A couple of things really stood out to me throughout the
reading. The first is strand 4 in the learning goals section: “Reflect on
science as a way of knowing.” I definitely agree with this sentiment. Through
studying physics, I’ve come across a different way of thinking, and essentially
a different way of “knowing” information.
While I agree with the findings of the Adams group in 2008
(page 28), I’m curious as to how they reached their conclusion that “the study
participants’ level of conceptual understanding (was) much greater than the
level typically reached by students taught about these concepts in a physics
course.” Sure, it seems reasonable to me that a hands-on approach can enhance
the understanding of a concept, but without a control group, I don’t see how
the study can make that claim.
I was interested when, on page 63, the report states, “when
the teacher evaluated students’ learning in the curriculum as part of the
course grade, some students became less engaged and interested, while others
took the game more seriously.” This helps to solidify my belief that there’s no
“magic wand” of learning. Certain methods work well for some students, while
others require a different approach. The best classroom environment is
definitely a multifaceted one.
I could definitely see myself using virtual labs or games in
my classroom as a means of motivating and interesting students in the course
material. I’d probably use it as a supplement of information already learned,
or as an introductory unit that I’ll follow up with further discussion. This
way, I’ll be able to hook some students immediately while not leaving others
behind.
The one statement of the reading that stood out for me was made about the learner’s sense of identity. “The committee did not find any research evidence about whether the use of simulations may encourage students to think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science” (p. 14). Would this not be an outcome that you would want to achieve through the use of simulations? This brings up the point that the classroom use of simulations must be accompanied by communicating the proper context for its use. Certainly, simulations and virtual labs are fun, engaging, and a great motivator. However, students need to understand that they are not simply games for the sake of gaming, but are to be used to build their knowledge about science, so they can apply this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI read your post before I did the reading. The one point you bring up seemed to resonate with me as I read. "There’s no “magic wand” of learning." From the article, "it is important to consider the target audience when designing a simulation or game and also to include adaptive features that modify the pace and type of information, based on user responses." (p.52) I think there are simulations and games that can help most learners, but I think it is much less likely that a single one will help all of them, just like any learning tool. So it may be that the best action is to provide the information in many different ways, games being one of them, so that each student has a better chance of discovering what helps them the most.
ReplyDeleteThe studies do suggest that the games have some positive impacts in achieving learning goals, but it seems the data pool is to small to say much. I believe as more information is available not only will we know the efficacy of current games, but we will be able to better understand and design future ones, that have more variability and better accommodate more learners.
The paper also provided an interesting idea, but admitted that it was not the focus of the paper. From the defining the purpose of a game, "assessment games that are designed primarily as a vehicle for assessing existing knowledge and understanding,rather than as a learning platform." I find the idea of games as an evaluation tool very intriguing. Test environments can be very stressful for many students, but I think making the evaluation a game could do a lot to remove those stresses. I would be interested to see an example of what that would look like.
"Sure, it seems reasonable to me that a hands-on approach can enhance the understanding of a concept, but without a control group, I don’t see how the study can make that claim."
ReplyDeleteThe policy document from the National Academies that we are reading indeed notes (p. 27) that lack of control groups is an issue in the current research base supporting claims of the effectiveness of simulations (and games) in promoting learning of science concepts.
I also wondered about this issue, and being curious, went to the PhET webpage on the research base at
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/research, where there are links to the original papers, which can be downloaded freely.
These researchers conducted extensive interviews to reach the conclusion, which is summarized in this way in the original paper:
"In these interviews we find that nearly all the simulations, after suitable testing and revision, consistently result in a high level of learning in our diverse group of interview subjects. After a simulation interview, most students understand the concepts covered in the simulation well enough to explain them accurately and to use them to make accurate predictions about behaviors in the simulation. Students also often volunteer correct predictions or explanations about related real world phenomena. This level of understanding is far beyond what we have observed is typically obtained from the coverage of these concepts in a physics course. There are some reasons why simulations help student learning that are very obvious from our interviews and so shape our design characteristics – e.g. the ability to provide visual models."
So, they say "what we have observed is typically obtained..." which ideally would be better supported than appearing as a bald assertion. Presumably, they (multiple authors) are referring to their extensive experience teaching physics to nonmajors. And I have no doubt they are correct, but we can hope that they have backed this up in more recent studies, or are working to do so.
Although simulations seemed to have been around a while, it appears that the research base for their effectiveness is not there yet. I also looked at the research base for PhET sims. The PhET researchers asserted that engaging students in thoughtful exploration of the simulation is necessary for improving students’ understanding of the concepts. When in engaged exploration, students are posing questions and seeking answers by observing the results of their own interactions with the simulation and making sense of what they see. Engaging the students can be accomplished by having the students use the simulation in the appropriate context, such as with a well designed homework assignment or laboratory activity. The researchers also stated that the PhET sims are more effective for conceptual understanding.
ReplyDeleteI was also shocked that in this paper, on page 28, they were making claims from a study that lacked any form of a control group, as many of you have pointed out already.
ReplyDeleteOn page 37 it states "The limited evidence available, based on only a few examples, suggests that games can motivate interest in science and enhance conceptual understanding. Overall, however, the research remains inconclusive." I think this supports the idea, pointed out in this blog, that there is not one way to motivate all students. Although a slight increase in motivation might be seen from using games, there is no way it will work for every student. While approaching a concept in a science classroom, many different routes must be taken in order to reach the wide variety of students present in the class.
Although, in Chapter 3, it points out the growing popularity of using games and simulations in the classroom setting, I may, personally, find it hard to use them. Maybe, as Lagrange88 pointed out, using these as an introduction or conclusion may fit my teaching style the best. I feel that interaction in the classroom would be most effective, but this might not be true for all students. Using the games and simulations as an additional tool for those students who have trouble finding motivation in the classroom has the potential to be very useful.
For me, Strand 3 on pg. 26 really caught my attention. Strand 3 reads "Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the natural and physical world." To me, this is the heart of science, from curiosity and exploration to making sense of phenomena. Some computer games and simulations allow for all of the processes described by Strand 3. Giving students the chance to practice all of these skills will help students not only understand the science content that we want them to learn, but also understand and appreciate the process of science. Games and simulations provide students the chance to be "scientists" in a virtual environment where materials, expenses, and dangers are at a minimum.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that sticks out to me is the discussion of focusing on clear learning goals (pg. 45-46). Everyone is familiar with the importance of clear learning goals when teaching a physical class. This rule transfers into games and simulations. Studies have shown that clear learning goals enhance learning. Also, like in physical classroom, these virtual learning tools should be free of extraneous, distracting and unimportant information. I think that it was the commonalities between physical classroom instruction and virtual instruction through simulations and gaming was interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteAnother principle of commonality between physical classroom instruction and virtual learning is the importance of feedback in learning. We have been taught in pedagogical courses and have witnessed for ourselves how valuable of a tool feedback is for learning. Morano and Mayor (2005) found that detailed feedback (not just a simple right/wrong) improved retention. Nelson (2007) found that feedback during the virtual games/simulations enhanced scores on knowledge tests. These studies in the virtual realm affirm that feedback enhances learning, just as it does in physical classrooms.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind in educational research is that you will rarely have a true "control" group. It is difficult to do experimental design in educational settings because there are so many factors at play (different teachers, different kids, different times of day, different outside forces, etc.) and it may prove difficult to deny certain students access to materials you believe would help them learn. What you more often find is quasi-experimental situations using pre-post assessments of some sort and looking for statistically significant changes. Don't dismiss the studies merely because they lack a control group.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a good point, and I believe it extends beyond educational research. Any control group for any experiment regarding humans is bound to have those different factors present. If that's the case, is the presence of control groups in general unnecessary? I studied physics during undergrad, so I'm honestly new to human-centered research, and I find it very interesting, especially the idea of quasi-experimental studies. Like you said, "it may prove difficult to deny certain students access to materials you believe would help them." I'm certain that if a control group were to be established for a new learning technology that I'd be interested in implementing, I know I wouldn't want my students selected for the control.
DeleteI'd like to start off by saying that this is my first education related course. Therefore, going into this reading I had really liked the idea of supplementing class with games and virtual labs. Going through school, I had alway felt that I learned best when my teachers and professors taught class using fun activities. However, it now seems that just because I learned best under those circumstances, that it may not be best for everyone. And in fact that using these games and virtual labs can sometimes turn students into being less engaged. I like how some mentioned above about having multifaceted classrooms. These multifaceted classrooms allow for every type of learning to benefit. I now feel less naive and more accepting to running a semi-traditional classroom. Hopefully as I further my education, I can learn more and more various ways to teach material to my students in hope that everyone can take something away from it.
ReplyDelete