When exploring the articles for this week’s simulations I came across a study in which they reference Turkle questioning the motives and justification for use of computers in education. She asks “Why should fifteen-year-olds pour virtual chemicals into virtual beakers? Why should eighteen-year-olds do virtual experiments in virtual physics laboratories? (as cited in Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky, 2005). Often the simple and sometimes cynical answer to this question is because these simulations address the glaring issues of not enough funding or experienced teachers to educate our students in the sciences. Yet computer simulations and information visualization can go beyond simply being a less expensive replacement for quality teaching. In inquiry based laboratory environments students who use these simulations often learned more content than did students using real equipment (Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky, 2005). Furthermore, the students can effectively use these computers as thinking partners “substitute for laboratory equipment, to collect and display data, and to serve as a medium of communication and coordination of students and teachers supports students’ mastery of concepts and ability to integrate knowledge” (Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky, 2005, p.4) Not only are students performing better on conceptual questions related to the simulations, they in fact developed greater ability to manipulate the real components after the virtual experience. Perhaps more importantly these computer simulations offer students a chance to get off the page and out of the book and see what is otherwise unseen phenomena happen before their eyes allowing for a deeper engagement and a reduction of the drudgery of learning (Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky, 2005; Khan, 2010). Now before we all throw out the beakers and buy more computers I think we have to consider a balance of experiences and not simply replace one with the other, instead use one to strengthen and deepen the other. Some students see these simulations as “fake” while experienced professionals in the field see them as a direct replica of the real materials or phenomena (Srinivasan, Perez, Palmer, Brooks, Wilson, & Fowler, 2006). As educators we have to ensure a balance of students needing and wanting “authenticity to be able to make the connections the experts make with the simulations” (Srinivasan, Perez, Palmer, Brooks, Wilson, & Fowler, 2006, p.140). What is important is to provide simulations that are properly designed and applied in the appropriate contexts of a classroom that supports both hands on and virtual learning.
My lesson comes from the Alberta Program of Studies Grade 2 Science Topic A Exploring Liquids.
Students will
Demonstrate an understanding that liquid water can be changed to other states:
- recognize that on cooling, liquid water freezes into ice and that on heating, it melts back into liquid water with properties the same as before
- recognize that on heating, liquid water may be changed into steam or water vapor and that this change can be reversed on cooling
- identify examples in which water is changed from one form to another.
This topic is one that is difficult to simulate effectively in a classroom using hands on materials. Time and ambient temperature interfere with students being able to observe the changes in the states of matter before their eyes. They rely upon seeing the changes after they have occured. For example freezing water takes a lot of time and happens behind the closed freezer door. Using a PhET computer simulation students are able to apply the temperature variable and see immediate effect and change. They can then apply this conceptual understanding to the hands on materials in the classroom that change when they can’t see them. https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/states-of-matter-basics/latest/states-of-matter-basics_en.html
After this lesson students would then use the real hands on materials to apply their conceptual knowledge and explore the states of matter.
Here is my lesson:
- Can simulations be used productively in lieu of real equipment or hands on materials in the classroom?
- Will students learn the same concepts and will they learn them as well?
Trish
References
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
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232. DOI 10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2
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.
You raise an interesting point about the use of simulations over real-world experiments and I agree with your conclusion that the simulation offers the possibility of going beyond what students may be able to experience first hand. As Xiang and Passmore discuss in “A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming” students are able to fairly easily manipulate variables without having to restart an experiment. In addition, I think it comes down to how scientists actually work. Earlier this term we talked about the importance of storying science and allowing students to contextualize the work and I think this is an important opportunity for students to experience just what scientists do: sometimes there is field work and hands on and sometimes it’s computer simulations.
I really appreciate the point you made about letting our students do what real scientists do. How true it is to remember that a bulk of laboratory work is simulations. This is not a substandard or corner cutting way to explore phenomena and manipulate variables. This is still “real” science.
Dear Tish,
You are always able to develop detailed post about our discussion topics. I appreciate the use of the T-GEM pedagogy in your lesson plan.
To answer your question, in Finkelstein et al. 2005, they explain that “properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment” (Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky, 2005, p.1 &2). What they also said was that the hassle-free explorative opportunities also play a role in promoting learning. Moreover, during hassle-free labs, TAs are free of clerical tasks and can spend more time answering student questions. I believe that these advantages help maximize student learning opportunities.
To extend our discussion, the authors also talked about the importance of coupling simulation with teaching scaffolds. I noticed that a number of your strategies included content scaffolds. What are other appropriate reflective scaffold that you think pHet should include in their simulations?
Alice
Hey Trish,
At the start of your post you mention how simulations are often used because they are cheaper and there is often a lack of experienced teachers. I would like to add one more reason to your list….simulations can be SO MUCH easier. I often find myself using simulations of a wind vane, because it is time consuming and arduous to have 25 build their own, take them outside and experiment with them. With one simple website we can easily display a wind vane at the front of the class, manipulate virtual wind and see how the device responds.
I really like how your lesson builds on the findings of Finkelstein et al. (2005) that students who used simulations are better prepared to use the real manipulatives/tools. Your plan to use the real tools after this lesson makes for a perfect use of the simulation. Students will have a strong grasp of the content, how to use the scientific materials, and will be primed and ready to explore hands-on.