The use of models in science education requires great effort and there are difficulties that not only students but also teachers need to overcome, in order to achieve meaningful and efficient use of modeling. Teaching students about models and modeling has proven a quite challenging and difficult task (Schwartz & White, 2005). However, research showed that neither students nor their teachers possess efficient knowledge about the nature and purpose of scientific models (Van Driel &Verloop, 1999). Consequently, some students fail to understand the purpose of engaging with the modeling process (Barrowy & Roberts, 1999) and they also might not realize the nature of models or modeling, even if they are engaged in creating and revising models (Carey and Smith, 1993; Grosslight et al., 1991). On the other hand research has shown (Louca & Constantinou, 2002) that learning about models and modeling can be accomplished in early middle school ages by guiding students through a process of developing and refining models about natural phenomena. Therefore teacher’s role in teaching science through an efficient and successful modeling approach is important.
Teachers should develop their knowledge in teaching scientific concepts and achieve self-efficacy in teaching and as Bandura (1981) argues self-efficacy can be enhanced through modeling. Similarly, Enochs et al. (1995) support that in order for elementary teachers to achieve self-confidence, well planned and modeled based lessons are required. Also, when students are building models and using their own analogies, instead of those of teachers, will be more benefited (Harrison and Treagust, 1998) and this is due to the fact that students’ analogies are more familiar and easier to understand (Zook, 1991). On the other hand, students find it difficult to select appropriate analogies, so they expect from the teacher to give an analogy or a model, even if they have difficulties in mapping it (Harrison and Treagust, 1998). Moreover, some difficulties that students find when trying to construct meaning in science are due to the fact that they don’t have efficient ability and knowledge in developing conceptual models of physical phenomena (Golin, 1997). Consequently, teachers should use analogies and models in their teaching through an approach that involves focus, action and reflection (Treagust et al., 1998).
Also, considering the importance of hand-on lessons, primary teachers should continuously improve their teaching methods especially in the area of hands-on activity planning (Dickinson et al, 1997). Modeling teaching practices can be an appropriate and useful tool, since they promote teaching though practical demonstrations (Hudson, No date). Though, some times models that are used in physics only demonstrate the end product of physics to students (Steinberg, 2000), something that can limit students critical thinking and take from them the opportunity to observe and find out new phenomena by themselves.
Factors that influence modeling-based teaching
In addition, there are various factors that might affect a successful implementation of the modeling procedure in science teaching, that need to be taken under consideration. One of the factors that play an important role in the modeling process are the skills that students should acquire in order to respond effectively in this kind of teaching method. Even if there is no definitive agreement on specific skills that compose the skills involved in modeling (Constantinou, 1999; Schwarz and White, 2005), the importance of defining these skills is commonly recognized (Papaevripidou et al., 2006). In addition, when students are using models in science are “expected to develop particular abilities as part of their cognitive development; thus there are ages that students should not be expected to have and use particular thinking strategies” (cited in Louca, 2004, p. 14). On the other hand, students are thought to have a variety of thinking strategies that depend on several factors, such as context (Louca et al., 2002; Samarapungavan, 1992). Students present these differences from adults in thinking abilities since these abilities are developed by nature and young learners have not yet developed them (Kuhn, 1989).
Constructivism
Moreover, an effective modeling approach, in order to be successful in the science education, should be based on what students know and help them construct on this as well as to refine any fault assumptions they might have. As Laurillard (2002) underlines constructivism is considered valuable since it supports the understanding of how someone learns when interacting with the real world. Also, Carey et al. (1989) assume that scientists hold constructivist conceptions of knowledge in their field. However, is not clear which futures of constructivism are taken into greater consideration and if they are held by different groups of students (Grosslight et al., 1991). Therefore, a pedagogical framework based on the constructivism should be obtained when a modeling-based approach is used in the science teaching. Modeling, when it is used properly, can easily support a constructivist approach through the construction, revision and improvement of a model, since students can express their ideas, hypothesize about a phenomenon, make observations, revise and improve their model continuously and finally resolve any misconceptions they might have. As a result, students will construct meaning through a continuous and active process, something vital in the science teaching (Gunstone, 1988).
Moreover, students become active participants in the learning process, refining their own learning goals and extracting meaningful relations through their experiences (Barab et al., 2000). As Jacobson and Wilensky (2006) underline “a central tenet of constructivist and constructionist learning approaches is that a learner is actively constructing new understandings, rather than passively receiving and absorbing “facts””. Hence, through the modeling process students actively make “connective webs of meanings in science learning”, by exploring and revising various models (Louca and Constantinou, 2002, p.3).
Modeling tools
Furthermore, models are tools for finding relations between certain facts or processes, in order to explain the specific facts (Grosslight et al., 1991). Hence, modeling-based teaching depends on the tool used and it’s quality and functionality depends on what it represents and the natural phenomenon that examines (Louca and Zacharia, 2008). Also, the degree of how well students conceptualize natural phenomena varies according to the modeling tool used to construct and communicate a model to others (Papaevripidou et al., 2006). But “if there are different kinds of representation (analogies, idealizations, etc.), then there are also different kinds of learning” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2006). Consequently, an important factor that should be considered in a modeling-based approach is the modeling tool that will be used and the purpose that will serve.
Computer-based modeling in Science Education
Previously, the importance of the modeling tool used in the science process was highlighted; therefore a lot of researchers and educators conducted studies in this field. Going through the literature, the most promising educational modeling tools revealed to be computer-based (Louca, 2004; Sherin et al., 1993; White and Fredriksen, 1998). Specifically as Louca (2004) supports computer program can be a model of a physical system, and modeling through programming may make the process more tangible. Also, while modeling became important in society, many students will need to use computer-modeling technology in their lifetimes (Sabelli, 1994). Therefore, by recognizing the importance of computer-modeling in science education, “over the past 10 years, many researchers have developed computer-based modeling tools to support elementary and secondary school students in scientific modeling” [(e.g., Mandinach, 1989; Resnick, 1996; Schwarz, 1998; White & Frederiksen, 1998) cited in Zhang et al., 2005, p.580].
When teachers design learning activities to help their students understand complex systems and the way they function and change, model-making activities with computers can play a supportive role since students can construct their own understandings through them (Riley, 1990). As Osborne and Hennessy (2003, p.23) claim “research suggests that using computer modeling and simulation allows learners to understand and investigate far more complex models and processes than they can in a school laboratory setting”. Moreover, researchers found that the use of computer models in educational subjects might provide opportunities for students to promote their understanding of unobservable phenomena in science (De Jong et al., 1999; Stratford, 1997). Additionally, computer modeling can make some scientific material more accessible and interesting (Papert, 1980), since computer simulations, along with other model-based teaching strategies could be a “powerful combination for supporting students’ visualization of unobservable phenomena” (Tray and Khan, 2007). Still, this visualisation of scientific concepts and complex systems is significant in science education since it enables students to resolve conceptual and reasoning difficulties they might have when studying complex phenomena (Louca and Zacharia, 2008).
According to the above a computer-based program, if it is used properly, can facilitate science teaching of complex phenomena by supporting the construction of powerful models. A modeling program allows students to create their own models of a specific system, making comparisons with the real world, manipulating the model according to his data and therefore having complete control of the program (Laurillard, 2002). According to Louca and Constantinou (2002), a computer-based tool allows user to create powerful models, representing a physical system and making predictions in unknown contexts. Also, as they continue, computer programming can provide friendly environments that students can manipulate in order to construct or refine models. Specifically, a computer-based modeling tool creates an open-ended, dynamic, and exploratory learning environment that supports the construction of representation of complex phenomena or natural systems through the coincident use of various procedures, having as a purpose to exceed static representations and move to dynamic representations of cause-effect relationships between variables (Sins, et al., 2005).
What’s more, “the constructivist perspective advocates high quality visual and auditory interfaces to simulate complex and authentic situations”. Therefore multimedia should “help learners construct their understandings by establishing links between what they know and familiar or not so familiar situations that appear realistic because of the high quality depiction available”(Rodrigues, 2006, p.2). However there might be a hidden danger of creating misconceptions by taking animations and images of real concepts too literally (Osborne and Hennessy, 2003). Hennessy and O'Shea (1993) give a very good example for this when referring to the creation of a “frictionless virtual world”, which although it can be powerful in many ways, the fact that students have experience with both the natural world and the simulations, can create conceptual difficulties. Therefore, “there is a gap to be bridged, between students’ perceptions of real world prototypes and their computer based modeling activities” (Riley, 1990, p.258). Indeed, the influence of symbolic or representational learning materials is not clear (Betrancourt and Tversky, 2000 cited in Rodrigues, 2006). So, because of the increasing dependence on computer-based teaching resources (Lagowski, 2005), it is necessary to understand what engages pupil’s interest when using multimedia.
Another advantage of computer-based modeling is that computer requires from the modeler to discover its knowledge, while it gives him the opportunity to evaluate his model or a given model and therefore improve it through “re-expression” (Millwood and Stevens, 1990, p.249). According to Carmichael (2000), when the modeler manipulates the computer model through the interaction of the computer model and the reflected mental model, the modeler’s understanding of the nature is likely to change. As a result, modeler ends up to a complete and efficient model, representing a phenomenon with a complete and coherent way.
When moving on, another powerful potential of using computer-based tools in the modeling procedure is recognized. In some cases the program itself becomes the scientific model, where through the programming language the scientific model is designed, that’s when the outcome is someone to gain concrete understanding about the scientific phenomenon under study (Louca et al., 2003). Furthermore, by constructing models students deconstruct their understandings about particular physical mechanisms in small programmable pieces of knowledge, in order to translate a scientific idea in particular program code (Louca, 2004). As a result, through programming students might overcome any difficulties they usually obtain in science learning, like understanding the relationship between a scientific model and the real world (Louca and Zacharia, 2008).
Above and beyond, there are a lot of factors that need to be thought when a computer-based modeling approach is used. On factor is teacher’s role that might be considered as a key role in the process of science modeling, since they are the co-ordinators of the whole procedure and the accomplishment of successful understandings in science lessons depends on their approach. A research, concerning science teachers’ transformations of the use of computer modeling in the classroom (Stylianidou et al., 2004), indicated that there are a lot of factors influencing the use of modeling and simulations by teachers, like their confidence and competence, the availability of resources and the time constrained. For that reason there is need for the teachers to be educated to this domain, in order to reach into an effective science lesson by using modeling and simulations or generally to respond in every innovation in school science.
Millwood (1990) supports that generally the purpose of modeling is usually based on the approaches used rather than learner’s motivations and expectations. Likewise, by having a wide range of different computer-based programming environments, specifically developed for young learners, it is necessary to define which characteristics meet learners’ programming needs and learning habits in science (Louca and Zacharia, 2008), in order to select the appropriate computer tool for a science lesson. On the other hand, Riley (1990) suggests that the challenges should be educational rather than technical and that “system dynamics” might “loose some of its mystique as change becomes easier to manipulate and explore on the computer screen” while the “notions of dynamics may supplant the static models we tend to keep in our minds and to use in our daily lives” (p.262). Therefore, for the embedment of a modeling approach in science teaching is important to consider possible factors that might affect students’ learning, according to their individual differences.
Attending to learning styles when teaching science with different modeling approaches
Every student has individual style and different requirements in his or her teaching, differences that impact the whole learning process. The effectiveness of a lesson depends on the degree that students will respond to it and how much they will be engaged with the procedure as well as the value of the skills that they will gain. It is considered as “impossible for teaching to succeed if it does not address the current forms of students’ understanding of a subject” (Laurillard, 2002, p.183). Therefore, a variety of teaching approaches should be used in order to attend to all students needs. Educators should understand how individuals learn in order to enhance their students more efficiently in the ability to learn (Sims and Sims, 1995).
As it concerns the science education, the National Education Standards recognize the importance for everyone to learn and understand about the physical world around us, consequently curriculum content must be designed in such a way that meets the interests, abilities, experiences, understandings, and knowledge of students (National Research Council, 1996). By recognizing the importance of learning styles in a lesson it is surely necessary to concern their influence on science teaching and then try to involve procedures that will enable students with different learning styles to achieve the wished learning outcome.
However, it is important firstly to define and determine what learning style is and the parameters that might include. According to Keefe (1987) learning style is characteristic of cognitive, affective and psychological behaviors that indicate how learners interact and respond to the learning environment, while it includes inherited and environmental influences (cited in Larkin-Hein, 2000). Also, Carbo, Dunn and Dunn (1986) define learning style as the way that students of all ages are affected by sociological needs, their environment, physical characteristics as well as emotionality and psychological preferences. Moreover, Dunn (1990) describes learning style as “the way which each learner begins to concentrate, process, and retain new and difficult information” (p.224) an, interaction that occurs differently for every person. Interestingly, Dunn (1982) characterizes individual learning style as a person’s fingerprint that is unique for everyone. As a result, educators should identify student’s learning styles since, as Larkin-Hein (2000) highlights, they can play a vital role in the learning process.
Attending to learning styles can be a continuous concern to resolve new and difficult learning situations and information (Thomson and Mascazine, 2008). Still, is not an easy issue to identify someone’s learning style, since in order to do that you have to “examine each individual’s multidimensional characteristics in order to determine what will most likely trigger each student’s concentration, maintain it, respond to his or her natural processing style, and cause long-term memory” (Dunn, 1990, p. 224). Besides, Kolb (1984) suggests that, because of our heredity we “develop learning styles that emphasize some learning abilities over others” (p.76-77), still all of us have a variety of learning styles. In consequence it is more valuable to think learning as a range of styles we all have to some degree, having a strength in particular learning style like auditory learning instead of considering someone as “auditory learner” (Dfes, 2002, p.4).
Considering all the above, many experts in the domain of physics and engineering education have noted the importance of teaching by keeping learning styles in mind (eg. Felder, 1988; Larkin-Hein, 2000). An important aspect of attending learning styles when teaching science is the fact that constructivist approaches, an important part of science education as it was underlined in previous part of the literature, are promoted. This is due to the fact that students have opportunities to build on their previous knowledge through a range of “learning modalities” and also “by expanding the range of instructional approaches, teachers increase the likelihood that individuals will construct meaning from active learning experiences that correspond to one's learning style” (Thomson and Mascazine, 2008, p.2).
In addition, modalities, as Ballone and Czerniak, (2001) indicate, “refer to the sensory channel by which we receive and give messages” (p.4) while the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities are recognized as significant sensory channels for education (Guild and Garger 1985 cited in Ballone & Czernik, 2001). By taking into account these three modalities that are recognized as significant for education it is important to describe their characteristics in order to develop activities that obtain the needs of all students. Besides, a lot of researchers revealed that most people learn most effectively with one of those modalities, while they ignore information that are presented to them with the other two (Felder, 1988). Specifically, each learning modality’s characteristics are: visual learners are those who remember better what they see like demonstrations and films, auditory learners are those who learn better what they hear and they are good at explaining things to others and participating in discussions (Felder, 1988) and kinesthetic learners are those who prefer hands-on activities like experiencing by doing things and touching whilst they have a preference in the science lab (Fleming, 2008).
Furthermore, the importance of learning styles is underlined since as Larkin-Hein (2000) supports, by adopting a learning style approach students’ interest and motivation to learn is increased, through the development of learning strategies that refer to diverse population of learners. Guild and Garger (1985) add that by accepting diversity of style students are encouraged to reach their full potential, an important aim of science education (cited in Ballone and Czernik, 2001). Hence, educators should assist students to develop their skills and ideas in science and technology “at rates which facilitate individual children in moving forward” (Bentley and Watts, 1994)
In addition, an important aspect that affects learning styles particularly in math, science, engineering and technology and teachers should take into serious consideration is gender differences (Milgram, 2007). As Milgram continues boys and girls have different learning experiences since they play with different kind of games. Usually boys play with computer games, something that helps the development of problem-solving and hands-on skills while girls play games that promote creativity. Consequently, girls appear to involve in the process of social interaction while boys get into to a process of making things (Browne and Ross, 1991). Moreover, boys seem to have more experience with the hand-on lab equipment than girls, something that might occurs in the computer lab or the science lab (Milgram, 2007) and has as an impact for boys to gravitate the equipment quicker than girls (Bentley and Wattts, 1994).
Accordingly, it is very important for an educator to consider all the above in order to fulfill every student’s need in a big degree. There is need for teachers to use all types of teaching activities in order to attract female and male interests while they can direct students to come up with their own assignments that they are more interested (Milgram, 2007). Nevertheless, as Milgram underlines many of the learning style differences are not strictly gender-based, but they are based on each child’s life experience. To conclude with, if teachers respect and consider learners’ attitudes their effectiveness on the learning procedure will be improved while students will be motivated and develop self-interest that will enhance their learning (Huang and Hsu, No date).
Development of research questions
Surely science education is a field that concerned a lot of experts and therefore various studied were conducted, in order to find ways to achieve better understanding about its nature. As models and modeling are considered essential part of science, it is important to develop ways that the implementation of the modeling procedure is effective. Most researches that were conducted in the field of science modeling refer to the characteristics of the tool used and the way that they support teaching, while students’ various reactions and interactions with the specific approach, according to their individual characteristics, are ignored.
Consequently, by taking into account the existing literature, the current case study recognizes the need for individual support for every student. So, the purpose is to examine how students with different learning styles interact with two kinds of modeling approaches, one with the implementation of computer and one without. Specifically, the central research question that arises is “What are the different interactions of students with two kinds of modeling procedures when they are taught a scientific phenomenon and how they are related to their learning styles?” The subsidiary questions that will be examined in order for the central question to be answered are:
- Which modeling approach can support better each student’ s understanding about the phenomenon and does this depends on students’ individual learning styles?
- Which characteristics of students with auditory/visual/kinesthetic preference are supported better with the computer-based modeling approach and which with the non-computer based modeling approach?
- Which of the two processes increase students’ motivation and engagement on learning science and does this varies among students with different learning styles?
Generally, in this study I seek to locate ways that can be supportive for students when they are taught a scientific phenomenon with two modeling approaches. Therefore, the differences as well as the similarities between students’ individual needs will be emphasized and taken into serious consideration. Moreover, the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and their effect on students’ understandings will be examined.
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter initially aims to describe and explain the methodological approach that was used in the current study. Also, the sample that participated in the present research is mentioned and later on the way of data collection, the way that the study was conducted and how the data analysis came up are elucidated. Besides, limitations of the study are presented along with important issues that arose in the conduction of the study, like those of validity and reliability as well as ethical issues.
Methodological approach
This study has followed the qualitative method for several reasons. Qualitative study can be characterised as naturalistic, since things are studied in their natural settings having as purpose to understand a specific phenomenon according to how people react to it (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). So, since the purpose is to develop detailed descriptions about students’ interactions with the modeling processes according to their learning styles, qualitative research will be valuable since the collected data and reports provide rich descriptions of the phenomenon under study (Bogdan and Bilken, 2003).
The current qualitative study follows the case study tradition, since it seeks to examine interactions of students in a specific case. A case study has as aim “to understand an individual case in its particularity” (Willing, 2001, p. 70) and since it is recognised as holistic it gives a complete and holistic description of the situation under study (Merriam, 1988 cited in Louca, 2004). Though, generalizations can’t be made, since the data might “be accurate for the group under study and unverified for extension to a larger population” (Adler and Adler, 1994, p.p. 381).
Sample
In this study twelve fifth-graders from Italy participated. The sample was chosen to be appropriate for the purposes of the study. Because I wanted to examine how students react to two kinds of modeling procedures according to their learning preferences, I created two groups of six. Each group included two students with preference in auditory learning, two students with preference in visual learning and two students with preference in kinesthetic learning. Moreover, students’ previous knowledge about the subject that they were taught was examined, in order to clarify any differences they had.
Data Collection
Questionnaires: VAK test and previous knowledge
The analysis of a questionnaire, gives the chance to the researcher to sort the data to different individual types in order to link them with other characteristics (Laurillard, 2002). The Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic (VAK) learning style test (Appendix 1) was given to twelve students in order to identify which of these three learning preference each student has. Visual, auditory and kinesthetic modalities are recognised as significant sensory channels for education (Guild and Garger 1985 cited in Ballone and Czernik, 2001), that’s why the specific test was selected.
The results of the test showed each student’s learning preference, consequently students were separated according to their preference in a particular learning style and two groups of six were created. Each group included two students that had a particular learning preference of each learning style. I tried to have one girl and one boy from each learning style in each group, in order to limit gender differences that would affect students’ reactions. However, this wasn’t so easy, so in some cases in a group, students with the same learning style also belonged to the same gender. The VAK test included simple questions that students could easily answer and referred to specific preferences and behaviours that children have in different situations.
Students had variety of learning preferences of each learning style, however their strong preference in a particular learning style was considered as main. Besides, no one has exclusively a particular learning style; all have a mixture of preferences and strengths (The VAK learning styles self-test was made by Victoria Chislet MSc and Alan Chapman, 2005; contextual material, code and design: Alan Chapman, 2004-2006; Businessballs, 1995-2006; extracted from ). Therefore, during the data collection and data analysis I kept in serious thought that I should think learning as a range of styles that all students have to some degree and they just have a strength in particular learning style (Dfes, 2002, p.4).
Besides, the questionnaire (Appendix 2) included some general questions about the movements of the earth and students’ beliefs and knowledge on how day and night occurs. This had as purpose to identify students’ previous knowledge about the creation of day and night, the subject that students’ would be taught, a factor that could influence the teaching procedure. Through these questions students’ fault assumptions and misconceptions were also revealed and so they were considered in the learning process later on.
Constructivism teaching approach
The purpose of this was to plan activities in the teaching process; based on the three learning modalities that are taken into account in the current study and which will build on students’ previous knowledge. Consequently, when students are involved with activities that correspond to their individual learning style and interests will develop deep understanding through active learning (Thomson and Mascazine, 2008).
Moreover, constructivist perspectives were considered in the planning of the sessions for both approaches, since they can play a determine role in science education. Particularly, through modeling students develop understanding through the construction, revision and improvement of models, a procedure that helps them establish links between what they know and what they learn.
Subject taught
According to the literature review that was developed in previous chapter modeling in science is considered as essential and core in science teaching. However, for some scientific concepts its use can be particularly significant. The specific subject I chose to teach students by using two different modeling approaches is what causes day and night. This is a subject that fifth-graders weren’t taught in school since is not embedded in the curriculum. However, from previous experience I had when I was called to teach the specific subject in a student of fifth grade, I realized that students usually have relevant knowledge about the subject that might be based on fault assumptions. Therefore, I considered that is important to help them clarify any misunderstandings they have about the specific subject.
Through modeling approaches students will have the opportunity to develop sufficient understanding about day and night, since they will be able to isolate variables and study the particular complex phenomenon in a simplified way. Moreover, modeling is considered especially important for studying phenomena that can’t be observed directly in their natural settings (Penner, 2001), whilst computer models help students promote their understanding about unobservable phenomena in science (De Jong et al., 1999; Stratford, 1997). So, the specific phenomenon even if it is a situation that happens every day, children are not aware of what causes it, since they can’t make direct observations. Accordingly, the use of modeling approaches might be considered as a valuable procedure of gaining knowledge about the current phenomenon.
Group meetings
Two meetings were conducted with each group and each meeting lasted about one hour and a half. The meetings were accomplished in a room, where the appropriate equipment was settled before each meeting.
Students of each group were separated in groups of two and each group was consisted from students with the same learning preference. Students in both groups during the learning process were working collaboratively. The group that was working with the computer-based modeling approach used three computers. The program that students were using in order to develop the model of day and night was Stagecast Creator. No one of the students had any previous experience with the specific modeling tool, so they took some tutorials before start creating their model. In addition, students that participated in the group that didn’t include computer implementation were using materials in order to create the model, like spheres made of paper, presenting the earth and the Sun. I chose this kind of approach since materials are directly related with children’s everyday experience and they have confidence in using them. Moreover, both approaches were appropriate for carrying out hands-on activities that are important for modeling and teaching (Dickinson et al, 1997)
Both groups were taught with the same learning activities before creating the model with the modeling tools they should. The teaching procedures were enriched with the use of pictures, appropriate worksheets and videos that helped students clarify any misconceptions they had and help them acquire efficient knowledge about the phenomenon under study. Also, students were supported every time they had difficulties, since they didn’t have any experience with this kind of modeling-based activities.
Study’s computer-based modeling tool
The computer-based modeling tool I used in the current study is Stagecast Creator. I chose the specific program since is a computer-based programming tool that allows students to build their own microworlds and is considered very beneficial in creating models as part of science education (Louca and Constantinou, 2002). Therefore, a lot of educators conducted studies in the field of modeling by using Stagecast Creator as a computer-based modeling tool (e.g. Louca, 2004; Louca and Constantinou, 2002; Louca and Zacharia, 2008; Papaevripidou et al., 2006).
I had previous experience with the specific tool and I found it very interesting and useful in the learning process of a science lesson. Stagecast Creator is a computer-based programming environment that has great benefits, so I chose it for several reasons. The most important fact that made me decide to use the program is the fact that I wanted to address to different learning styles and Stagecast Creator is considered appropriate for this, since it meets the needs of every student ‘s learning style because it can help anyone to express understandings that he or she has through “the expressive and cognitive pathways most natural” to him or her (Thornburg, 1998).
Moreover, SC can be used by any level of students since it uses rules based on images and doesn’t need any typing from the user, something easier and more pleasant for children. Also, there is no need for learning a difficult programming language, something that was important for the current study since the time that was conducted was limited. Specifically, Stagecast Creator is an object-based modeling tool that allows the control of a character through graphical programming rules that set specific actions (Smith & Cypher, 1999 cited in Papaevripidou et al., 2006) and which can move the characters in a two dimensional world (Louca and Constantinou, 2002).
Besides, SC allows the user to have full control of the program and manipulating characters directly. The user can create a script that the computer can perform later and the appearance of the whole programming is under students’ control through simple drawing tools (Louca and Constantinou, 2002). Consequently, students become active participants in the learning process, instead of being passive learners, while they can develop deep understanding about the subject under study and be engaged with the learning process (Thornburg, 1998), an important intention of science education.
Data Sources
Three primary sources for the collection of the data were used in the current study. First every group meeting was videotaped, including students’ interactions between their peers as well as the teacher (me), in order to be used later in the analysis. Moreover, during the teaching process I kept important notes for things that I was observing in students’ reactions. Also, after every meeting group interviews were conducting in order to gain further knowledge on students’ understandings about the phenomenon under study.
Observations
While I was teaching students I was able to make important observations and taking notes for any interesting interactions and reactions students had while they were taught through the two modeling approaches. I prepared a list with specific things that I wanted to observe and therefore I was taking quick notes. However this wasn’t enough, that’s why two cameras were settled and students’ conversations and interactions were videotaped.
I chose observation as a method of collecting data since they are considered “powerful tools for gaining insight into situations” (Cohen et al, 2000, p. 315). The use of observations in the field of educational research can be valuable but at the same time is quite difficult. In the current study observations can be suitable for focusing on the students, in order to investigate the way they work, the way they interact, the way they respond to a teaching method and their general reactions (Wallace, 1998).
By being present in students’ work and an observer at the same time, I was able to have direct access to students’ work and consequently to their reactions and interactions with the specific teaching method. With that way I had the opportunity to ask them questions during the process, in order to understand the way they think and also realise how they respond toward this new teaching method. I felt that by entering fully into students’ world and taking an active part into their activities and experiences I was able to understand their perceptions and actions even better (Simpson and Tuson, 1995).
Group interviews
After every meeting, group interviews that lasted about fifteen minutes were conducted. The purpose of these interviews was to probe students’ understandings about the specific phenomenon and verify how well they understood what they were taught, what difficulties they found during the learning process, what helped them get over their difficulties and what was more pleasant for them. I chose to add group interviews after every meeting since as Blumer (1969) supports, sometimes they can be a more valuable source of data gathering even when you have a representative sample (cited in Fontana and Frey, 1994). I preferred group interviews rather than individual interviews since they require less time and they can be less threatening for children (Cohen et al, 2000).
During the interviews I was taking notes, while the interview were recorded and I used them in the analysis later. Group interviews revealed to be quite beneficial since important differences between students’ learning preferences were located. Moreover, students were encouraged to participate equally in the group interviews and all of them should answer the posed questions, so important data were gathered from the specific method.
Data analysis
The current study seeks to investigate students’ different interactions against the two modeling approaches and find differences and similarities between the three learning styles. In order to do that I analysed the findings from the two groups separately and then I made a comparison between the two approaches. For the data analysis I used contextual inquiry and I also transcribed students’ conversations during the teaching procedure and during group interviews. Data from students’ conversations in science lessons are vital since they can be used to promote our understanding about the way students learn about and with models and modeling in science (Louca, 2004).
Contextual inquiry is a type of interview where the interviewer speaks to the interviewee individually, by making questions to gather more data, while the interviewee works on his task (Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998). So, as a researcher during the observation when something interesting was happening I asked relative questions in order to follow-up and therefore gather more data.
Also, through the transcription of videotaped data any difficulties and barriers that each student had were noted, along with the ways that helped them get over them. In extend, the way that each student worked and their individual needs during the teaching procedure were distinguished. The group interviews at the end of each session helped the enrichment of the data, since students’ engagement with the learning process could be discriminated as well as the activities that attracted their interest and increase their motivation.
Limitations
My role as a researcher and as a teacher was difficult and there were a lot of issues that I should consider. Different external factors influenced the whole teaching process and it was hard to get over them. As a solo observer researching in the field of my professional area, I was realizing that in a lot of cases there were dangers of bias and assumption that were influencing my observations. Also, it wasn’t easy taking notes and teaching at the same time, so my notes during the teaching process were limited. In order to avoid that I asked from a friend to help by taking some notes about specific characteristics that she could observe during the teaching process. I have tried that in one meeting but it wasn’t easy since my friend didn’t have any knowledge or skills on taking notes about the things that I wanted to observe. Therefore, I found it more useful to take my own notes.
Another limitation that occurred in the current research was the fact that students didn’t have much time and meetings of each group were narrowed in just two, instead of three that were the initiative purpose. However, even if the time of the study was limited the fact that I was present while students were working revealed to be valuable since I had the opportunity to ask questions during the process in order to gain greater and specific knowledge about the questions that this research seeks to answer.
Moreover, the fact that the meetings weren’t conducted during school time, in a real learning environment with classroom settings, was another restriction. I realized that in some cases students didn’t face their participation in the whole process in a similar way that they would see their participation in a school lesson. In addition, students didn’t see me as a regular classroom teacher and this made my role more difficult. It was hard for me to make them focus on the teaching process, because they didn’t see the whole procedure equally as a real classroom lesson, but as an evening activity.
Validity and Reliability
The main criticisms about observations lie in the fields of validity and reliability. According to Foster (1996), coders might be influenced by wrong prior assumptions they might have. For that reason “patterns for general human behaviour must be distinguished from expectations and predictions about particular individuals” (Sanger, 1996, p.41). The researcher should adopt a dual role and exchanging between been involved and been detached (Simpson and Tuson, 1995). However, as Sanger (1996) indicates is difficult “ to see with new eyes, or with the eyes of others. Otherwise our very familiarity with the environment blinds us to perspicacity” (p.9).
Accordingly, being an observer and a teacher involved issues of bias and objectivity that should be considered in order to ensure validity and reliability in my research. I found it difficult to detach myself from the role of researcher and not become biased from what I expect to see. In some cases, I realised that as a researcher I was expecting to see some things and therefore as a teacher I was “pushing” students to a certain direction so that I could collect more data about this study. Consequently, in order to ensure more reliability and validity in my analysis I tried to act like a classroom teacher rather that a researcher during the period that the meetings were happening. After all the sessions ended I got involved with the transcription and analysis of students’ conversations as a researcher. With that way my role as a teacher didn’t influence much my role as researcher.
Ethical Issues
When conducting a survey with children observations there is variety of ethical issues that emerge and need to be thought. One of the most important matters is be careful between invasion and protection of privacy (Cohen et al, 2000). As Richards (2003) advises, you have to keep in mind that you are getting is someone else’s world, who is helping you. So, instead of being frustrating you have to be discreet, especially with note taking and recording procedures.
Consequently, the first thing that I had to arrange was to ensure parents’ permission for the participation of their children in the current study. So, information sheets and consent forms were given to parents in order to take their permissions and guarantee that observations would be made under privacy, anonymity and confidentiality. Moreover, during the study and the written report, information about students won’t be mentioned, excluding their first names.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In the present section of the study results from VAK are illustrated along with the findings from contextual analysis of students’ conversations during the teaching activities as well as the program strategies they used. Moreover, the results from group interviews that were analyzed in detail are presented, in order to identify students’ motivations toward the two learning approaches. All the above are mentioned in separate sections for each group, while later on a comparison between the two groups and some discussion takes part.
Computer-based modeling approach group
In this group participated six fifth graders that were working in groups of two, with a computer available for each group. The table below presents the results of VAK test, since it was the main factor that guided the whole procedure. According to the results of VAK test students were separated in groups of two, according to their strengths in a particular learning style. It is important to be mentioned that in both groups even if each student had learning abilities that were stronger than others, all students had a range of the three learning styles in some degree, something that come in accordance with Kolb ‘s (1984) suggestion that all of us have a combination of the three modalities.
Stagecast Group
From the data analysis came up that each couple was working and collaborating differently. Moreover, different characteristics of the specific computer-based program environment (Stagecast Creator) revealed to have particular benefits for students, according to their individual learning style and needs. Below, some activities that were observed are described and students’ responses toward them are presented in parallel with their conversations. Consequently, students’ work with computers is fully presented.
Findings from contextual inquiry showed that there were several types of conversations that students had during their work with SC. The first type of conversation refers to students discussing in general about the creation of their model, the second type of conversation is students discussing in front of the computer while they are constructing their model and the third type of conversation is students discussing about revising their initial models. Similarly, previous research about the use of computer-based program environments as tools for modeling (Colella et al. 2000) suggests that, students working with SC were talking about the system they wanted to program, about the system characteristics and system changes. Also, from the analysis of observations program strategies, which involve students’ activities when dealing with the program, are illustrated. Finally, students’ opinions about the specific learning approach, which were revealed from the transcription of the group interviews at the end of each session, are discussed.
Students’ conversations
Conversation type I: Students’ discussions about their model in general.
This kind of conversation illustrates each group’s discussions about possible ways that they could model the phenomenon under study. Each group had to think and explain how it tended to present and design the model of day and night. They had to think the objects that they would include in their models, the relation between them and the functions that each object would have. Specifically, students were talking about the appearance of their model, how they would create a character and what rules the character should have. It was observed that each couple was collaborating differently and various ideas came up from each student. Below, each couple’s interactions with technology are discussed and analyzed in detail.
Stylianos and Maria, who were working together and both had strong preference in kinesthetic learning were trying to figure out how their model would look like by trying different capabilities of SC. For instance they were using the program to draw the Sun and the Earth or they were trying to figure out different rules without asking directly teacher’s assistance until accomplishing the wished outcome. Moreover, they were asking materials like globe and desk lamp to represent the phenomenon and see how they would be able to transfer it to the computer-based programming environment.
The other couple, Katerina and George with preference in auditory learning, was discussing in more detail before trying to construct a model with SC. They were collaborating really good, since they were listening to each others ideas and having meaningful conversations that were helping them find ways to express what they wanted to represent and how they would achieve that in their model.
Elisabeth and Xenia, who belonged to the third group and had stronger preference in visual learning, were drawing on the paper in order to see how their model would look like. Moreover, they were observing with attention the pictures that I showed them which helped them construct an initial model on SC. Ready pictures about solar system that were available on SC helped them visualize their model and then try to construct it by adding rules to the characters.
During their initial work students, when trying to find ideas to construct their model, presented specific differences that were related to their learning preference as it was found from the VAK test. Still, they all showed interest on working with the specific computer-based programming environment and they found different ways that they could represent the phenomenon the way they wanted.
Conversation type II: Students’ discussions in front of the computer while they were constructing their model.
In this kind of conversation students were sitting in front of the computer and they had already started their work on SC. While they were constructing their models, I was moving toward them and asking what they were doing, what they were planning to do and how they would do it. With that way I could follow up interesting interactions of students with the program. Specifically, students started constructing their model with SC and applying all the characters their model would include. Also, they were thinking the functions that each character would have and what would be the appropriate rules. Generally, students now had to put together codes and rules so that they could implement their plans.
During this part of their work the groups were working in a similar way. However, Katerina and George (auditory strength) were collaborating better than the other two groups since they were having big conversations that helped them express their thoughts and debug appropriate rules to achieve their plans. Elisabeth and Xenia (visual strength) were working quite well too, as they were discussing mostly about how their model would look like. However, Xenia was the one who had the control of the program, since Elisabeth preferred just looking and helping Xenia with the modeling construction. On the other hand Stylianos and Maria (kinesthetic strength) were collaborating differently. Stylianos used to dominate Maria and wanted to have the control of the mouse most of the times, while Maria was trying to help Stylianos to create the model through discussion and guidance. This shows that even if both students have kinesthetic strengths, there are some characteristics that effect learning styles and they are gender-based. This comes in accordance with Milgram’s (2007) statement that boys have different learning experience from those of girls, so they have more experience with hands-on activities, something that might occur in the computer lab, while girls as Browne and Ross (1991) support prefer activities with social interaction.
Examples of conversation that indicate differences between students’ collaboration:
Auditory learners
Katerina: I think for the Earth’s movement we should use the rule that can rotates a picture and put a Sun opposite Earth.
George: Mmm…But if we do that how can we show that only the one half of the Earth is lightened?
Katerina: Oh, you are right…
George: I know, I know! Maybe we can make an Earth that has a lighter color from the one side…
Katerina: Yes, that’s seems to work. However, we should use another rule, since the picture won’t be the same.
George: Oh, yes…that would be complicated. We should ask some help from the teacher.
(Students’ model: Appendix 3A)
Visual learners
Elisabeth: We should do it like the picture we saw.
Xenia: Yes, we can do something similar. I will start creating some rules to see how we can do it.
Elisabeth: I think you should create the pictures first and put them to the appropriate spot.
Xenia: Ok, I will start by that and then I will make the rules…
Kinesthetic learners
Stylianos: You shouldn’t put this here. You have to move it down.
Maria: But if I put it there everything will have to change.
Stylianos: No, they won’t…give me the mouse so that I can show you.
And at this point Stylianos grasps the mouse from Maria and starts creating the rule the way he wants, without explaining to Maria what he is actually doing.
Conversation type III: Students’ discussions about improving their initial model.
This type of discussion took part while students were using the programming language to create rules. Students had already developed some rules and they were running their simulation to see if it worked efficiently. They were talking about how they could improve their model and make it represent the phenomenon more efficiently.
At this point I tried to help students evaluate and therefore revise their models in order to present the phenomenon more efficiently. In order to do that I used various ways that were attending to different learning styles. I showed them pictures and I also represented the phenomenon by using a globe and a desk lamp. By using these techniques and with students help I explained how day and night occurs. Moreover, to enrich all students’ understandings I used a lamp and asked children to imagine that this was the Sun and they should move around it like they were Earth.
When these activities were completed students tried to improve their models. Findings from students’ conversations revealed that each student gain understanding about the physical phenomenon from different activities, according to their learning preference. Students were learning better from activities that were related to their learning modality, as Felder (1988) also stated. For instance, when Stylianos and Maria (kinesthetic learners) were trying to improve their model they had in mind how they represented Earth with movements and they were performing the specific activity in order to figure out their model’s weaknesses and make the required improvements. On the other hand, Katerina and George (auditory learners) were discussing on teacher’s explanation and words about the physical phenomenon, in order to find the required improvements that their model needed. In addition, Elisabeth and Xenia (visual learners) were observing really careful the pictures that represented how day and night occurs, but they were also discussing on how teacher used the globe to represent the phenomenon.
Students’ programming strategies
While working with the specific computer-based program environment students were discovering different ways of working, which enabled them to create their model and represent the phenomenon as they wished. There were several combinations of activity patterns that were consistent among the three groups that are presented and discussed below. They include students’ activities while dealing with their models’ characters and their appearance and also their activities while creating and changing rules in order to improve their models.
- Students dealing with their models’ characters
During this activity students of each group were collaborating in a different way and were giving attention to different things. For instance, Elisabeth and Xenia (visual preference) were looking the pictures and the backgrounds that were available from the program and trying to imagine how they could create a model by taking advantage these characters. On the other hand, Stylianos and Maria (kinesthetic learners) were trying to create a character from scratch and they were really enjoying the procedure of creating their own characters. The other group (auditory preference) used a combination of characters, since they decided to use some of the characters that were available from the program but they also changed some of them in order to make them appropriate for the model they wanted to construct. At this point it worth to be mentioned that students in all groups, before start creating rules for their characters’ behavior, got involved with the appearance of the scene by placing the characters where they wanted to be. Consequently, through modeling all students could express their thoughts while they could envision and test their ideas, as Schwartz & White, (2005) found in previous research.
- Students creating and changing the rules
When students were creating and changing their characters’ rules didn’t present important differences in their strategies. All groups were creating rules and then trying each rule by running the program. However, the only difference that was observed was that the couple with kinesthetic preferences were creating rules and trying them more frequently than the other two couples. On the other hand, students with auditory preference were discussing how to create a rule and then trying to create it and later on were testing if the rules were appropriate by running the program.
Also, in the process of editing the rules, when students were running the program and realizing that the functions weren’t appropriate, they usually deleted the rules and creating new ones. Especially, Stylianos and Maria (kinesthetic learners) were deleting the rule immediately and creating one from the beginning, without trying to identify what was wrong with the existing rule. The other two groups initially were trying to identify what was wrong with the rule and made some efforts to make corrections, but eventually they found it easier to delete the rule and create another one. Katerina and George (auditory preference) were discussing on how they could correct the rule then were trying their ideas to see if they worked, while Elisabeth and Xenia (visual preference) were translating the rules according to the images that consisted each rule and trying to find what wasn’t working properly.
(Some of students’ models on SC are presented in Appendix 3)
Group interviews
Group interviews were helpful on identifying what features of the program enhanced students’ motivation, where they found difficulties and what helped them resolve them. From the analysis of the group interviews there were found differences between each couple’s interactions with the program.
For instance, when children were asked what helped them understand better how day and night occurs there were various responses. Some children found helpful activities that were computer-based, while other preferred non computer-based activities. Elisabeth with strong preference in visual and auditory learning stated: “Ehhh…I think the activity where the teacher demonstrated how day and night occurs, by using the globe and the desk lamp and she was explaining the different phases at the same time, helped me understand better day and night because I could see the functions and listen what was happening and because it was in three dimensions seemed more real than the computer. The fact that the teacher was explaining while I was watching was easier for me, since I didn’t have to read anything.” On the other hand, Stylianos, who has strong preference in kinesthetic learning, revealed that by creating a model on the computer and then running it was very supportive for his learning. As he stated “When I was watching the model that I created on the computer I could realize better how day and night occurs. I like working with the computer so the procedure of creating a computer-based model was pleasant”. In contrast, Katerina (strong auditory preference) believed that the program was confusing, since at the beginning when they were using the tutorials was an easy procedure and she characterized it as a “game”, but later on when they had to think their own rules it was really hard. She believed that it was difficult for her to find a way to represent the phenomenon by using the specific computer-based programming environment and in a lot of phases she needed guidance and support from the teacher.
Another important difference that was revealed between students’ answers was when they were asked if they would prefer to work individually instead of collaborating in couples. Elisabeth and Xenia, who were at the same group and both had strong visual preference agreed that the fact that they were collaborating was supportive, since they were able to help each other in order to find solutions and different ideas to overcome any obstacles that arose. Also, Stylianos (kinesthetic strength) found it supportive that he had a partner and he could find help from her, while Maria who was his partner believed that it would be better if she had to work on a computer by herself and just accept help from her classmates and the teacher, only when she had some difficulties. That seems to be a result from the fact that Stylianos wanted to have full control of the mouse and consequently he was dominating Maria. Moreover, Katerina and George also agreed that because they worked in couples helped them very much, since they could discuss, express and share their thoughts and therefore move on with the procedure of modeling effectively.
Another point that is important to be mentioned is that when children where asked if they would prefer to work in a lab and represent the phenomenon with materials instead on a computer program their opinions differ in two aspects. Only Stylianos and George indicated that they preferred working with a computer program because they like working with computers. Even though Stylianos said that he would also be interested on working with some real materials since he would have the opportunity to get involve with interesting activities that would require to use and other parts of his body instead of “just sitting in front of the computer and using only his hands”. Maria, Katerina, Xenia and Elisabeth supported that they would prefer to work with materials since they found the procedure of modeling on the computer difficult and confusing. Also, they believed that it required much more effort and time than working in a science lab with real materials. Responses of the specific question reveal gender differences between students’ confidence with the computers, since boys seemed to feel more self-assurance on using the computer, while they found it challenging. On the other hand, girls feel uncomfortable on using computers in their teaching, since they found it hard.
Non-computer based modeling approach group
The group that worked on the construction of a model based on real materials included three boys and three girls. Below, the table presents the results of VAK test.
Group that worked with materials
Beneath, the types of conversations which students had while constructing their model are presented along with the strategies that they used in order to accomplish a comprehensive model of the phenomenon. Also, the motivation and interest they showed toward the specific learning approach are revealed, from the analysis of their answers during the group interviews. Findings from the data analysis showed that students had the same three types of conversations with the group working with computer-based modeling. However, the context of the conversations and the strategies they used present differences.
Students’ conversations and strategies
Conversation and strategy type I: Students’ discussing and working on their model in general.
Students during this kind of conversation were thinking how they could create a model in order to demonstrate the phenomenon under study efficiently. Each couple was collaborating with different ways and their conversations were based on different issues.
Stefanos and Angeliki (kinesthetic learning preference), in order to decide how to present their model, were trying different materials and ways of representing the phenomenon. Their discussions were short and they were focused on deciding the best way of representing the phenomenon from those they came up during experimenting. On the other hand Kyriakos and Stella (auditory preference), were discussing about the ideas each one had and then trying to decide the best way of representing the phenomenon, while Eleni and Christos were discussing and trying to visualize how they would represent the phenomenon and then trying with the materials available to them.
Conversation type II: Students’ discussions and strategies on constructing their model.
Stefanos and Angeliki’s conversations didn’t differ much from the previous kind of conversation since they kept trying various ways of representing the phenomenon and then deciding which was the most appropriate. Eleni and Christos (visual learning preference) were discussing mostly about their model’s appearance and not if the functions of the model were appropriate. However, during this kind of conversation Kyriakos and Stella were collaborating differently, since now Kyriakos was the one who was having the “control” of the group. Even if the two children were discussing efficiently, Kyriakos was the one who was mainly responsible for the hands-on activities. This might be due to gender differences since Stella had equal preference in auditory and kinesthetic learning, so it would be expected that she would participate equally on the hands-on activities.
Example of a conversation indicating the above:
Kyriakos and Stella
Kyriakos: How you think we should put Sun and Earth?
Stella: Well…I think that the Sun should be here and be still and we should find a way so that the Earth will be moving round the Sun.
Kyriakos: No, no… The Earth should be rotating and not moving around the Sun. don’t you remember what the teacher said? Earth’s rotation lasts for twenty-four hours, the same hours that a day lasts.
Stella: Oh…Yes, maybe your right. Ok, lets try to do it with that way…
Kyriakos: Ok. I will do it. I know how I can do it.
Conversation type III: Students’ discussions and strategies about improving their initial model.
In order to help students evaluate and revise their initial models the used techniques were similar with the other group. The findings from students’ conversations showed that, like the students of the other group, all the activities that took place helped each student differently. Actually, it is significant to be mentioned that each group’s conversations were based on the same activities with the couples in the other group, according to each couple’s learning preference. This shows that different techniques should be used in order to respect each child’s needs, the National Research Council (1996) also suggests.
Group interviews
As it was mentioned previously, group interviews were recognized important on understanding what activities helped students realize better the phenomenon, what barriers they found during this teaching method and what helped them over come those barriers.
An interesting point that worth to be mentioned is the fact that when children were asked if they would like to work with computers and construct a model on a program the answers between boys and girls were different. The three girls agreed that they prefer the way they worked, by using materials since they think that working with computers would be more complicated and difficult because they don’t have much confidence on using them. Also, Angeliki (kinesthetic learning preference) added: “I believe working with real materials was more interesting since we had the chance to make more things and make a lot of activities, instead of seating in front of a computer and using mostly the mouse. The specific teaching method that we used was more active…well that’s what I think. However, I am not sure since I have never made a model on a computer. I don’t know, maybe that would be also very interesting.”
On the other hand, boys agreed that a combination of the two methods would be the best way of constructing a model, since using the computer would be something first known and therefore interesting for them. Specifically, Kyriakos (auditory strength) stated: “Well…I believe working with materials was really interesting. Even though, if we had to work on a computer we wouldn’t have to use so many materials, something that would be easier. Still, I believe that working on a computer would be more complicated, however it would be challenging and I like that.” Moreover, Stefanos (kinesthetic learning preference) added: “I like computers, so I wouldn’t mind using them for a lesson. That would be fun.”
In addition, when students replied to the question “What activity helped you understand better how day and night occurs”, interesting responses came up. For instance, Kyriakos (auditory learning preference) revealed that from the whole procedure he found more interesting the different worksheets that they had to be filled during the teaching procedure as well as the video that they watched about day and night. On the other hand, Angeliki (kinesthetic learning preference) found the construction of models really helpful on understanding how day and night occurs, since, as she supported, she could understand the functions of the Sun and Earth in a more efficient way. Also, Eleni found helpful the pictures as well as the teacher’s explanations and guidance about how day and night occurs.
Comparison between the two groups & Discussion
The purpose of the current part is to compose a general description of the findings in order to make a comparison between the two teaching approaches. This has as aim to identify if one of the two teaching approaches meets the needs of the students in a greater degree and if the approaches support students’ understandings differently for each student with individual learning style.
The findings of the current study revealed that the two modeling approaches facilitated science learning and teaching, an important role of modeling in science education as other researches also supported (Grosslight et al, 1991). Similarly with a previous research (Louca & Constantinou, 2002), this study found that students are able to learn about models and modeling in early middle school ages. By involving students in a modeling process they were able to use observations, experiments in order to test their models and consequently revise them, a similar procedure that scientists follow, something that comes in agreement with the National Research Council (1996). So, with the chance that students had to gain experiences similar with those of scientists they could understand objects and processes that cannot observe by themselves, as other researchers also found (Sizmur and Ashby, 1997). Still, students through modeling had to find ideas and express them something that promoted their imagination, as Pauling (1983) also implies (cited in Glynn and Duit, 1995).
Also, is highlighted that for any learning approach that is used the teacher should use a variety of activities that correspond to students’ individual learning style. Findings from group interviews revealed that each student was motivated through a different activity. Consequently, the fact that variety of instructional approaches and activities were used was motivating and meaningful for students, as other researchers (Larkin- Hein, 2000; Thomson and Mascazine, 2008) also support, since each learning style was pleased with different activity
It was found that different characteristics of the two teaching approaches were suitable for supporting each student’s learning preferences and therefore they were engaged with the learning process. Both teaching methods were first known for students, however students using a computer-based programming environment like Stagecast Creator had even less experience on this, since the modeling curriculum of Italy recently started to include computers in the teaching process. Consequently, some students faced the process of using computers in a lesson challenging and fascinating, especially boys while girls found it complicated and confusing.
However, the use of Stagecast Creator as a modeling tool revealed to be more supportive on developing students’ modeling skills, since students developed more dynamic and advanced models in comparison with the students that worked with materials. This is supported because students working with Stagecast Creator made big effort and spent a lot of time on locating the objects and their functions. Findings showed that, since SC is a program that uses object oriented interfaces for programming, students had to think carefully about the objects of the system and their behaviors and consequently, in order to translate their ideas in programming codes, they had to manage their understandings in small programmable pieces, something that a research from Louca (2004) also pointed out. Consequently, students in order to develop or revise their models on the computer program had to discover their knowledge, as Millwood and Stevens (1990) also support when referring to computer-based modeling. With that way, they gained more experience on reconstructing their knowledge into small and manageable parts, a significant modeling skill.
On the other hand, students working with materials didn’t face their participation on the specific teaching approach as an effort of developing a model about the phenomenon but they were trying to find ways to represent the phenomenon as it is in the reality. They wanted to include objects and functions, even if they weren’t related with the creation of day and night, because they believed that a model should be an exact representation of the phenomenon. So, the difference between scientists’ and students’ perceptions about models existed in bigger degree for students who participated in the non computer-based approach. Specifically, in the non computer-based approach students assumed that their models should represent reality (Grosslight et al., 1991) in contrast with scientists that see models as some related assumptions, that have as purpose to explain a specific phenomenon (Snir et al., 2000). Consequently, the current research come in accordance with other researches (Barrowy and Roberts, 1999; Carey and Smith, 1993; Grosslight et al., 1991) that even if students are engaged in a process of creating and refining models, some times they fail to understand the purpose of models and their nature.
Both approaches were mainly based on a constructivist approach and students were able to build or revise their initial knowledge and therefore develop a complete and clear understanding about how day and night occurs. The modeling process helped students to express their ideas about the phenomenon and mistaken assumptions they had were exposed and consequently changed, something Jacobson and Wilensky (2006) pointed out in a previous research. Any time they were gaining new knowledge about the phenomenon they were revising their model based on the new facts. So, they ended up to a complete understanding of the specific phenomenon by clarifying any misconceptions they had. Through modeling learners were able to revise their models when new evidence were revealed, as Louca and Constatntinou, (2002) also found, while through synthesizing, observing and prediction could build, test and revise their models, as other researches’ findings also present (Papaevripidou et al., 2006, Schwartz & White, 2005).
Furthermore, it was found that students working with SC were testing and revising their models more often that students that participated in the other group. It was easier for them to run their model to see if it was appropriate and revise their models when they were finding new evidence. On the other hand, students found difficulties in testing their models and therefore preferred to make assumptions before building a model, while the two of the three couples revised their models only one time. Consequently, the three couples were likely to construct models with a specific way because it was the most approachable way for them. This indicates, similarly with Louca and Constantinou (2002), that students working with SC had availability on testing, validating and debugging models of the phenomenon under study, since the computer program offered a friendly environment.
Moreover, the fact that students working with SC accepted direct feedback from their simulations appeared to be motivating for them, while reflection on their actions was promoted, something that seems to come in agreement with Laurillard’s (2002) statements. By realizing any mistakes they had when they run the model they were thinking various ways on resolving them. On the other hand, students working with materials ignored any mistakes they might had and expected teachers’ help to resolve them.
Besides, it was proofed that the two teaching approaches had different characteristics that were beneficial for some students, according to their learning styles, while for others made the process of learning more difficult. So, the findings of the current study indicated another factor that modeling-based teaching depends and that is the tool used, like Louca and Zacharia (2008), also found. For instance, students with kinesthetic learning preference were collaborating differently in the two groups. Stylianos and Maria, who were interacting with the computer didn’t contribute equally in the group, since Stylianos usually wanted to have the control of the mouse and used to dominate Maria’s work during the construction of the model.
On the other hand, Stefanos and Angeliki, kinesthetic learners that collaborated in the non-computer based approach, helped each other in a bigger degree during the construction of the model, since they were familiar on working with materials and they both had the chance experimenting with the materials. This reinforces Fleming’s (2008) suggestion that kinesthetic learners have experience and feel comfortable in the science lab. Still, in some cases Stefanos handled the materials for longer and Angeliki was just helping by bringing the appropriate materials for the development of the model.
Example of conversation:
Stefanos: No Angeliki is not like that, let me do it. I have used this tool again and I can manage better. Go fetch the “globe” and the “Sun”, please.
Angeliki: Ok, I am going but then I want to try too… You shouldn’t do everything by yourself! The teacher said that both together have to develop the model.
Stefanos: Ok, I will let you do the next thing…
The above conversations indicate that there were factors that influenced the teaching process and weren’t strictly related with students’ learning styles, but with students’ experiences, as Milgram (2007) suggests too. Boys in both situations tended to dominate girls, while this was more obvious in the computer-based approach. That is due to the fact that boys, as Milgram ‘s (2007) also suggests, have more experience with the hand-on lab equipment than girls, something that was observed occurring in the present study in the computer and the science lab.
As it concerns the students that had visual learning preferences and worked in the two groups different characteristics of the two learning approaches revealed to benefit them. Specifically, the fact that Stagecast Creator is a program that uses images for creating rules and doesn’t require a programming language was very supportive for Katerina and George (visual learners), since they could easily express their understandings through images. However, students were considering their animations as exact representations of reality, something that Osborne and Henessy (2003) also supported, so they were trying to create a model that was representing the phenomenon. Still, the group of visual learners that participated in the non computer-based teaching approach found some difficulties on developing a model, since they could visualize how they wanted their model to look like by seeing all the materials available to them, but in the practice they found difficulties in actually doing what they wished.
Moreover, the two teaching approaches revealed to promote in a big degree the conversations between students with auditory strengths. In both groups, the couples that had auditory learning preference were discussing for longer time than the other two couples in order to express their ideas and find solutions for any problems they came across, something that strengthens Felder’s (1988) idea that auditory learners are good at explaining things to others and participating in conversations. However, the fact that they could add sound and write text that was explaining what their model represented and how, was an additional advantage for students with auditory learning preference who participated in the computer-based modeling approach.
Considering study’s findings, I argue that a modeling-based approach can facilitate students’ understanding about a scientific phenomenon, if educators adopt appropriate activities that correspond to students’ individual needs. Also, the use of computer-based programming environments for a modeling procedure can be quite beneficial for developing students’ modeling skills. However, in order for that to be accomplished is essential for students to become comfortable on using computers during science lessons.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study identifies fifth graders’ interactions with two different modeling- based approaches, one computer-based and one non computer-based, when they are taught a scientific phenomenon and makes a correlation with students’ learning styles. Both approaches were based on constructivism, so a link with this pedagogic approach is made. In this sense, the focus was on students’ conversation types, their activities, the program strategies they developed during their work with the computer-based modeling tool as well as on their opinions that were expressed through group interviews. Through this is recognized which of the two modeling approaches can support and facilitate students’ understandings in a more coherent way and which factors, basically related to students’ individual needs, affect that.
It was found that the two modeling-based environments that were designed and implemented in this study were valuable in promoting students’ understanding about the physical phenomenon under study (how day and night occurs). Through modeling-based teaching students were able to express their ideas about the phenomenon and refine them later on in the light of new evidence. Furthermore, the fact that the two approaches included activities that corresponded to every student’s individual learning preference appeared to be significant, since all students’ needs were fulfilled.
However, the implementation of SC, the computer-based modeling tool that was used for the purposes of this study revealed to be more promising in enhancing students’ modeling skills. This was due to the fact that the specific programming environment enabled students to test, revise and validate their models through a friendly and motivating environment of experimenting and debugging knowledge.
In addition, students’ individual characteristics seemed to be supported from different features of the two modeling approaches. Specifically, certain activities were helpful for some students with a specific learning style, while they ignored other activities. Therefore, the need for using a range of activities in a teaching approach that correspond to every learning style is highlighted. At this point it is important to be mentioned that gender differences, not strictly related with students’ learning style were observed.
Furthermore, the computer-based program that was used increased students’ motivation since they received direct and continuous feedback that helped them revise their models. SC offered the ability to every student to use it according to his or her personal needs, since audio, images, animation and hands-on activities were available. On the other hand, students working with materials were likely to create their models with a specific way, since they didn’t have many options. However, kinesthetic learners were collaborating more efficiently with the non computer-based approach since both students were able to interact with hands-on activities, while during the computer-based approach one of them was using the mouse.
Even if findings from the current study can’t be used in generalization for the student population, since it was a small-scale research, it is suggested that modeling-based approaches should be well designed in order to correspond to every students’ individual needs. Still, it is recommend that apart from learning styles, other factors like gender and age should be investigated in order to see how they affect the modeling-based teaching in a science lesson. Further researchers might also find it useful to examine which modeling approach, a computer-based modeling approach or a modeling approach based on laboratory settings, can support better students on developing modeling skills that can use in novel situations. Moreover, further research could be conducted in order to study how students’ experiences and confidence with computers or laboratory settings can affect two different modeling approaches similar with those of the present study.
REFERENCES
-
Acher, A., Arca, M., Sanmarti, N. (2006). Modeling as a Teaching Learning Process for Understanding Materials: A Case Study in Primary Education. Science Education, 91(3), 398-418.
-
Adler, A. A. and Adler, P. (1994). Observational Techniques. In: K. N. Denzin, and S. Y., Lincoln, (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
-
Ballone, M. L. and Czernik, M. C. (2001). Teachers’ Beliefs About Accommodating Students’ Learning Styles In Science Classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-41.
-
Bandura, A. (1981). Self referent thought: A development analysis of self-efficacy. In: J. H. Flavell and L. Ross (eds). Social cognitive development frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
-
Barab, A. S., Hay, E. K., Barnett, M. and Keating, T. (2000). Virtual Solar System Project: Building Understanding through Model Building. Journal of Research in Science Education, 37(7), 719-756.
-
Barowy, W., and Roberts, N. (1999). Modeling as inquiry activity in school science: What’s the point? In: W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (eds), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. New York: Springer-Verlag.
-
Bentley, D. and Watts, M. (1994). Primary Science and Technology: Practical alternatives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
-
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
-
Bialynicki-Birula, I. and Bialynicki-Birula, I. (2004). Modeling Reality: How Computers Mirror Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Bogdan, C. R. and Biklen, K. S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. 5th edition. Boston: Pearson A&B.
-
Browne, N. and Ross C. (1991). “Girls’ Stuff, Boys’ Stuff”: Young Children Talking and Playing. In: N. Browne (ed.), Science and technology in the Early Years. Buckingham: Open University Press.
-
Businessball. Free VAK Learning Styles Test. Available from: .
-
Carbo, M., Dunn, K., & Dunn R. (1986). Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
-
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
-
Carey, S. and Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235-251.
-
Carmichael, P. (2000). Computers and the development of mental models. In: J. K. Gilbert and C. J. Boulter (eds), Developing models in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
-
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in education. 5th edition. London: Routledge Farmer.
-
Colella V.A., Klopfer, E. and Resnick, M. (2000). Adventures in Modeling: Exploring Complex, Dynamic Systems with Starlogo. London: Teachers College Press.
-
Constantinou C.P. (1999) The Cocoa Microworld as an environment for modeling physical pheonomena. International Journal of Continuing Education and Life-Long Learning, 9, 201–213.
-
De Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J.M., Esquembre, F., Swaak J. and van Joolingen, W. (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.
-
Denzin, K. N. and Lincoln, S. Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of Qualitative Research. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
-
Devi, R., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M., & Brna, P. (1996). Modeling students’ construction of energy models in physics. Instructional Science, 24, 259–293.
-
Dfes: Department of Education and Skills. (2002). Learning Styles and Writing in Science. Available from: .
-
Dickinson, V. L., Bur ns, J., Hagen, E. R., & Locker, K. M. (1997). Becoming better primary science teachers: A description of our journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 295-311.
-
Dunn, R. (1990). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, 6 (3), 223 – 247.
-
Dunn, R. (1982). Would you like to know your learning style? – And how you can learn more and remember better than ever? Early Years, 13(2), 27 – 30.
-
Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C. and Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Education, 79(1), 63-75.
-
Felder, R. M. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674 – 681.
-
Fleming, G. (2008). Learning Styles: Know and Use your Personal Learning Style. Available from: .
-
Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
-
Foster, P. (1996). Observing Schools: A Methodological Guide. London: Paul Chapman.
-
Frost, R. (2003). The IT in Primary Science Book: A compendium of ideas for using IT and teaching science. 2nd edition. London: IT in Science.
-
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago.
-
Gilbert, S. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.
-
Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models and modeling in science education. Hatfield, Herts: Association for Science Education.
-
Gilbert, J. K., & Boutler, C. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In: B. Fraser & K. Tobin (eds), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
-
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998) Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 83–97.
-
Glynn, S. M. and Duit, R.(1995) Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In: S., M. Glynn and R. Duit (eds), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-
Gobert, J., D., & Buckley, B., C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education. 22(9), 891–895.
-
Golin, G.(1997) Structure of scientific knowledge and curriculum design. Interchange, 28 (2,3), 159-169.
-
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E. and Smith, L. C. (1991). Understanding Models and their Use in Science: Conceptions of Middle and High School Students and Experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28(9), 799-822.
-
Gunstone, F. R. (1988). Learners in Science Education. In: P. Fensham (ed.). Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. London: Falmer Press.
-
Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic Modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 1019-1041.
-
Harrison, A., G. and Treagust, D., F. (1998). Modeling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98 (8), 420-429.
-
Hennessy, S & O'Shea, T (1993). Learner perceptions of realism and 'magic' in computer simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 125-138.
-
Huang, S. and Hsu, W. (No date). Factors that Influence Students’ Learning Attitudes toward Computer Courses: An Empirical Study for Technology and Vocational Institute Students in Taiwan. Available from: .
-
Hudson, P. (No date). Mentors and modeling primary science teaching practices. Available from: .
-
Jacobson, J. M. and Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex Systems in Education: Scientific and Educational Importance and Implications for the Learning Sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
-
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. London, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
-
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674-689.
-
Lagowski J.J., (2005), A chemical laboratory in a digital world, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Chemical Education. Chemical Education International, 6(1), 1-7.
-
Larkin-Hein, T. (2000). Learning Styles in Introductory Physics: Enhancing Student Motivation, Interest, & Learning. International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Available from: .
-
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd Edition. Oxon: RoutedgeFalmer.
-
Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and Science Education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 727-758.
-
Louca, L. (2004). Case studies of fifth-grade student modeling in science through programming: Comparison of modeling practices and conversations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
-
Louca, L. and Constantinou, C. (2002). The Use Of Computer-Based Microworlds For Developing Modeling Skills In Physical Science: An Example From Light. International Journal of Science Education. Available from: .
-
Louca, L., Druin, A., Hammer, D. and Dreher, D. (2003). Students' Collaborative Use Of Computer-based Programming Tools In Science: A Descriptive Study. Available from: .
-
Louca, L., Hammer, D., & Bell, M. (2002). Developmental versus context-dependant accounts of abilities for scientific inquiry: A case study of 5-6th grade student inquiry from a discussion about a dropped pendulum. In P. Bell, R. Stevens & T. Satwicz (eds.), Keeping Learning Complex: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
-
Louca, L. and Zacharia, Z. (2008). The Use of Computer-based Programming Environments as Computer Modeling Tools in Early Science Education: The cases of textual and graphical program languages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 287-323.
-
Milgram, D. (2007). Gender Differences in Learning Style Specific to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Ezine Articles. Available from: .
-
Millwood, R. and Stevens, M. (1990). What is Modeling Curriculum? Computers Education, 15(1-3), 249-254.
-
Monsef, Y. (1997). Modeling and Simulation of Complex Systems: Concept, Methods and Tools. In: E. Kerckhoffs, A. Lehmann, H. Pierreval and R. Zobel. Frontiers in Simulation. Budapest: Society of Computer Simulation Int.
-
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. Available from: .
-
Ogborn, J. (1994). Overview: The Nature of Modeling. In: H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn, and C., Tompseet. (eds). Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer Based Modeling in the Curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.
-
Osborne, J., Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT: Promise, Problems and Future Directions. Future Lab. Available from: .
-
Papaevripidou, M., Constantinou, C. P. and Zacharia, Z. C. (2006). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: an investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 145–157.
-
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
-
Penner, D. (2001). Cognition, Computers and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling. In: Walter G. Secada (ed.). Review of Research in Education. AERA: Washington, DC.
-
Pollak, V.L. (1994). Science education 11: Scientific literacy and the Karplus taxonomy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(2), 89-97.
-
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative Enquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave, MacMillan.
-
Riley, D. (1990). Learning about systems by making models. Computers Education, 15 (1-3), 255-263.
-
Rodrigues, S. (2006). Factors that influence pupil engagement with science simulations: the role of distraction, vividness, logic, instruction and prior knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(1), 1-12
-
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Thijssen, C. M. (2000). Group model building: A decision room approach. Simulation & Gaming, 31(3), 359–379.
-
Rubin, R, L. and Norman, J, T.(1992) Systematic Modeling Versus the Learning Cycle: Comparative Effects on Integrated Science Process Skill Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 715 - 727.
-
Sabelli, N. (1994). On using technology for understanding science. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 195–198.
-
Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children’s judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1-32.
-
Sanger, J. (1996). The Complete Observer? A field research guide to observation. London: The Falmer Press.
-
Schwartz C. V. and White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Dveloping Students’ Understanding of Scientific Modeling. Cognition and Instruction. 23, 165-205.
-
Sherin, Br., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.
-
Simpson, M. and Tuson, J. (1995). Using Observations in Small-Scale Research: A beginner’s guide. Glasgow: Practitioner MiniPaper 16.
-
Sims, R. R. and Sims J. S. (1995). Learning Enhancement in Higher Education. In: R. R. Sims and J. S. Sims (eds), The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning Course Design, and Education. London: Greenwood Press.
-
Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh E. R., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modeling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (14), 1695–1721.
-
Sizmur, S. and Ashby J. (1997). Introducing Scientific Concepts to Children. Berkshire: National Foundation of Educational Research.
-
Snir, J, Smith, C. and Raz, G. (2000). Linking Phenomena with Competing Underlying Models: A Software Tool for Introducing Students to the Particulate Model of Matter. Science Education, 87(6), 794-830.
-
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (2006). Models in Science. Available from: .
-
Steinberg, R.N. (2000). Phys. Ed. Res. Suppl. to Am. J. Phys. Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate?, 68, S37-S41. Available from: .
-
Stratford, S. (1997) A review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16 (1), 3–23.
-
Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., Ogborn, J. (2004). Science Teachers’ Transformations of the Use of Computer Modeling in the Classroom: Using Research to Inform Training. Wiley Periodicals, 89, 56-70.
-
Thomson, S. B. and Mascazine, R. J. (2008). Attending to Learning Styles in Mathematics and Science Classrooms. Available from: .
-
Thornburg, D. (1998). Stagecast Creator in the classroom. Available from: .
-
Tray, L., Khan, S. (2007). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 519-529.
-
Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., and Venville, G. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 85-101.
-
Van Driel, J. H. and Verloop, N. (1999). Teacher’s knowledge of models and modeling in science. International journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
-
Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: University Press.
-
White, B.Y. (1993). Intermediate causal models: A missing link for successful science education? In: Glaser, R. (Ed.). Advances in instructional psychology, 4, 177-251.
-
White, B. Y. and Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progression as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99-157.
-
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(11), 3–118.
-
Wilensky, U. and Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories--an Embodied Modeling Approach. Available from: .
-
Willing, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative research in Psychology: adventures in theory and method. Buckingham: Open University Press.
-
Zhang, B., Liu, X. and Krajcik, J. (2005). Expert Models And Modeling Processes Associated With A Computer-Modeling Tool, Wiley Periodicals, 579-604.
-
Zook, K. B. (1991). Effect of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1) 41-72.
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1: Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic Learning Style Test
- When I need directions for travelling I usually:
- look at a map
- ask for spoken directions
- follow my nose and maybe use a compass
2. If I am teaching someone something new, I tend to:
- write instructions down for them
- give them a verbal explanation
- demonstrate first and then let them have a go
3. During my free time I most enjoy:
- going to museums and galleries
- listening to music and talking to my friends
- playing sport
4. When I go shopping for clothes, I tend to:
- imagine what they would look like on
- discuss them with the shop staff
- try them on and test them out
5. When I am choosing a holiday I usually:
- read lots of brochures
- listen to recommendations from friends
- imagine what it would be like to be there
6. When I am learning a new skill, I am most comfortable:
- watching what the teacher is doing
- talking through with the teacher exactly what I’m supposed to do
- giving it a try myself and work it out as I go
7. If I am choosing food off a menu, I tend to:
- imagine what the food will look like
- talk through the options in my head or with my partner
- imagine what the food will taste like
8. When I listen to a band, I can’t help:
- watching the band members and other people in the audience
- listening to the lyrics and the beats
- moving in time with the music
9. My first memory is of:
- looking at something
- being spoken to
- doing something
10. When I am anxious, I:
- visualise the worst-case scenarios
- talk over in my head what worries me most
- can’t sit still, fiddle and move around constantly
11. I feel especially connected to other people because of:
- how they look
- what they say to me
- how they make me feel
12. When I have to revise for an exam, I generally:
- write lots of revision notes and diagrams
- talk over my notes, alone or with other people
- imagine making the movement or creating the formula
13. If I am explaining to someone I tend to:
- show them what I mean
- explain to them in different ways until they understand
- encourage them to try and talk them through my idea as they do it
14. I really love:
- watching films, photography, looking at art or people watching
- listening to music, the radio or talking to friends
- taking part in sporting activities, eating fine foods and wines or dancing
15. Most of my free time is spent:
- watching television
- talking to friends
- doing physical activity or making things
16. I first notice how people:
- look and dress
- sound and speak
- stand and move
17. If I am angry, I tend to:
- keep replaying in my mind what it is that has upset me
- raise my voice and tell people how I feel
- stamp about, slam doors and physically demonstrate my anger
18. I find it easiest to remember:
- faces
- names
- things I have done
19. When I meet an old friend:
- I say “it’s great to see you!”
- I say “it’s great to hear from you!”
- I give them a hug or a handshake
20. I remember things best by:
- writing notes or keeping printed details
- saying them aloud or repeating words and key points in my head
- doing and practising the activity or imagining it being done
21. If I have to complain about faulty goods, I am most comfortable:
- writing a letter
- complaining over the phone
- taking the item back to the store or posting it to head office
If students chose mostly A’s they have a VISUAL learning style.
If they chose mostly B’s they have an AUDITORY learning style.
If they chose mostly C’s they have a KINAESTHETIC learning style.
Appendix 2: Questions for checking students’ previous knowledge on how day and night occurs
- Do you think that Earth and Sun are two different things or they are the same?
- Which of the two you think is bigger?
- Which are Earth’s movements?
- How long each movement lasts?
- Which of the movements you think causes day and night?
- Make a drawing in order to show how you think day and night occurs.
Appendix 3: Students’ models on SC
A) Auditory learners’ Group
(Sound was added)
B) Kinesthetic learners’ group
C) Visual learners’ group
Stage 1
Stage 2
