Science simulation: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{quotation|Founded in 2002 by Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder creates free interactive math and science simulations. PhET sims are based on extensive education research and engage students through an intuitive, game-like environment where students learn through exploration and discovery.}} [https://phet.colorado.edu/ Interactive Simulations For Science And Math] (retr. April 24, 2019). | {{quotation|Founded in 2002 by Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder creates free interactive math and science simulations. PhET sims are based on extensive education research and engage students through an intuitive, game-like environment where students learn through exploration and discovery.}} [https://phet.colorado.edu/ Interactive Simulations For Science And Math] (retr. April 24, 2019). | ||
According to Perkins et al. (2012), <ref name=":0" /> the PhET project is anchored in [[constructivism|constructivist]] and [[socio-constructivism|socio-constructivist]] learning theory. Sims are designed to {{Quotation|encourage and support the active process of constructing knowledge, an interactive exchange between the student(s) and the content, rather than transmitting knowledge.}}. This, and an approach to implicit scaffolding leads to the following design features of PhET simulations: (Perkins et al. (2012:437): | |||
* Engage in productive, scientist-like exploration. Students will pose their own questions, design experiments, make predictions, and use evidence to support and refine their ideas. | |||
* Assume and sense ownership of the learning experience. Students will perceive a sense of autonomy and choice, where they can direct their exploration and use of the sim. | |||
* Achieve conceptual learning. Students will develop an understanding of and use expert models, including visual representations. They will infer cause-effect relationships and use multiple representations. | |||
* Make connections to everyday life. Students will connect formal science ideas to their everyday life experiences, recognizing how science helps understand the world around us. | |||
* See science as accessible and understandable. Students will engage in authentic science practices and develop their identity as a scientific thinker. They will generate further interest in science. | |||
* Have fun. Students will engage in serious play (Rieber 1996)<ref>Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58 | |||
</ref> and productive “messing about” (Hawkins 1965)<ref>Hawkins, D. (1965) Messing about in science. The Informed Vision, Essays on Learning and Human Nature. Agathon Press 1974</ref>. These goals influence every PhET sim, shaping the approaches used and choices made during design. | |||
Simulations are developed using an user and research-centered design method based similar to Wiggins [[backwards design]]: {{Quotation|Central to | |||
the design process is a research base; we draw from education literature to inform sim design and then contribute our | |||
own research findings. Built into this development approach is an iterative process of testing and redesign for each | |||
sim, and an iterative process that evolves the broader design principles and approaches over the course of creating | |||
more than 100 sims.}}. Besides socio-constructivist learning theory and implicit guidance, simulations also are based on design theory <ref>Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.</ref> and <ref>Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer. | |||
</ref> cognitive load theory . Interviews with students are also of critical importance. | |||
== Guiding == | == Guiding == | ||
As also discussed in the [[guided discovery]] community, giving a "pure" simulation to a student is not very effective, i.e. both researchers and practitioners agree that learners need some explicit or implicit guidance and scaffolding. The question is how and how much. | As also discussed in the [[Guided discovery learning|guided discovery]] community, giving a "pure" simulation to a student is not very effective, i.e. both researchers and practitioners agree that learners need some explicit or implicit guidance and scaffolding. The question is how and how much. | ||
Perkins et al. (2012) <ref>Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Lancaster, K., & Moore, E. B. (2012). Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project. EdMedia + Innovate Learning, 2012(1), 436–441. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/40781/</ref> highlight the overarching importance and use of implicit scaffolding within sims. {{quotation|Explicit scaffolding or guidance is ubiquitous in education. Within science instruction, an environment | Perkins et al. (2012) <ref name=":0">Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Lancaster, K., & Moore, E. B. (2012). Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project. EdMedia + Innovate Learning, 2012(1), 436–441. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/40781/</ref> highlight the overarching importance and use of implicit scaffolding within sims. {{quotation|Explicit scaffolding or guidance is ubiquitous in education. Within science instruction, an environment | ||
with significant explicit guidance can result in students merely following directions as opposed to engaging in sense- | with significant explicit guidance can result in students merely following directions as opposed to engaging in sense- | ||
making and productive inquiry. Implicit scaffolding aims to retain a student’s sense of autonomy while creating an | making and productive inquiry. Implicit scaffolding aims to retain a student’s sense of autonomy while creating an | ||
Revision as of 11:46, 24 April 2019
Introduction
Science simulations are computer simulations that focus on science areas, in particular: physics, biology, chemistry, and earth science.
See also:
PHET Interactive Simulations
“Founded in 2002 by Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman, the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder creates free interactive math and science simulations. PhET sims are based on extensive education research and engage students through an intuitive, game-like environment where students learn through exploration and discovery.” Interactive Simulations For Science And Math (retr. April 24, 2019).
According to Perkins et al. (2012), [1] the PhET project is anchored in constructivist and socio-constructivist learning theory. Sims are designed to “encourage and support the active process of constructing knowledge, an interactive exchange between the student(s) and the content, rather than transmitting knowledge.”. This, and an approach to implicit scaffolding leads to the following design features of PhET simulations: (Perkins et al. (2012:437):
- Engage in productive, scientist-like exploration. Students will pose their own questions, design experiments, make predictions, and use evidence to support and refine their ideas.
- Assume and sense ownership of the learning experience. Students will perceive a sense of autonomy and choice, where they can direct their exploration and use of the sim.
- Achieve conceptual learning. Students will develop an understanding of and use expert models, including visual representations. They will infer cause-effect relationships and use multiple representations.
- Make connections to everyday life. Students will connect formal science ideas to their everyday life experiences, recognizing how science helps understand the world around us.
- See science as accessible and understandable. Students will engage in authentic science practices and develop their identity as a scientific thinker. They will generate further interest in science.
- Have fun. Students will engage in serious play (Rieber 1996)[2] and productive “messing about” (Hawkins 1965)[3]. These goals influence every PhET sim, shaping the approaches used and choices made during design.
Simulations are developed using an user and research-centered design method based similar to Wiggins backwards design: “Central to the design process is a research base; we draw from education literature to inform sim design and then contribute our own research findings. Built into this development approach is an iterative process of testing and redesign for each sim, and an iterative process that evolves the broader design principles and approaches over the course of creating more than 100 sims.”. Besides socio-constructivist learning theory and implicit guidance, simulations also are based on design theory [4] and [5] cognitive load theory . Interviews with students are also of critical importance.
Guiding
As also discussed in the guided discovery community, giving a "pure" simulation to a student is not very effective, i.e. both researchers and practitioners agree that learners need some explicit or implicit guidance and scaffolding. The question is how and how much.
Perkins et al. (2012) [1] highlight the overarching importance and use of implicit scaffolding within sims. “Explicit scaffolding or guidance is ubiquitous in education. Within science instruction, an environment with significant explicit guidance can result in students merely following directions as opposed to engaging in sense- making and productive inquiry. Implicit scaffolding aims to retain a student’s sense of autonomy while creating an environment in which multiple, natural, investigative pathways and questions lead toward the desired knowledge acquisition. In short, implicit scaffolding guides without students feeling guided.”
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Lancaster, K., & Moore, E. B. (2012). Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project. EdMedia + Innovate Learning, 2012(1), 436–441. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/40781/
- ↑ Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43-58
- ↑ Hawkins, D. (1965) Messing about in science. The Informed Vision, Essays on Learning and Human Nature. Agathon Press 1974
- ↑ Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
- ↑ Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.