Dynamic Information Visualization
This week I chose to explore NetLogo and PhET. Both of these are digital simulation platforms where students can explore and manipulate various simulations of scientific concepts. Stieff and Wilensky (2003) describe a model of connected chemistry to counter the prevalent misconceptions they witness in chemistry. While the concept is a good one, the study uses only 6 students, and they are senior undergrads or graduate students, not secondary students in a study designed to assess the effectiveness at a secondary level, so I would only view this as a preliminary study. However, they make some good theoretical points. Traditional methods rely too much on rote memorization and rigid protocols, while connected chemistry builds understandings and reasoning to solve problems. Connected chemistry makes use of simulations to give students opportunities to make and test predictions in a controlled environment, to manipulate multiple variables to test outcomes, and to receive immediate feedback from the program. Students must justify their conclusions using observable outcomes.
While not specifically connected chemistry, PhET could be used in a very similar fashion, though I much prefer PhET to NetLogo for a number of reasons. NetLogo has the big advantage of more variables to manipulate, is be better at generating data for analysis, and has a lot more options in the library. On the other hand, PhET has much better graphics, better visualization and engagement, and a friendlier user interface. So many of the NetLogo simulations seem similar, and are based on statistics. While they may be more useful for post-secondary or research, I think my secondary students would find them confusing and boring. PhET has a broader range of type and style of simulations and engages students better. The circuit building app is a great example of what is best in simulations.
Figure 1: Circuit Builder from PhET, Simple Kinetics from NetLogo
Finkelstein et al, (2005), performed an experiment comparing student mastery of circuits when taught through simulations or hands-on labs. This was a much more rigorous study than Stieff and Wilensky, assessing the progress of multiple groups or classes of students through a electricity unit. Not only did students working with the circuit simulation demonstrate a better mastery of the concepts, but surprisingly, they were also more proficient at constructing and discussing real circuits than those working with lab materials.
Many people argue that the biggest benefit of simulations is the cost, but I would argue that it is TIME. Simulations allow students to run multiple simulations in a very short time, and to manipulate many more variables than students working with lab equipment would be able to in the same time. This repeated experiment not only reinforces understandings better but gives more opportunity for exploration and inquiry. This is not to say that simulations are always better. Srinivasan et al (2006), note an unexpected finding, that while researchers could appreciate their merit, students perceived simulations to be fake, cheap copies of the real thing. It depends on the pedagogy of their use and the quality of their design. This is why I prefer PhET for my classes. “Properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment”, (Finkelstein et al, 2005).
For Discussion:
- How important is graphic design for effective simulations?
- Evaluate the statement that the biggest benefit of simulations is time.
- What are the most important elements of effective simulations for the elementary or secondary levels?
- Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 02, 2012, from: http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/research.html.
- Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.
- Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry – Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.