You are on page 1of 10

Running head: VIRTUAL VERSUS TRADITIONAL METHODS IN SCIENCE

Literature Review: A Comparison of Virtual Versus Traditional Methods in Science Classes Kevin Wilnechenko UBC, ETEC 500 Submitted to Dr. Stephen Carey

Computer Simulations in High School Science Introduction High school science courses contain some of the most challenging academic content that students will face before graduation. Be it physics, biology, or chemistry, teachers continually seek for engaging strategies to implement in their classes. Students who learn in passive

environments are not given the tools needed to overcome misconceptions that are so prevalent in the field of science (Baser, 2006). Some of these important educational strategies come in the form of well performed lecture demonstrations (Straits & Wilke, 2006) and interactive experiments. There has been some debate over the years as to how students should be shown demonstrations and the methods used in labs. Traditional methods entail a more hands-on approach and use real lab equipment when doing experiments. More and more, computer simulations are being accepted in place of or in conjunction with traditional methods. Simulations have come a long way and they are continually being improved for ease of use, user appeal, and accurate representation of the real world. In this review, I will summarize and critique several articles from 2001-2010, that add to the discussion of whether traditional or virtual methods are more effective. More specifically, I will focus on literature that deals with science simulations and how students feel about learning with them. Following the critique is a synthesis and analysis of common themes that emerge from these articles, as well as focus areas for further research.

Summary and Critique Beyond the Traditional Model Deng and Zhang. In 2007, Deng and Zhang published a comparison study that set out to see if there were different perceptions on learning and instruction in a multimedia classroom

Computer Simulations in High School Science (MC) versus a traditional classroom (TC). In total, 187 MC and 110 TC university students completed similar surveys of around 20 questions. The intent of these surveys was to acquire qualitative data about students perceptions of their learning achievements, instructors teaching methods, and satisfaction with the technology provided in their classroom. These surveys had only one open-ended question, which limited what information the students could offer. Deng and Zhang concluded that there was no significant difference between students perceptions of their learning in multimedia and traditional classrooms, but their perceptions of teaching methods was more positive in the MC. The authors attribute this to MC instructors being more student-centered and interactive than TC instructors. The methodology of how students were placed in the MCs and TCs puts the validity of this study in question. Students were not randomly placed but rather chose the section they wanted to be in. This no doubt affected the students perceptions as they chose the section they preferred. The authors also admittedly stated that their study was limited in that their data was

based solely on opinion. Validity can be put in question if a study considers only qualitative data that fails to examine biases of the participants involved (Gay et al., 2009). Amplifying this point further, the survey had only one open-ended question. The rest of the closed-ended questions would not have allowed students to freely voice their perspectives. Vinesh and Margaret. Vinesh and Margaret (2008) conducted a study over two years that investigated the differences between a traditional and a blended science 10 classroom. The blended class in this study referred to an e-learning environment where web-based learning materials were used. In the first year of the study, 210 science 10 students were instructed using traditional pedagogy, while in the second year, 232 students studied the same subject content in a blended environment. The authors conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis, which

Computer Simulations in High School Science concluded that both boys and girls generally performed better in the blended group. These improvements were notably more significant in the physics unit over the chemistry unit. Students from the blended environment began term 1 with traditional methods and then continued with web-based learning in term 2. These students commented on these two experiences and this data formed the qualitative analysis of the study. It was interesting that comments were collected from 9 students with test scores that had improved with blended

learning, but only from 4 students that had lower test scores. Although there were more students who improved with blended learning, there should have been a more reflective sample for the students who commented. In addition, Vinesh and Margaret could have explained the specific activities performed in both groups that distinguished them from each other. Finally, the 200 plus students in each year could have been split into traditional and blended groups each year. This would have controlled more of the variables over the two years. Biology Perspectives Franklin, Peat, & Lewis and Cross & Cross. Franklin, Peat, and Lewis (2001) and Cross and Cross (2004) conducted similar studies in the field of biology that tried to determine whether it is more effective to do traditional or virtual dissections. The Franklin et al. study focused more on students perceived effectiveness of both methods and used 400 randomly chosen first-year human biology students. Cross and Cross worked with a smaller sample of 74 high school AP biology students, and this study went over two years. Both studies collected quantitative data and the Franklin et al. study also had survey questions and focus group discussions that made up a qualitative component. Franklin et al. determined that the data showed positive feedback on both methods. Cross and Cross, on the other hand, concluded that

Computer Simulations in High School Science

students who performed real dissections outperformed students who did virtual dissections when identifying organs, tissues, and functions of structures. Both studies contained some problems. The Franklin et al. studys methodology was unclear in that it was not explained how the traditional and virtual labs were conducted. In addition, one variable that was not controlled was the number of students that worked together. For real dissections, students worked in groups of 4-5 while 78% of the virtual participants worked alone. This would have affected the students perception - something that was being measured. Cross and Cross on the other hand could have improved the validity by using more than one teacher to teach both the traditional and virtual groups. Having at least two teachers would have decreased the chance of having the strength of the instruction gravitate more to one teaching method. Many of these problems were acknowledged by the authors and suggestions were made to make improvements in future studies.

Physics Perspectives Baser. In 2006, Baser dedicated an entire study to the field of physics and showed that free and open source software could be used to build an active learning environment. The specific software used was the Quite Universal Circuit Simulator (Qucs). The study involved 102 pre-service elementary mathematics teachers who studied electrical circuits using Qucs and completed a pre and post conceptual test to determine prior knowledge and measured growth. This test was multiple choice, and the same test was given before and after instruction. Not surprisingly, the results of the post-test showed that using Qucs improved test scores, but this could also be attributed to the fact that the same test was used. The author should have given a different test on the same principles. Baser went on to test the students retention

Computer Simulations in High School Science six weeks later when the students completed another post-test. This revealed that the newly acquired understanding of circuits was indeed retained. Baser noted that the students had a very positive experience using Qucs. In the article, Baser used charts, tables, and diagrams, which effectively displayed the data and other useful information. He also provided a thorough literature review, which showed that traditional electricity courses do not effectively alter misconceptions that many students have with circuits. Although Baser provided evidence that using a computer simulation can improve learning, it would be interesting to see how a second class using traditional methods would compare to the using Qucs.

Finkelstein, Adams, Keller, Kohl, Perkins, Podolefsky, and Reid. A similar study to Basers (2006) was conducted by Finkelstein et al. (2005) where they tested the effectiveness of virtual physics labs over traditional labs. The software used was called the Circuit Construction Kit (CCK). Ninety-nine university algebra-based physics students formed the CCK group while 132 formed the traditional (TRAD) group, which used only hands-on lab equipment. The groups received similar written introductions and pre-laboratory questions. It was unfortunate that the authors did not grade the pre-lab questions, as this would have helped form a baseknowledge. The CCK group worked on the computer to construct circuits and change parameters while the TRAD group used wires, bulbs, and switches in their exploration. After the lab, both sets of students used real equipment to describe what happened when a switch was broken. Even though they did not work with real equipment beforehand, the CCK group did the post-lab much quicker and with more accuracy. A third group of calculus-based physics students, who did not do the lab at all, answered the post-lab concept questions. Their results

Computer Simulations in High School Science were lower than both the CCK and TRAD groups, which showed that there was more benefit in doing labs than not. After 12 weeks, both groups wrote a final exam. The exam showed that the two groups were statistically identical on non-circuit questions but on circuit questions, the CCK group still out performed the TRAD group. Despite the success of the CCK group, the authors do not suggest that one method should be used all the time. It would have been valuable to have both groups answer concept questions after the lab without the use of any equipment. This would have assessed gained knowledge immediately after the lab, which would have provided a better comparison with the retained knowledge shown on the final exam 12 weeks later.

Podolefsky, Perkins, & Adams. In 2010, Podolefsky, Perkins, and Adams extended their prior research mentioned in the last article and gathered qualitative date from eight 1 hour interviews of undergraduate physics students. These students experimented with a wave interference simulator from PhET (physics education technology) with minimal guidance. Their interactions with the afforded analogies were observed and initial understanding was determined by asking each student an open conceptual question about wave interference. In the article, the last two interviews were discussed. The authors concluded that simulations afforded investigation of concepts similar to the way scientists would investigate. One of the goals of the authors was to determine if the simulations helped students make progress, but they had no way to measure this in a quantifiable way; they relied solely on the perception of the students and the observations of the exploration. Perhaps this goal should have been restated and/or removed, or the students should have written a test to measure their learning.

Computer Simulations in High School Science Synthesis and Analysis Many of the studies discussed here value demonstrations and labs in science classes. Franklin et al. (2001) and Finkelstein et al. (2005) specifically state that labs, whether traditional or virtual, add value to the educational experience of science students. Some, however, contend that one method is more effective than the other. The studies conducted by Baser (2006) and Finkelstein et al. both showed that virtual computer simulations promoted conceptual change in the field of physics. Conversely, Franklin et al. and Cross & Cross (2004) provided evidence for proponents of traditional hands-on approaches to lab work, specifically in the field of biology. Perhaps a determining factor in which method would be most effective is the branch of science being studied; physics seems to benefit most from web-based instruction (Vinesh & Margaret, 2008). No study concluded that only one method should be used in place of the other.

Conclusion Computer simulations have improved tremendously over the years and are being considered by many science classes for their interactive affordances. Because much of the research that exists regarding computer simulations for science classes is focused on postsecondary, it would be beneficial if more research was done at the high school level. The problems that surfaced in many of the studies in this paper were of a methodical nature and should be addressed in subsequent studies. Future research should have a focus on quantitative data and extra care should be taken to ensure variables are controlled.

Computer Simulations in High School Science References Baser, M. (2006). Promoting conceptual change through active learning using open source

software for physics simulations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 336-354. Cross, T. R. & Cross, V. E. (2004). Scalpel or mouse ? A statistical comparison of real & virtual frog dissections. American Biology Teacher, 66(6), 408. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0409:SOMASC]2.0.CO;2 Deng, H. & Zhang, S. (2007). What is the Effectiveness of a Multimedia Classroom? International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(3), 311-322. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & Reid, S. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103 Franklin, S., Peat, M., & Lewis, A. (2001). Virtual versus traditional dissections in enhancing learning. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 124-129. Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Computer Simulations in High School Science Podolefsky, N. S., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Phys. Rev. ST Physics. Educ. Research, 6 doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020117

10

Straits, W.J., & Wilke R.R. (2006). Interactive demonstrations: Examples from biology lectures. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 58-59. Vinesh, C., & Margaret, L. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1087-1098. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00790.x

You might also like