Category Archives: C. Information Visualization

Simulation instead of reality: Worth the effort?

I know I am not fully in line with the instructions, but I would like to focus my post on the benefits of simulation compared to reality. Some of the readings of this week discussed this topic, and I found this question quite fascinating, as the answer will guide the decision on whether using simulation in the classroom or not.

Simulations are based on models. Models are normally understood as simplified representations of a reality (of what the modeler understands as reality), in order to be able to focus on those issues that the modeler finds most important (Winter&Haux, 2011). Thus, in this definition, simulations simplify the reality with the intention to help students learn.

Indeed, students may learn better in simplified, “constrained” environments (Finkelstein, 2005). Why is this? First, simulations may offer “visual clues”, making concepts visible that would otherwise be invisible (such as the flow of electrons in a wire) (Finkelstein, 2005). Second, a simulation avoids any distraction of students that may interfere with successful learning (e.g. no misunderstanding of different colors of wire), instead helps to focus the student on the relevant details (Finkelstein, 2005). Third, in a simulation variables can be changed much more easily than in a real lab situation. Fourth, a simulation is less expensive than real lab classes, especially for large number of students (Srinivasan, 2006).

Yet, as Finkelstein (2005) notes, this may stand in contrast to the “conventional wisdom” that students may learn most with hands-on experience. He thus conducted an experiment: Two groups of university students attending a physics course were compared regarding their mastery of physical concepts. One group used real lab equipment to learn about electron flow, the other group used simulation (the PhET Circuit Construction Kit). Overall, 231 students participated in the experiment. Data was collected by the researchers via observation of the sessions, analysis of lab documentation, time needed to solve the lab exercises, and performance on selected questions in the final exams. Results show that the simulation group outperformed the lab group both in understanding of the physical concepts as well as in their ability to describe their circuit. The authors conclude that simulation can replace traditional real lab. However, they also discuss that simulations are not “the magic bullet”, and that they do not proposed to skip all lab classes. But still, they argue, there is a place for simulations in university education, and depending on the context, the outcome may be better compared to traditional labs.

Interestingly, students themselves may prefer real lab versus simulation. In another study, undergraduate and graduate students that worked with a simulation were studied (Srinivasan, 2006). All students were exposed both to MatLab-based simulation and to traditional lab classes. No differences in learning outcome could be detected (Srinivasan, 2004). A smaller number of students were also interviewed. Interviews showed that a majority of the students perceived the software simulation as a kind of “fake” (Srinivasan, 2006, p. 137). More than half of the students would have preferred “real” lab classes.

What is my summary: Simulations have their place and can lead to even better learning than traditional labs. Yet, students in certain contexts may consider simulations as “not real” and not “authentic” (Srinivasan, 2006).

Question: Did you observe an impact of simulations on learning, compared to traditional lab-based teaching?

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.

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.

Srinivasan, S. (2004). Implementation of an integral signals and systems laboratory in electrical engineering courses: A study. MA, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Winter, A., Haux, R (2011). Health Information Systems. 2nd edition. New York: Springer.

Factoring T-GEM

One of the most effective resources I explored this week was Calculation Nation via NCTM.  One of the games that required the deepest understanding and most strategy was Factor Dazzle: https://calculationnation.nctm.org/Games/Game.aspx?GameId=A0537FC6-3B08-4AFC-9AD6-0CC5E3BC9B86. 

 

Factor Dazzle allows you to challenge yourself or another player to a game of identify factors.  You earn points based on the numbers you choose and the factors you are able to identify.  This reminded me of a common misconception that students had when we started working with prime and composite numbers, factors and multiples.  That is, since all even numbers are composite, all odd numbers must be prime.   

 

The following lesson has been developed using T-GEM (Khan, 2007, 2010, 2012).  While traditionally used in Science classrooms, Khan’s research has proven T-GEM to be effective at developing inquiry skills and conceptual understanding (Khan, 2012).  

 

Generate: 

  1. Students complete a Think-Pair-Share about how they identify prime and composite numbers.  Teachers will look for use of appropriate vocabulary. 

 

Evaluate: 

  1. Students will individually play this version of Factor Dazzle. 
  1. On Popplet, they will write some of the strategies they used for playing the game.  
  1. In another web of Popplet, they will comment on their strategy for identifying prime and composite numbers. 
  1. Students view the following videos and practice links on their Khan Academy accounts.  Results are emailed to the classroom teacher for formative assessment. 
  1. Finding Factors 
  1. Finding Factors & Multiples 
  1. Practice Factor Pairs 

 

Modify: 

  1. Students will then pair up to challenge each other to this version of the game: https://illuminations.nctm.org/activity.aspx?id=4134  
  1. They will increase the difficulty of the game incrementally as appropriate. 
  1. Students submit a written response based on the change to their strategy of determining factors and multiples. 

 

Khan, S. (2012). A hidden gem. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59 – 62. 

TGEM & Information Visualization: Two opposites that attract

I will be merging TGEM and Information Visualization for this post to discuss magnets and misconceptions that come with this topic. Many students think that all magnets are attracted to each other but this activity will help to correct this misconception.  TGEM fosters learners’ conceptual understanding to generate rules or relationships, evaluate them in light of new conditions, and modify their original rules or relationships.

Step #1: Ask students what will happen when two magnets are brought closer together. Students will write their hypothesis down.

Step #2: Teacher is going to give two magnets to each student and students will observe what happens when they are brought closer to each other. Students will try different sides of the magnet and see if their hypothesis is still correct.

Step #3: Students will modify their original hypothesis. For example, if students thought that all sides of magnets were attracted to another magnet, they will discover the different poles of the magnet and will be able to modify the relationship.

Step #4: Once students have done this, students will be able to play an interactive simulation on PhET. The simulation is called ‘Faraday’s Electromagnetic Lab.’ Students will be able to understand why all parts of a magnet are not the same and will also learn why they won’t necessarily attract to each other. Furthermore, students will have an authentic learning experience to enhance their learning to understand why their initial hypothesis did not work and will gain their new knowledge in a way that clears up any misconceptions and preconceived notions.

Step #5: Students will be able to apply what they have learned in a learning environment that is conducive to their learning. Students can bring in magnets and  see which magnets are attracted to one another and which ones are not.

 

Continue reading →

Visualize the π and It Will Come!

For my post about Information Visualization, I will be combining information visualization with the LfU  laid out in Edelson (2001) in order to design a lesson that helps them explore and arrive at the proper calculation of π.

  • Motivation
    • Create a story for the students about how the classroom is going to be getting new carpet (or any other story that would actually work). But, the budget is pretty tight, so we need to order the best amount of carpet. What’s more, the warehouse is offering us a special incentive: if we can guess the exact area of the carpet we are trying to buy, then we get a huge discount.
  • Elicit Curiosity
    • There’s only one problem: the school board can’t approve carpet SQUARES or RECTANGLES. They can only get around the wording if we measure it using circles. (A long shot, I know, but hey, what’s written is written!)
  • Observe
    • Students would first need to visualize, measure, and draw on background knowledge of areas.
    • Measuring the room would allow students to arrive at the borders of the room. Also, students would be asked to use pictures to illustrate their ideas, as Edens & Potter (2008) tell us that “an important process of the problem-solving cycle is the translation of the problem into a meaningful representation.” Students could begin doing this on paper, drawing schematics, that is, illustrations that represent proportions, not details. Think, diagrams for problem-solving.
  • Communicate
    • Next, students would need to talk to each other about differing methods they have devised for measure the circle that is going to take up the middle of the room.
    • Using The Geometer’s Sketchpad, they would be able to graph and measure different polygons that fit into the circle, as shown below:
    • By using increasingly complex shapes, students would be able to explore and start to be able to deduce methods of finding the exact area of a circle.
    • This process of exploring a phenomenon and connecting it to the mechanisms is the basis for Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) as told by Xiang & Passmore (2015).
    • Throughout this process, students would be encouraged and required to explicitly communicate with each other to verbalize and denote their predictions and explanations, to further match the MBI model (Xiang & Passmore, 2015).
    • At some point, Xiang & Passmore (2015) would say that students may require further scaffolding. This could be provided in varying formats depending on how the students are progressing. For example, if students are drastically struggling, a bare-bones formula could be given to them A= ? ?^2 and allow them to fill in the blanks through more discovery. If they are progressing nicely, perhaps another way would be to instruct them to map out and figure the area of the spaces that are not taken up by the shapes as closely as they could.
    • At every point, students would be pointed back to the model being created on the Geometer’s Sketchpad, as “schematic representations are associated with successful problem solving,” (Edens & Potter, 2008).
  • Reflect
    • When most groups have come up with the solution or gotten close, students would be given a chance to now verbally express and represent the knowledge that they have earned through the geometric representation of A=πr^2.
    • A chance for reflection and correction of the process that they took to arrive at the equation would further enlighten them and cement the ideas in their mind.
  • Apply
    • At the very end, the equation could be used to then measure out the size of a circle that would fit in the room, or any other location that they wish to choose.
    • To extend the learning, they price per square foot of the carpet could be provided and further calculations with that data could be done to figure out how much it would cost to cover the circle or the room.

 

It may seem like quite the lofty goal for students to be able to arrive as the equation on their own, but with a visualization tool like the Geometer’s Sketchpad, the amount of tinkering that is easily possible is immense, therefore the potential for learning is also immense. The easy access of tools could scaffold students as they inquire, explore, and build. The ability to quickly construct multiple models and compare them would give students a chance to use further geometric knowledge and proportions to arrive at answers, all while the teacher is there as a support and fellow questioner, encouraging and spurring on further inquiry. In a worst-case scenario, a teacher could even design a model that students could then use to explore the measurements of and arrive at a deeper understanding than if they had designed the model themselves.

The combination of these different methods create a situation where both student and teacher are active, inquiring, and learning in authentic ways that are truly useful, with applications that extend far outside the classroom. Futhermore, with the technology enhancing the learning, students are not limited by their own drawing ability, a factor that was noted as a potential stumbling block to learning (Edens & Potter 2008).

Resources:

Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.

Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 311-329.