You are here:

Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An Experiential Learning theoretical analysis
ARTICLE

Computers & Education Volume 135, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Early research investigated young students' understandings of science concepts using physical equipment, but technological advances now mean there are new options to introduce these ideas, through devices such as iPads and simulations. However, research investigating the use of simulations in early years' science learning is limited. This study applied revisions of Kolb's Experiential Learning theoretical model to determine if age-indicated science simulations were effective for teaching 5 year olds simple circuit building procedures and electricity concepts, and the function of circuit components. It also explored whether their engagement with the simulations provided worthwhile opportunities to exercise higher order capabilities such as reflective thinking and abstraction – skills oftencited in literature as valuable outcomes from older student and adult use of simulations. Findings indicate students developed a solid base of procedural knowledge about constructing different circuits, and functional knowledge about circuit components they applied to different circuit designs. The emergence of tentative, generalised theories about current and the effects of different circuit designs on the performance of resistors - linked to the exercise of reflective and descriptive thinking, were also noted in many students. However, examples were found of some simulations appearing to foster common misconceptions, such as current being ‘consumed’ by resistors – indicating teachers need to be highly vigilant and work closely with students, to ensure accurate understandings are developed. Overall, with appropriate teacher support and careful selection and review, the study concludes simulations can be effective for introducing young students to simple physical science concepts, and for providing them with opportunities to engage in higher order thinking processes.

Citation

Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An Experiential Learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135(1), 138-159. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 20, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Computers & Education on April 7, 2019. Computers & Education is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), pp. 183-198.
  2. Aktan, D. (2012). Investigation of students' intermediate conceptual understanding levels: The case of direct current electricity concepts. European Journal of Physics, 34, pp. 33-43.
  3. Ates, S. (2005). The effectiveness of the learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to prospective female and male science teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), pp. 213-227.
  4. Beard, C., & Wilson, J. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers. London: Kogan Page.
  5. Beaudin, B., & Quick, D. (1995). Experiential learning: Theoretical underpinnings. U.S department of health and human services (report No. ETT-95-02). Available online: https://users.ugent.be/%7Emvalcke/LI_1213/experiencial_learning.pdf.
  6. Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G., & Neumann, R. (2010). Kolb's Experiential Learning model: Critique from a modelling perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(1), pp. 29-46.
  7. Bouck, E., Satsangi, R., Doughty, T., & Courtney, W. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, pp. 180-193.
  8. Bullock, E., Moyer-Packman, P., Shumway, J., MacDonald, B., & Watts, C. (2015). Effective teaching with technology: Managing affordances in iPad apps to promote young children's mathematics learning. SITE2015: Proceedings of the society for information technology & teacher education international conference, pp. 2648-2655. Las Vegas: AACE.
  9. Clark, D.B., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D‘Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations. Genres, examples, and evidence Washington, D.C: The National Research Council Workshop on Games and Simulations. Available online: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_080068.pdf.
  10. Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1982). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), pp. 407-412.
  11. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, LIV(3), pp. 77-80.
  12. Druian, G., Owens, T., & Owen, S. (1995). Experiential education: A search for common roots. Experiential learning in schools and higher education, pp. 17-25. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.
  13. Enns, C. (1993). Integrating separate and connected knowing: The Experiential Learning model. Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), pp. 7-13.
  14. Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), pp. 655-674.
  15. Falloon, G.W. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning. Computers & Education, 68, pp. 505-521.
  16. Falloon, G.W. (2015). What’s the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, pp. 62-77.
  17. Falloon, G.W. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, pp. 1-18. Available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12155/epdf.
  18. Falloon, G.W. (2017). Using apps to scaffold science learning in primary classrooms: Design, pedagogical and curriculum considerations. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
  19. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, pp. 87-97.
  20. Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E., Bontá, P., Silverman, B., Bers, M., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing Scratch Jnr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. Paper presented at IDC ’13 New York: ACM.
  21. Glauert, E. (2009). How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), pp. 1025-1047.
  22. Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), pp. 23-38.
  23. Gwet, K. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics.
  24. Henderson, L., Klemes, J., & Eshet, Y. (2000). Just playing a game? Educational simulation software and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(1), pp. 105-129.
  25. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), pp. 869-885.
  26. Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centred learning: Rethinking tools, functions and applications. Educational Media International, 42(4), pp. 281-296.
  27. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), pp. 271-283.
  28. Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), pp. 17-20.
  29. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  30. Kolb, D., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, pp. 227-247. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  31. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2012). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development, pp. 42-68. London: SAGE.
  32. Kolloffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), pp. 375-393.
  33. Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, pp. 159-174.
  34. Larkin, K. (2016). Mathematics education and manipulatives: Which, when how?. APMC, 21(1), pp. 12-17.
  35. Lazonder, A., & Ehrenhard, S. (2014). Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: How falling objects fall. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), pp. 110-120.
  36. Lieberman, D., Bates, C., & So, J. (2009). Young children's learning with digital media. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), pp. 271-283.
  37. Linn, M., Chang, H., Chiu, J., Zhang, Z., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualisations?. Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of robert a. Bjork, pp. 235-258. New York: Psychology Press.
  38. Moyer-Packenham, P., Shumway, J., Bullock, E., & Tucker, S. (2015). Young children's learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathematics iPad apps. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), pp. 41-69.
  39. National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Available online: https://doi.org/10.17226/13158.
  40. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children's ideas about electric current. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(1), pp. 73-82.
  41. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children: A translation by margaret cook. New York: International Universities Press.
  42. Plass, J., Homer, B., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), pp. 31-61.
  43. Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators, pp. 17-33. New York: Routledge.
  44. Rosen, D., & Hoffman, J. (2009). Integrating concrete and virtual manipulatives in early childhood mathematics. YC Young Children, 64(3), pp. 26-33.
  45. Shin, M., Bryant, D., Bryant, B., McKenna, J., Hou, F., & Ok, M. (2017). Virtual manipulative tools for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(3), pp. 148-153.
  46. Shipstone, D.M. (1984). A study of children's understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), pp. 185-198.
  47. Squire, K. (2005). Game-based learning: Present and future state of the field. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison Press.
  48. Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), pp. 373-391.
  49. Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering and mathematics. New York: Heinemann.
  50. Verenikina, I., Herrington, J., Peterson, R., & Mantei, J. (2010). Computers and play in early childhood: Affordances and limitations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(1), pp. 139-159.
  51. Wang, F., Kinzie, M., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, pp. 381-389.
  52. Wang, T., & Tseng, Y. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of physical, virtual, and virtual-physical manipulatives on third-grade students' science achievement and conceptual understanding of evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), pp. 203-219.
  53. Wilson, A. (2016). Computer simulations and inquiry-based activities in an 8 th grade earth science classroom (Unpublished master's dissertation). Minnesota, USA: St. Cloud State University. Available online: http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/ed_etds/7/.
  54. Zacharias, Z., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), pp. 101-158.
  55. Zacharias, Z., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 447-457.
  56. Zacharias, Z., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), pp. 1021-1035.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References