Instructors' Intended Learning Outcomes for Using Computational Simulations as Learning Tools
Corresponding Author
Alejandra J. Magana
Assistant Professor in Computer and Information Technology
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sean P. Brophy
Associate Professor in Engineering Education
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
George M. Bodner
Arthur E. Kelly Distinguished Professor of Chemistry Education and Engineering Education
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Alejandra J. Magana
Assistant Professor in Computer and Information Technology
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sean P. Brophy
Associate Professor in Engineering Education
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
George M. Bodner
Arthur E. Kelly Distinguished Professor of Chemistry Education and Engineering Education
Purdue University
Purdue University, Knoy Hall of Technology, Room 231, 401 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Neil Armstrong Building, Room 1217, 701 West Stadium, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; [email protected].
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907; [email protected].
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background
The computational simulations used by the instructors in this study were originally developed for use as research tools by subject-matter experts and then incorporated in advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in engineering and science. Although some research has been done on students' learning with these computational simulations, less progress has been made toward understanding instructors' goals, or affordances, for incorporating these simulations in their teaching.
Purpose (Hypothesis)
To identify how computational simulations can be effectively used in teaching and learning environments, this study examined instructors' rationale for using these simulations as learning tools. The study was based on the following research question: What were the intended learning outcomes that guided the instructors' use of computational simulations as learning tools?
Design/Method
This study used qualitative methods based on the theoretical framework of phenomenography. Openended interviews were conducted with 14 instructors teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in science and engineering who were not familiar with the research literature on beneficial ways of using simulations for learning and instruction.
Results
Analysis revealed an outcome space consisting of eight qualitatively different categories that detailed ways in which the engineering and science instructors in this study conceptualized the use of simulation tools with learning activities into existing courses they taught.
Conclusions
The outcome space of instructors' goals for using computational simulations is consistent with the recommendations found in the literature based on studies of the use of simulations in more restricted research settings.
References
-
Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (4): 321–334.
10.1080/07294360500284672 Google Scholar
- Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. New York, NY: Pfeiffer A Wiley Imprint.
- Alessi, S. (2000). Building versus using simulations. In J. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 175–196): Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
- Andre, T., Haselhuhn, C., Kreiter, K., Baldwin, W., & Leo, C. (2000). Motion games and thinker tools: Using prior simulations to promote learning about motion. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Mathematics / Science Education and Technology 2000 AACE, San Diego, CA.
-
Baillie, C.,
Ko, E.,
Newstetter, W., &
Radcliffe, D. F. (2011). Advancing diverse and inclusive engineering education practices through interdisciplinary research and scholarship.
Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (1): 6–13.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00002.x Google Scholar
- Bodner, G., & Orgill, M. (2007). Theoretical frameworks for research in chemistry/science education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
-
Booth, S. (1997). On Phenomenography, learning and teaching.
Higher Education Research & Development, 16 (2): 135–158.
10.1080/0729436970160203 Google Scholar
- Borgman, C., Abelson, H., Dirks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K., Linn, M., … Salen, K. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Report of the NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning. Retrieved from http:www.nsf.govpubs2008nsf08204nsf08204.pdf.
- Bowden, J. (2000). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Qualitative research methods series. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
- J. Bowden, & E. Walsh (Eds.) (2000). Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
- J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Coocking (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving intelligent advice. Simulation, 82 (11), 769.
- Brophy S. Magana A. J., & Strachan, A. (in press). Molecular dynamic simulations for conceptual understanding. Advances in Engineering Education.
- Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1 (2), 1–12.
- Bowers, Cannon J. A., & Bowers, C. A. (2007). Synthetic learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. Merrienboer & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), AECT handbook of educational communications and technology 3rd ed. (pp. 317–327): Mahawah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Chen, J. C., Ellis, M., Lockhart, J., Hamoush, S., Brawner, C. E., & Tront, J. G. (2000). Technology in engineering education: what do the faculty know and want Journal of Engineering Education, 89 (3): 279–283.
- Clark, J. V., & Pister, K. S. J. (2007). Modeling, simulation, and verification of an advanced micromirror using SUGAR. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 16 (6): 1524–1536.
- Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (4): 471–500.
-
Conole, G., &
Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies
Research in Learning Technology, 12 (2): 113–124.
10.3402/rlt.v12i2.11246 Google Scholar
- de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations: Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312 (5773): 532–533.
- de Jong, T., Beishuizen, J., Hulshof, C., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Someren, M., … Wilhelm, P. (2005). Determinants of discovery learning in a complex simulation learning environment. In P. Gärdenfors & P. Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education, communication, and technology, (pp. 257–283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J. M., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: An example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (5): 597–615.
- de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2007). Model-facilitated learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. J. G. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), AECT handbook of educational communications and technology. 3rd. Ed (pp. 457–468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Denson, L. A., & Yue, D. K. P. (1989). Computer-assisted teaching of marine hydrodynamics. Computers in Education, 13 (3): 279–303.
- Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3): 391–450.
- Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1): 121–130.
-
Felder, R. M., &
Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria.
Journal of Engineering Education, 92 (1): 7–25.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00734.x Google Scholar
- Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27 (3): 337–364.
-
Hannafin, M. J., &
Land, S. M. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: Issues and practices.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12 (1): 3–30.
10.1007/BF03032712 Google Scholar
- Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., Velle, L., … Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, 48 (1): 137–152.
-
Johri, A., &
Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences.
Journal of Engineering Education, 100 (1): 151–185.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00007.x Google Scholar
-
Kadiyala, M., &
Crynes, B. L. (2000). A review of literature on effectiveness of use of information technology in education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 89 (2): 177–189.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00512.x Google Scholar
- Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 (4): 212–218.
-
La Velle, L.,
McFarlane, A., &
Brawn, R. (2003). Knowledge transformation through ICT in science education: A case study in teacher driven curriculum development-Case Study 1.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (2): 183–199.
10.1111/1467-8535.00319 Google Scholar
-
Langley, P.,
Simon, H. A.,
Bradshaw, G. L., &
Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/6090.001.0001 Google Scholar
-
Lincoln, Y., &
Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 Google Scholar
- Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2008, June). Professors' instructional approaches and students' perceptions of nanoHUB simulations as learning tools. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.
- Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2009, June, Are simulation tools developed and used by experts appropriate experimentation tools for educational contexts Paper presented at the 116th Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), Austin, Texas.
- Magana, A. J., & Garcia, R. E. (2010, June, FiPy and OOF:Computational simulations for modeling and simulation of computational materials. Paper Presented at the 117th Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), Louisville, Kentucky.
- Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography. Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10 (2): 177–200.
- Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 141–161). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
- Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In U. Bronfenbrenner, T. Husten & T. N. Postelethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education Vol. 8 (pp. 4424–4429). Elsevier Science.
- Marton, F. (1997). Phenomenography. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook, 2nd edition (pp. 95–101). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
- Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- McLennan, M. (2005, Nov), Add Rappture to your software development. Retrieved from http:www.nanohub.orgresources240.
- Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN). (2006). Retrieved from http:www.ncn.purdue.edu.
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1991). The inquiry level of junior high activities: Implications to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (2): 111–121.
- Reigeluth, C. M., & Schwartz, E. (1989). An instructional theory for the design of computer-based simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16 (1): 1–10.
- Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (1): 93–106.
- Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
-
St. Clair, S., &
Baker, N. C. (2003). Faculty use and impressions of courseware management tools: a national survey.
Journal of Engineering Education, 92 (2): 123–131.
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00750.x Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Swaak, J., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. (2004). The effects of discovery learning and expository instruction on the acquisition of definitional and intuitive knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20 (4): 225–234.
- Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8 (3): 235–252.
- Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
- van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulout, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2): 111–119.
- Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenograpy: Qualitiative research methods series. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press.
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1997). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Wilensky, U. (1995). Learning probability through building computational models.
