van Oostendorp, H., & Meyer, J. J. C. (2013). Introducing surprising events can stimulate deep learning in a serious game. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 156-169.
64. Waldrop, M. M. (2013). The virtual lab. Nature, 499, 268-270.
65. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 5-23.
66. Wecker, C., Rachel, A., Heran-Dörr, E., Waltner, C., Wiesner, H., & Fischer, F. (2013). Presenting theoreti-cal ideas prior to inquiry activities fosters theory-level knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 1180-1206.
67. Wetzel, J., VanLehn, K., Butler, D., Chaudhari, P., Desai, A., Feng, J., et al. (2016). The design and develop-ment of the dragoon intelligent tutoring system for model construction: Lessons learned. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1131167
68. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99-157.
69. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682-683.
70. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941-967.
71. Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The chemcollective-Virtual labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328, 584-585.
72. Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116-137.
73. Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A. N., et al. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry in using virtual and remote labs: A literature review. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63, 257-302.
74. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3-17.