A Comparison of the effects of the integration sequence of interactive simulation on pre-service science teachers’ scientific explanation of buffer solutions

Romklao Jantrasee

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Romklao Jantrasee Department of Mathematics, Science, and Computer Education, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7322-2275

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

scientific explanation, evidence-based practice, interactive simulation, inquiry-based learning

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to find out the influence of the integration sequence of interactive simulation on the construction of the scientific explanation of buffer solutions. This study was conducted with 30 pre-service science teachers. The control group was
randomly assigned to study with lecture first and then interactive simulation-based inquiry learning, and the experimental group was randomly assigned to study with interactive simulation-based inquiry learning and lecture respectively. The finding showed that after the posttest there was no statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups. This suggests that the sequence of interactive simulation during inquiry activities in the chemistry classroom does not affect the construction of the scientific explanation. However, the mean score between the pretest and posttest in the control group shows a statistically significant difference. This study yields productive information regarding the role of interactive simulation providing clear evidence to scaffold pre-service science teachers in learning the abstract concept.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Antonio, R. P., & Prudente, M. S. (2021). Metacognitive argument-driven inquiry in teaching antimicrobial resistance: Effects on students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(2), 192-217. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.60

Arıcı, F., & Yılmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of laboratory experiment and interactive simulation use on academic achievement in teaching secondary school force and movement unit. Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 465-476. https://doi.org/ 10.17051/ilkonline.2020.689668

Blackburn, R. A.R., Villa-Marcos, B., & Williams, D. P. (2019). Preparing students for practical sessions using laboratory simulation software. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(1), 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00549

Borrull, A., & Valls, C. (2021). Inquiry laboratory activity: Investigating the effects of mobile phone on yeasts viability. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(2), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.59

Cabello, V. M., Moreira, P. M., & Morales, P. G. (2021). Elementary students’ reasoning in drawn explanations based on a scientific theory. Education Science, 11(10), 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11100581

Cairns, D. (2019). Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-based learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15), 2113-2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1660927

Castaneda, R. (2008). The impact of computer-based simulation within an instructional sequence on learner performance in a web-based environment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Arizona State University.

Çepni, S. (2014). Introduction to research and project work (6th ed.). Celepler Printing.

Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Supporting scientific explanations with drawings and narratives on tablet computers: An analysis of explanation patterns. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0247-0

Demerouti, M., Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2004). Acid-base equilibria, Part II: Effect of developmental level and disembedding ability on students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability. The Chemical Educator, 9(2), 132-137. https://doi.org/10.1333/s00897040770a

Díaz, J. F. (2011). Examining student-generated questions in an elementary science classroom [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Iowa.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Englehart, D. (2014). Contrast of the science teaching practices of two preservice early childhood educators. In D.W.Sunal, C. S. Sunal, E. L. Wright, C. L. Mason, & D. Zollman (Eds.), Research based undergraduate science teaching (Vol. 6, pp.221-245). Information Age Publisher.

Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135(1), 138-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001

Fan, X., Geelan, D., & Gillies, R. (2018). Evaluating a novel instructional sequence for conceptual change in physics using interactive simulations. Education Sciences, 8(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010029

Ghasami, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality test for statistical analysis: A guide for nonstatisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486-489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505

Gobert, J. D. (2005). Leveraging technology and cognitive theory on visualization to promote students’ science. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in Science Education (Vol. 1, pp. 73‐90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_6

Gokhale, A. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer simulation versus lab, and sequencing of instruction, in teaching logic circuits. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-12.

Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386

Kohnle, A., & Benfield, C. (2017). Interactive simulations to support quantum mechanics instruction for chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(3), 392-397. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00459

Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005, April 3-8). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

Masters, H. (2020). Using teaching rehearsals to prepare preservice teachers for explanation-driven science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(4), 414-434.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1712047

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008a). Inquiry and scientific explanations: Helping students use evidence and reasoning. In Luft, J., Bell, R. & Gess-Newsome, J. (Eds.). Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121-134). National Science Teachers Association Press.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008b). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004, April 12-16). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations using scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments. [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

Nafidi, Y., Alami, A., Zaki, M., El Batri, B., & Afkar, H. (2018). Impacts of the use of a digital simulation in learning earth sciences (the case of relative dating in high school). Journal of Turkish Science Education,15(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10223a

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596

Nawani, J., von Kotzebue, L., Spangler, M., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2019). Engaging students in constructing scientific explanations in biology classrooms: A lesson-design model. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 378-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1472131

Novak, A. M., & Treagust, D. F. (2018). Adjusting claims as new evidence emerges: Do students incorporate new evidence into their scientific explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 526-549. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21429 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson. A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438

Özdemir, O., & Işık, H. (2015). Effect of inquiry-based science activities on prospective elementary teachers’ use of science process skills and inquiry strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10132a

Park, E.J., & Choi, K. (2013). Analysis of student understanding of science concepts including mathematical representations: pH values and the relative differences of pH values. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 683-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-0129359-7

Proulx, M. J. (2013). Introducing the process and content of research into lectures, the laboratory, and study time. College Teaching, 61(3), 85-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2012.720311

Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. Science and Children, 49(8), 8-13. https://static.nsta.org/ngss/resources/201204_Framework-ReiserBerlandKenyon.pdf

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Tsai, S., & Schneider, J. (2010). Testing one premise of scientific inquiry in science classrooms: Examining student, scientific explanations and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 583-608. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20356

Salame, I. I., & Makki, J. (2021). Examining the use of PhET simulations on students’ attitudes and learning in general chemistry II. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(4), e2247. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/10966

Sarı, U., Duygu, E., Şen, Ö. F., & Kırındı, T. (2020). The effect of STEM education on scientific process skills and STEM awareness in simulation based inquiry learning environment. Journal of Turkish Science Education,17(3), 387-405. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.34

Sarı, U., Hassan, A. H., Güven, K., & Şen, Ö. F. (2017). Effects of the 5E teaching model using interactive simulation on achievement and attitude in physics education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 25(3), 20-35.

https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/11383

Sentongo, J., Kyakulaga, R., & Kibirige, I. (2013). The Effect of using computer simulations in teaching chemical bonding: Experiences with Ugandan learners. International Journal of Education Science, 5(4), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2013.11890105

Stefaniak, J., & Turkelson, C. (2014). Does the sequence of instruction matter during simulation? Simulation in Healthcare, 9(1), 15-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a8336f

Taşlıdere, E. (2013). Effect of conceptual change oriented instruction on students’ conceptual understanding and decreasing their misconceptions in DC electric circuits. Creative Education, 4(4), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.44041

Thampi, S., Lee, C. C. M, Agrawal, R. V., Ashokka, B., Ti, L. K., Paranjothy, S., & Ponnamperuma, G. G. (2020). Ideal sequence of didactic lectures and simulation in teaching Transesophageal Echocardiography among anesthesiologists. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 34(5), 1244-1249. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.12.011

Wang, T.L., & Tseng, Y. K. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of physical, virtual, and virtualphysical manipulatives on third-grade students’ science achievement and conceptual understanding of evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2

Watson, S., Dubrovskiy, A., & Peters, M. (2020). Increasing chemistry students’ knowledge, confidence, and conceptual understanding of pH using a collaborative computer pH simulation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 528-535. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00235A

Wu, H. T., Mortezaei, K., Alvelais, T., Henbest, G., Murphy, C., Yezierski, E. J., & Eichler, J. F. (2021). Incorporating concept development activities into a flipped classroom structure: Using PhET simulations to put a twist on the flip. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 842- 854. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00086A

Yang, H. T., & Wang, K. H. (2014). A teaching model for scaffolding 4th grade students’ scientific explanation writing. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 531-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9392-8

Yao, J. X., & Guo, Y. Y. (2018). Validity evidence for a learning progression of scientific explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21420

Zacharia, Z. C., & 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), 101-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.887083

Zohar, A. R., & Levy, S. T. (2019). Attraction vs. repulsion - learning about forces and energy in chemical bonding with the ELI-Chem simulation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(4), 667-684. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00007K