Kahn - 2011 - New Pedagogies On Teaching Science With Computer Simulations

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232
DOI 10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2
New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations

Samia Khan
Published online: 17 September 2010

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Teaching science with computer simulations is

a complex undertaking. This case study examines how an
experienced science teacher taught chemistry using computer simulations and the impact of his teaching on his
students. Classroom observations over 3 semesters, teacher
interviews, and student surveys were collected. The data
was analyzed for (1) patterns in teacher-student-computer
interactions, and (2) the outcome of these interactions on
student learning. Using Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) as a theoretical framework, analysis
of the data indicates that computer simulations were
employed in a unique instructional cycle across 11 topics in
the science curriculum and that several teacher-developed
heuristics were important to guiding the pedagogical
approach. The teacher followed a pattern of generateevaluate-modify (GEM) to teach chemistry, and simulation technology (T) was integrated in every stage of GEM
(or T-GEM). Analysis of the student survey suggested that
engagement with T-GEM enhanced conceptual understanding of chemistry. The author postulates the affordances of computer simulations and suggests T-GEM and
its heuristics as an effective and viable pedagogy for
teaching science with technology.
Keywords Teacher Pedagogy Computers Computer
simulations Science education TPACK TPCK
S. Khan (&)
University of British Columbia, 2125 Neville Scarfe Building,
Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada
e-mail: samia.khan@ubc.ca
Introduction
This case study examines how an experienced science
teacher taught science using computer simulations. Using
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a theoretical framework, the author of this study embarked upon
an investigation into his pedagogy, the impact of his
teaching on learners, and the affordances of the simulation
technology for teaching and learning.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK or
TPACK) is an emerging theoretical framework on teaching
that articulates a tri-partite relationship among the teachers
knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content. It offers
a language to develop pedagogies of teaching with computer simulations by making explicit the connections that
are present (or absent) in teachers conceptualizations of
educational technology for teaching subject matter. Its
genesis comes from the earlier work of Shulman (1986)
who suggested that in addition to knowledge of the subject
matter, knowledge of the learner and general pedagogical
approaches, good teachers require another knowledge base:
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). PCK can be considered knowledge of pedagogy specific to certain content
areas. For example, a science teachers: prevention of
cognitive overload during experimentation, drawing of
atomic models to spark student discussion on electricity,
pursuit of student inquiry on monarch butterflies with handheld probes, introduction of an analogy to a balance beam
to explain the concept of chemical equilibrium, and use of
the Punnett Square to teach genetics have variously been
considered evidence of a science teachers PCK.
123
216
Expanding on this earlier work, Mishra and Koehler

(2006) argued that knowledge of technology itself is central
to teachers work with technology. This teacher knowledge
base can be subdivided into three areas: Technological
Content Knowledge, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
While distinct definitions and boundaries between the
knowledge bases need to be refined, Mishra and Koehler
(2008) suggest that Technological Content Knowledge
(TCK) is knowledge about domain-specific technologies and
how they can change the subject matter for the student or the
kinds of representations that can be constructed by students.
For example, knowledge of a particular science specific
technology, such as Model-It, and how the softwares tools
can be used to represent predator-prey relationships might be
considered as TCK. TCK is distinguishable from Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). TPK is considered to
encompass knowledge of the existence, components, and
capabilities of various non-domain specific technologies in
teaching and learning settings. For example, TPK includes
knowledge of discussion boards and chat rooms and how
they could be used to foster multi-way, asynchronous dialogue after school about predator-prey relationships.
TPCK, on the other hand, encompasses knowledge of:
how different concepts can be represented using technologies, pedagogical techniques that employ technologies to
teach content, what makes concepts difficult or easy to
learn, students prior understanding and skill set, and how
technology can help redress some of the problems that
students face. For example, a geology teacher utilizes
WISE software to teach about plate tectonics. WISE is a
Web-based Inquiry Science Environment available on the
Internet for scaffolding scientific inquiry on a variety of
curricular topics (Slotta and Linn 2009). The teacher specifically selects WISE because it contains an embedded
inquiry map to scaffold students scientific investigations
on plate tectonics. WISE also supports global peer to peer
networking, so that students on the East Coast of the US
can compare data about land formations with students
living on the West Coast (Gobert et al. 2002). The teachers
students had particular challenges when using local textbooks to complete this comparison. In this hypothetical
example of TPCK, the teacher utilizes domain-specific
software in specific ways to teach specific content with a
particular group of students.
Often portrayed as a Venn Diagram, TPCK lies within the
overlapping circle among PCK, TCK, and TPK. TPCK is not
generated by a teacher having PCK, TCK, or TPK alone.
Valanides and Angeli (2008a, b) investigated a group of inservice teachers who had extensive teaching experience
(PCK) and knowledge of several computer programs (TCK),
but were not specifically trained on how to teach their subject
area with computers (TPK and TPCK). The group of teachers
123
in this study did not perform significantly better on designing

computer-mediated lessons for their students than other
teachers who had less teaching experience, good computing
skills, but no specific training in the educational uses of
computers as well. However, after specific training in how to
teach with computers, teachers with stronger pedagogical
skills and better knowledge about the content and learners
outperformed teachers with less PCK. The authors recommendation was that teacher educators need to explicitly teach
how the unique affordances of technology can be used to
enrich subject domains for specific learners and that teachers
need to be explicitly taught about interactions among pedagogy, content, technology, and learners to develop their
TPCK.
TPCK forms the theoretical framework underpinning
the present study. To better understand a science teachers
TPCK, the author drew upon teacher reflections, teacher
interviews, classroom observations, and student surveys.
Analysis of this data, using TPCK as a guide, helped to
ascertain interactions among pedagogy, content, technology, and the learners.
Teaching Science with Computer Simulations
Computer simulations have become more widespread in
classrooms as science teachers gain access to the World
Wide Web from home and at school. Computer simulations
are broadly defined as a computer program that attempts
to simulate a model of a particular system. Users can
manipulate the model to view how it would behave under
various conditions, and the outcome of these changes are
made visible or reported as a measurement by the program
itself.1 Some computer simulations are particularly valuable for science teachers because they help students
visualize aspects of science that are either too large or too
small for to view, afford rapid testing of ideas, reveal
trends via graphs or other representations, and provide
extreme situations to support thought experiments and
what if scenarios (Khan 2008). Furthermore, computer
simulations that assist students visualization of scientific
phenomena have been associated with gains in conceptual
understanding among science students in areas, such as:
protein synthesis, electrical circuits, predatory-prey relationships, intermolecular forces, mechanics and spread of
disease (Finkelstein et al. 2005; Hasenekoglu and Timucin
2007; Wilensky and Reisman 2006; Zacharia 2007).
Although research suggests a positive correlation
between effective use of computer simulations and student
1
Computerized molecular drawing programs may not be considered

simulations in the strictest sense, if they are limited to the construction
of graphical models (e.g. selection of elements, bonds, charges, frames)
and where users cannot view the outcome of changes to their model (e.g.
changes to molecular weight, bond strength, forces).
achievement, teaching techniques with computer simulations remain relatively under-reported. For example, at the
time of this research, in a review of the Academic Search
Complete database for articles with the search terms
computer simulations, teaching, and undergraduate
or secondary, only 21 and 14 articles emerged respectively. Few of these articles provided more than a 2-step
strategy to teach science with computer simulations, even
though it is widely documented that pedagogical approaches practiced by teachers strongly influence students
learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond 2000; Webb 2005).
The table below illustrates multi-step pedagogical
approaches reported in the literature on computer simulations in secondary or undergraduate science learning
environments. Table 1
The above set of studies on teaching with computer
simulations, however small, offers important insights into
possible roles of the teacher, useful instructional strategies
for science, and integrated instructional approaches with
computer simulations. While this set of studies reveals
multi-step teaching strategies for specific science content
areas, almost none of them present the techniques of the
teacher as heuristics and none are designed to reveal the
teachers TPCK or underlying rationales for instruction.
This is a potential issue because the vast majority of
available computer simulations lack the capability to
independently tutor students on the concepts, direct
investigations, or guide student inquiry. Simultaneously,
science teachers are seeking more prescriptive recommendations from best-practice research (Keys and Bryan
2001). A relative paucity of coordinated teaching approaches and heuristics for science teachers who wish to use
computer simulations also represents an opportunity to
build on the set of studies in Table 1 and explicate pedagogies of teaching science with computer simulations.
Research Aim
The overarching research aim of the present study is to
explicate a pedagogy of teaching science with computer
simulations. To accomplish this, an in-depth study was
undertaken of an experienced teacher teaching science to
students across multiple topics with computer simulations.
The following research questions were important to guide
this study:
1.
2.
How does the teacher use computer simulations to

teach science?
What are the teaching heuristics that are central to the
teachers pedagogy with computer simulations?
a.
What is the role of the teacher in a technologyenhanced environment?
217
b.
c.
3.
What are the affordances of the computer simulation technology for teaching science and when
should this technology be employed?
What are the perceived limitations of using
computer simulation technology to teach science?
What is the impact of teaching science with computer

simulations on the learners?
Research Methodology
Background to the Study
Due to the complexity of the research, the author undertook a
two-part study. In the first part of the study, an experienced
teachers general pedagogical approach was examined in
considerable detail, with a focus on the teachers pedagogy
and teacher-student interactions. Using intensive classroom
observation over a year, in-depth mid-course interviews with
students along-side their teacher, and pre and post student
surveys, this part of the study revealed a cyclical pattern in
which students generated, evaluated, and modified (GEM)
hypotheses throughout the term (Khan 2007). In the second
part of the case study (presented herein), the author focused
on teacher-student-and now, computer simulation interactions to respond to the research questions on teaching science
with technology. In order to investigate pedagogies of
teaching science simulations, a case study of teaching science with computer simulations was undertaken.
Case Study
A case study is considered in the present study as a transparadigmatic heuristic that enables the circumscription of
the unit of analysis (VanWynsberghe and Khan 2007). The
use of case study is appropriate to fulfill the aims of this
research. To gain a sense of science teacher pedagogy with
computer simulations, the researcher requires detailed
accounts of how teachers accomplish this and the relationships among pedagogy, technology, content, and learners.
Such research is better captured with case studies involving
careful teacher observation and interview rather than largen survey research alone. Case studies aim to give the reader
a sense of being present, through a highly detailed analysis
of an instance in action (MacDonald and Walker 1977).
From an analysis of a single case, one can identify and
describe basic phenomena and uncover new relationships
and new perspectives on a topic (Merriam 1988). According
to Rueschemeyer (2003), another advantage of case study is
that it permits a much more direct and frequently interplay
between theory and data and allows for a closer matching
of conceptual intent and empirical evidence than even
123
218
Table 1 Survey of teaching techniques associated with computer simulations

Simulation and topic
Main methods
Role of the teacher described
Descriptions of teaching strategies
Li et al. (2006)
Promote cognitive
perturbation
Poser of questions
Posed a series of 5 what if questions
Worldmaker 2000
Scientific theories
Soderberg and Price

(2003)
Inquiry
Evolve
Population Genetics
White and Frederiksen

(2000);
ThinkertoolsForce &
Motion
Hafner and Stewart
(1995)
Helper of students to identify

discrepancies among their
models and experiments
Provider of constructive feedback
Guide
Pose a question; Think of a real or imaginary example to
establish a context for the problem; Make a prediction
(generate a hypothesis) before each run of the model;
Test the hypothesis more than once under the same
conditions; Identify landmarks by which graphs can be
analyzed; compare the experimental results of the first
set of runs with the second set of experimental runs
based on a new model; compare data to landmarks from
the first experimental run; pose new questions, if any; run
additional experiments if needed, and make conclusions
Inquiry
Guide
Experiments
Provider
Reflection and
assessment
MRSPG-Model
revising problem
solving in genetics
Assessor
Genetics Construction
Kit
Actor explains simple

dominance model
Genetics
Simulated genetics
experiments
Suggesting the need to simplify the research question,

giving experiments, picking assessment criteria and
asking students to rate the presentations
Actor
Actor portraying Gregor Mendel describes the problem

he was dealing with as well as his explanatory model
Lecturer
Modeler
Teacher develops a model of the process of meiosis
Practice simple and

codominance
problems
Singer et al. (2000)
Investigative Web
Helper
Anchored instruction
Introduces software
Tool-Soup database;
Model-It; e-Chem
Chemical Structures
Edelson (2001)
WorldWatch-er
Learning for use

model (LfU)
Weather
Teacher begins with a driving question from students

experiences and an anchoring event. Teacher helps
students create sub questions to from driving question.
Scaffolds
The teacher introduces the software. With scaffolding
Relates concepts back to driving
from the teacher, the class constructs a know and needquestion
to-know chart and teacher relates back concepts to the
driving question. Modeling activities and outdoor labs
are conducted
Questions students
Teacher asks students to support their rules with

observations from WorldWatcher. For each relationship,
the teacher asks students to discuss the potential causes
of the observed relationships
Instills motivation
Helps students make links to

prior knowledge
Helps students refine their ideas
through reflection
Kozma (2000)
4 M:Chem
Chemical Equilibrium
Predict-ObserveExplain (POE) and

draw conclusions
Provides manual
exceptional quantitative research. At a theoretical level, the

power of case studies is in the ability to reveal the properties
of the class to which the instance being studied belongs
(Lincoln and Guba 2002b), produce new typologies
123
Students create a world with the simulation and compare

weather patterns in their fictitious world with actual
scientific data sets; labs with a mini-Earth model are
conducted as well as whole class discussions
A manual is provided to students with questions that asks
students to make predictions, explicitly identify the
function of certain surface features of each of the
representations using all 4 representations in the
simulation, and construct explanations
(George and Bennett 2005), provide the basis for subsequent theory-development (Kenny and Grotelueschen
1984; Glaser and Strauss 1967), and test and generate
hypotheses (Flyvbjerg 2001).
How case study is defined and conducted varies in the

literature; however, certain properties are evident in a
prototypical case study. The depth of study generally
requires the study of a smaller sample size (Gomm et al.
2000) than does survey research. Case studies yield highly
descriptive accounts of a specific temporal and spatial
boundary (Merriam 1988) and uncover interactions of
inseparable variables that are elements of the phenomena
being studied (Yin 2003). Also, case study is suitable for
research in complex settings where there is little control
over behavior, organization, or events (Anderson et al.
2005), because it advances the concept that natural complex settings cannot be reduced to a simple causeeffect
relationship. Yin further argues that the use of multiple
data sources allows for the development of converging
lines of inquiry (or triangulation), providing a conclusion
about a complex bounded setting that is likely to be much
more convincing and accurate than survey research. In
addition, case studies can generate working hypotheses
based on what is uncovered or constructed during data
collection in the case study (Eckstein 2002; Lincoln and
Guba 2002a). And finally, case studies are extendable in
the sense that findings of a case study can enrich and
potentially transform a readers understanding of a phenomenon (Donmoyer 1990).
Research Context
The research context of the present study is an introductory
chemistry classroom in a large North American public
university. This class had a department-wide, introductory
chemistry syllabus, text, and electronic homework system,
and a resource center with computers. The syllabus topics
for the general introductory chemistry course were atomic
structure, molecular structure, organic chemistry, gases,
liquids, solids, properties of the elements, and chemical
reactions, energy, and reactivity. A one-semester (13-week)
introductory chemistry course was offered to science and
non-science majors. Thirty-three first-year chemistry, biochemistry, engineering, nursing, and education majors
were enrolled in this class, with 11 students identifying
themselves as being in an honours program in these majors.
Students met twice a week for 75-min lectures in a technology-enhanced classroom (see Fig. 1). The teacher of the
study was considered an experienced science teacher. He
had a subject matter background in chemistry, conducted
bench research, and had been teaching introductory
chemistry for more than 8 years. He had received a
teaching award and was identified as leader in chemistry
education and educational technology within and beyond
his department. He was an author of textbooks and educational software and was invited to speak at conferences
on teaching science with technology.
219
Fig. 1 Participating students working with computer simulations in

science
The electronic classroom of this study had 26 computer

terminals (see Fig. 1). Each terminal was equipped with
suites of multiple, compact, interactive computer modules
that were computer representations of simulated lab experiments or molecular processes (simulations available upon
request). As mentioned earlier, computer simulations are a
digital program that allows the user to interact with a digital
representation and that this interaction produces some visible
change (E.g. change in the graph) in the simulation.
The computer simulation on heat calorimetry was one of a
number of computer simulations available in the suite. In the
computer simulation in Fig. 2, students could interact with a
simulated heat calorimeter. Students selected a particular
mass and type of a compound to place in the calorimeter. That
mass was shown to be inside an animation of the water bath in
the calorimeter. Students could also select the amount of water
in the water bath. The calorimeter was then ignited, and the
increase in temperature was plotted as a function of time.
Research Methods
In case study research, the circumscription of the unit of
analysis is accomplished by (a) providing detailed descriptions obtained from immersion in the context of the case, (b)
bounding the case temporally and spatially, and (c) frequent
engagement between the case itself and the unit of analysis
(Khan 2007). To achieve this, the researcher attended
class and wrote observation notes over the course of three
semesters (a total of 1.5 years) to gather data on the unit
of analysis, the teachers pedagogies with computer
simulations.
123
220
Fig. 2 A computer simulation

of a heat calorimetry lab
Teacher pedagogy can be ascertained in a number of

ways. A most obvious approach involves direct teacher
interviews about their approaches to teaching and their
views on how people learn. In addition to teacher interviews in this study, classroom observation and student
surveying were also undertaken. Scientists who teach are
not often required to articulate their pedagogy and classroom observation can be useful in identifying patterns in
their pedagogical approach to the field. Furthermore, there
is a history of research on TPCK that has utilized classroom observation to detect how technology is integrated
within the classroom (Guzey and Roehrig 2009). Classroom observations were particularly valuable in addressing
research questions 1 and 2. Interviews with the chemistry
teacher assisted in understanding the rationale, heuristics,
and the various knowledge bases the teacher drew upon in
his pedagogy. Teacher interviews were particularly valuable in addressing research question 2. Student surveys
were also gathered, and these were designed to reveal the
impact of teaching with computer simulations on students,
the perceived affordances of computer simulations for
learning, and provide a second source of data reflecting on
the teachers pedagogy. Student surveys were particularly
valuable in addressing research question 3. In total, the data
collected for the present study were 20 sets of classroom
observation notes (including classroom handouts), a 1-h
transcribed set of interviews with the teacher, and
responses from a student survey (n = 24). The data sources
are discussed in further detail below.
123
Data Source 1: Classroom observations were conducted

by three trained observers, one of whom is the author of
this study. Teacherstudentcomputer interactions were
recorded by these observers as notes using a detached
open-ended narrative method. Memos summarizing interactions were then written and shared among observers
after observation to help establish commonalities among
observations of the teachers pedagogy. The focus of the
observations was in recording all observable interactions
between the teacherstudent- and computer simulations
throughout the semester consisting of 11 different topics
in chemistry. Classroom observations were useful in
helping to ascertain the teachers TPK and TPCK.
Data Source 2: A Pedagogy and Simulation Technology
survey with a 5-point Likert scale was administered at
the end of the semester. The survey was designed to
gauge students experiences in science with computer
simulations and triangulate data on the teachers pedagogy. A process of refining the survey over a year prior
to the final semester was followed to strengthen
reliability, and this process included pilot testing, peer
review, student focus group and member checking.
Examples of survey statements include: This class
would be more effective for me if the instructor provided
the information and rules instead of asking me to gather
information from the simulations in class and generate
relationships myself and Teacher guidance is necessary for the effective use of the simulations. Appendix
1 includes the entire survey.
Data Source 3: A teacher interview occurred before and

immediately after the semester of observation began. The
purpose of the interviews was to learn about the teachers
perception of their role in the classroom and to gain a
better understanding of their PCK, TCK and TPCK. The
interviewer asked the teacher questions about his/her
teaching strategy with computer simulations. Sample
interview questions included: How would you describe
your role in the classroom? How should students learn
science best? What is the role of the computer simulations
in your approach to teaching? When is the best time to
teach with simulations, given the different topics?
Data Analysis
The survey and test data were analyzed using mean statistics with Excel. The qualitative data were analyzed using
a constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss 1967;
Glaser 2002), which is an analytical approach that supports
evaluation and reevaluation of hypotheses. Concepts and
hypotheses emerging from classroom observations underwent continuous refinement throughout the data collection
and analysis process, continuously feeding back into a
process of category coding and sub-coding. As classroom
events were compared with previous events and as data
were triangulated, conceptual connections among teaching
approaches, student responses, and involvement of the
computer emerged. To augment the articulation of this
pedagogy of teaching with simulations, interview data was
triangulated with classroom observation data to further
reveal the teachers TPCK.
Multiple methods, uses of more than one classroom
observer, and rich sources of data were collected to produce thick descriptions and to support triangulation
(Mathison 1988). As mentioned previously, the student
survey was piloted and peer reviewed over 1 year in an
extensive process to strengthen reliability. In terms of
classroom observations, persistent observation of the
classroom and prolonged engagement with the data contributed toward the emergence of discernable patterns of
teacherstudent interactions. Multiple debriefing sessions
with multiple observers sought to achieve consistency in
coding of videotaped and tape-recorded classroom observations with written observation notes. Observational data
was compared with student accounts of their experiences
via the survey. Direct quotations were included in the study
from participants in the research. Furthermore, memos
summarizing classroom events were written for every
observed class as a method to capture and compare salient
classroom events and codes from the beginning to the end
of the research. Collectively, these efforts strengthened the
trustworthiness of the findings.
221
Generalizability
Being consistent with case study research, the author did
not intend to establish generalizable claims about teachers
TPCK, as the author was more interested in providing a
needed emphasis on teaching science with simulations and
developing recommendations that could be translated to
different settings beyond those studied. Instead of positivist
notions of generalizability, more relevant social science
concepts involving comparison of cases have been applied
to extend and amplify the impact of a single case (Becker
2000; Smaling 2003). For example, Goetz and LeCompte
(1984) recognized that although findings from case studies
cannot be generalizable in a probabilistic sense, findings
from case studies might still be relevant to other contexts.
Comparability is a concept they proposed to address the
issue of generalizability from a single case. Comparability
is the degree to which the parts of a study are sufficiently
well described and defined that other researchers can use
the results of the study as a basis for comparison.
Translatability is a similar concept but refers to a clear
description of ones theoretical stance and research techniques. This study aims to generate findings that could be
translatable to other interested science teachers and science
teacher educators.
Results and Discussion

The first section of the results responds to research question
1: what is the teachers approach to teaching science with
computer simulations? This is accomplished through an
analysis of classroom observations, student survey, and
teacher interviews. Drawing upon a TPCK theoretical orientation and analyses of the data, the next section responds
to research question 2; that is: what are the heuristics central
to the teachers pedagogy with computer simulations and
how does the teacher utilize the affordances of the simulation technology? Finally, the results section concludes
with data on the impact of teaching science with computer
simulations from the students points of view.
Teachers Use of Computer Simulations to Support
GEM Cycles
The suite of computer simulations that were integrated into
this class were not intended to replace the laboratories, but
rather represented the results of simulated lab experiments
or the behavior of atoms of molecules under conditions not
observable with the eye. Students were organized in pairs
or groups of three at these terminals. Each terminal was
equipped with the Chemland suite of simulations. Based on
classroom observations, a pattern of teaching emerged. The
123
222
general instructional approach was identified as generating

(G), evaluating (E), and modifying (M) (GEM) students
models in chemistry (Khan 2007). G, E, and M occurred in
three distinguishable phases or instructional segments with
the evaluation (E) and modification (M) instructional segments repeating themselves in a cyclical fashion. On
average, in one period of class, the teacher engaged in this
pedagogical approach two times, for a total of 52 times
across 11 different topics in chemistry. Preceding a more
elaborate discussion on how computer simulations were
integrated in GEM, two representations are shown below.
The first is a graphic depicting the cyclical nature of GEM
and its three phases (Fig. 3), and the second is a table
(Table 2) detailing how computer simulations were used in
the GEM cycle.
Upon analyzing the observation notes for the present
study, the teacher was observed consistently using computer simulations in every phase of the GEM cycle.
Computer simulations were thus used at least twice per
class. Table 2 below is an advanced organizer for the
forthcoming results on the uses of computer simulation
technology within GEM. The greyed out portion of the
table illustrates GEM; whereas the whitened column shows
TEACHER STRATEGIES
STUDENT
PROCESSES
Teacher provides background

content information.
Teacher asks
students to
compile
information.
Teacher asks
students to
generate a
relationship
between
variables.
Teacher asks students to evaluate

relationship in light of new
information (discrepant extreme
case, confirmatory).
Students
generate
relationship.
Students
evaluate
relationship.
data from the present study on where and how computer

simulation technologies were used to support GEM.
For an example of a typical classroom teaching episode
with the computer simulation, a lesson on intermolecular
forces is discussed below.
Simulations during the compile information and generation
(G) phases
In the first phase of GEM, two major teacher activities
were observed as being closely related to one another: the
teacher activity of asking students to compile information
between two variables and the teacher activity of asking
students to generate a relationship between the two variables based on the information they had just gathered. The
teacher activity of asking students to compile information
occurred between two variables. The underlined portion
indicates the teacher (T) action to generate a relationship
between the two variables, molecular weight and boiling
point.
T So lets go ahead and just look at what the boiling
points are for these things [ethanol and methanol].
[Students gather this information from the simulation]. So ethanols between 78 and 79 degrees-its
boiling point. So methanol is between 64 and 65
degrees [using the computer simulation to locate the
boiling points].
Responding to this teacher question, the transcript below
shows students (S1, S2) generating an initial relationship
that, As molecular weight increases, the boiling point
increases. This was accomplished by utilizing the computer simulation that generated a graph of molecular
weight by boiling point.
S1 [Pointing to a graph on the simulations] As the
molecular weight increases, the boiling point also
increases because for ethanol its more, it has a
greater molecular weight and the temperature it takes
for it to boil is between, did he say 70 and 80?
S2 Uh, huh. Something like that. Well we can check.
S2 Yeah, between 78 and 80 [referring to the simulation graph].
Teacher asks students to modify

initial relationship based on the
evaluation.
Fig. 3 The GEM cycle
123
Stud ents modify

relationship.
S1 As molecular weight increases the boiling point

increases.
Overall, generating a relationship (G) between two variables was also observed coupled with four teacher guidance strategies: the extreme case, incremental values, the
comparison, and why questions. For example, in other
teaching episodes, the teacher encouraged students to
consider extreme cases with a simulation by asking
223
Table 2 Use of computer simulation technology

Major phase
of GEM
Main teaching methods
Teacher guidance strategies
Compile
information
Asked students to
compile information
from a source
Demonstrated how to read large Teacher constrained initial variables that students utilized in the
data sets
simulation
Generate
relationship
(G)
Identified the variables

for students
Selects the general scope of

Teacher encouraged students to generate a large amount of
variables or cases for students information on the variables in order to generate a relationship
to investigate
between them
Asked students to find

the trends
Teacher encouraged students to Teacher encouraged students to dynamically generate graphs and
make graphs or view sets of
multiple representations as output in the simulation
models
Asked students about

the relationship
between x and y
Asked students to predict
Teacher asked students to select extreme variables to view the

effects on the simulated system
Selected extreme cases for
students
to investigate
Asked students to proceed using Teacher encouraged students to move variables in step by step
incremental values
increments
Asked students to compare
Asked students to explain
Evaluate the
relationship
(E)
Provided discrepant
information
Computer simulations
Teacher asked students to compare color coded curves on the graph

or color coded animations
Asked students Whats wrong Teacher asked students to rerun the graphs
with this?
Teacher encouraged students to select different variables,
controlled for others in order to design new tests
Teacher encouraged students to view the animations at the
molecular level
Teacher encouraged students to move variables in increments and
steps
Provided an extreme
case
Asked students Why doesnt

this make sense?
Teacher asked students to push variables to extreme temperatures/

concentrations/
conditions
Provided a confirmatory Asked students to predict

case
Teacher advised students to make a prediction before utilizing the

simulation to confirm their prediction
Provided further empirical

information
Did not correct students
Asked students to compare
Asked students to find new
information
Modify the
relationship
(M)
Asked students to work back

from the data Asked
students to design
a new test
Asked students to revisit their
original relationships that
were integral to their models
Teacher asked students to continue utilizing the simulation to

gather further information and test the scope of the relationship
they had originally generated
Teacher asked students to refer to the information shown in the
simulation and to select new variables to test their initial relations
Teacher asked students to keep graphs, animations on the screen, in

order to help revisit the evaluated relationship with their original
one
Asked students to summarize

relationships
Asked students to solve a
new case
students to push the variables in simulation to extremes.

The teacher at times implemented an incremental values
guidance strategy by asking students to increase values in
the simulation step by step and observe the changes to a
dynamic graph generated by the computer simulation.
Teacher asked students to run new tests on the simulation

repeatedly
The teacher was also observed encouraging students to

make comparisons between substances, molecules, or data
points, and this activity was enhanced with multiple colorcoded representations that appeared to visually draw
attention to contrasts. For example, in a related teaching
123
224
episode, the teacher asks students a why question following

the generation of a relationship between temperature and
vapor pressure:
T Okay so I have another question then. So as the
temperature goes up, vapor pressure goes up you said.
Come up with an explanation for that. Why as the
temperature goes up does the vapor pressure go up?
S4 Methanol would be lighter and as we figured
out, if its lighter mass, the velocity goes up and
the amount of gas goes up before the vapor pressure
goes up, so methanol, since it is lighter would go up,
should go up quicker which apparently it does on the
[simulations] graph [pointing to the simulation].
T So okay.
S3 Because like I never thought about, like I didnt
connect the mass to the vapor pressure kind of. I was
thinking of it as, like having, like Im assuming
because its [ethanol] a longer chain, the bonds would
be weaker. Im not sure, because one of the OH pulls
the end of each one; pulls like electrons or pull
something over to like their side the OH side. And so
therefore bonds towards, like the end, like the CH3s,
[would] be weaker.
S4 coordinated a theoretical idea that lighter molecules
should go up quicker with data from a graph on
temperature and vapor pressure that was available as part
of the simulation, claiming that, apparently it [methanol]
does on the graph. This is an example of how the teacher
asked students to generate an initial relationship and
explain the relationship using computer simulations.
Generating a relationship (G) was an initial phase of the
teachers pedagogy that was fully integrated with the use of
computer simulations. Working with computer simulations
may have enhanced this activity by affording the teacher
and students the opportunity to constrain variables, produce
data quickly, generate graphical trends, push to extreme
values, proceed in increments, and visualize multiple, color
coded representations. Although these conceptual activities
did not require this technology, the teacher was observed
consistently employing computer simulations to enhance
this phase of the GEM cycle.
Simulations during the Evaluation (E) and Modification
(M) Phases
Throughout the evaluation and modification phase, we
observed three major teacher activities: providing disconfirming information, providing extreme cases, and providing confirming information. These teacher activities were
coupled with teacher guidance strategies such as: making
123
comparisons, asking why questions, asking whats wrong

questions, making predictions, considering new data
points, designing a new test, see if it holds true, finding
more information and adding content information.
For an example of evaluation (E), the teacher stated in a
lesson on intermolecular forces, We want to use this
[simulation] to see if your trend there [referring to a
hypothetical relationship students had constructed: As
molecular weight increases the boiling point increases]
actually works for more than say two compounds. Students were encouraged by the teacher to examine a new
computer simulation set on organic boiling points in order
to compare previous data with new data and to gauge the
scope of their hypothetical relationships. Students viewed a
graph on the simulation of selected alkanes and functional
groups, by molecular weight and boiling point. The simulation also showed a spherical model of the selected compound. Based on the earlier relationship they had generated,
students generally stated that they expected that boiling
points would increase as molecular weight increased. This
trend was evident in most cases, but compounds with
functional groups that had the capacity to hydrogen bond,
such as hydroxyl and amine groups, had anomalously high
boiling points for their molecular weights, as displayed by
the computer simulation. The following underlined excerpt
shows two students responses to this anomaly:
S4 Why does this thing appear [points to the methyl
hydroxide data point in a boiling points versus
molecular weight graph in the simulation]?
S3 Do you mean that? Hydroxyl? [points to the
simulation]
S4 Hydroxyl.
S3 The OH.
S4 It stands out. For some reason.
S3 It doesnt follow the trend.
S4 It doesnt follow the trend.
S3 It boils high for its weight.
The teacher followed this exchange by asking classroom
students for an explanation for the abnormally high
boiling points. At this point, students became engaged in
evaluating the empirical consistency of their initial relationship that boiling points would increase as molecular
weight increased and coordinating their theoretical models
of molecular structures in order to explain the anomalously
high boiling points of several compounds. Student groups
expressed various ideas, with one student postulating the
idea of a bond in between two hydroxyl groups (one on
methyl hydroxide and the other on water). The teacher,
together with the students, explored the plausibility of each

idea, eventually helping students to modify (M) the initial
relationship that the boiling point increases with an
increase in molecular weight to include that the boiling
point increases with molecular weight unless the substance
has the capacity to hydrogen bond. In these cases, boiling
points are higher than expected.
The teacher activities and guidance strategies to evaluate (E) and modify (M) relationships were fully integrated
with the use of computer simulations. Several of the
strategies that the teacher employed in these phases of the
GEM cycle included the teacher asking students to select
different variables to design new tests, or push variables to
extreme temperatures or concentrations with the simulation. We also observed the teacher asking students to
gather additional information quickly and dynamically
regenerate graphs, referencing the animations at the
molecular level and asking students to compare colorcoded curves on the graphs. The use of computer simulations appeared to support the activities of evaluating and
subsequently modifying initial relationships.
In summary, the teacher was consistently observed
referring students to the computer simulation technology
(T) during GEM cycles. For example, during the compile
information phase, the teacher asked students to compile
information between two variables with the simulation
software. The simulation provided a large source of
information that could be accessed quickly during the
compile information phase. The teacher could constrain the
number and type of variables students worked with by
using the simulation software. During the generate relationship (G) phase, the teacher asked students to find a
trend based on the information they had gathered using the
simulations graphs. When the teacher and students entered
the evaluation (E) and modification (M) phases of the GEM
approach to instruction, the teacher was observed providing
new information from the simulation and asking students to
push variables to extremes, or design new tests and
regenerate graphs quickly. Thus, in various ways, the
simulation was fully integrated into the teachers pedagogy
of teaching science, and it appeared that the teacher used
the simulation technology specifically to facilitate the
generation and evaluation/modification of relationships in
chemistry. Taken together, we refer to the integration of
technology in this pedagogy as T-GEM.
In order to more fully articulate the teachers pedagogy
and ascertain the teachers TPCK, interviews with the
teacher and a survey with the students were undertaken.
Below, the results from analysis of these two sources
reveal: the role of the teacher in a technology-enhanced
environment, teachers knowledge of the affordances of the
computer simulations, and student responses to the teaching and learning of science with computer simulations.
225
The Teachers TPCK: Articulating His Role

as a Teacher in a Technology-Enhanced Environment
In an interview about the teachers pedagogy for science
education and chemistry, the teacher stated, I want them
to learn chemistry, [but] I dont want them to just understand the conceptsI want them to understand where to
get the concepts and where they come from. To accomplish this, the teacher designed an approach to instruction
that involved promoting understanding chemistry at the
molecular level through a form of technology-enhanced
inquiry. He described his pedagogical approach the following way:
Instead of presenting them [students] with conclusions, facts, relationships in chemistry where they can
say, Oh yeah, I kind of see that relationship and tune
out. What we do instead is lead them through the
use of computer simulations in a fashion that lets
them look at individual pieces of relationships at a
time, and then lead them through putting [those pieces of relationships] together into an overall concept.
His pedagogy involved a belief that that his instructional
approach shared similarities to how science proceeds. In
response to an interview question on his role, he described
his role in the classroom as a guide in inquiry to get
students to think about the world in a molecular way and at
a theoretical level first before they get to a point where they
can relate [their models] to the real world. Both underlined portions suggest that the teachers role as a guide was
to lead students to examine relationships incrementally
using computer simulations until students grasped the
complexity of the science at a molecular level and then at a
theoretical level.
The Teachers TPCK: Affordances of Computer
Simulations for Teaching Science
The teacher was interviewed and asked about the affordances of computer simulations for his approach to
teaching science. His response to this set of questions were
compiled, with italics used to indicate teacher emphasis:
A lot of the kinds of things we do with computer
simulation could be done with pieces of paper. The
thing thats better about the computer part of it is, you
can do a lot more exploring, so [the computer simulation] gives [students] more control over what
theyre going to look at, as opposed to if I give them a
sheet of paper with numbers on it. Its like Im going
to look at this information, Im going to come to some
conclusion, Im going to look at some more information, and Im going to test those conclusions. So
123
226
when I throw up an overhead, Im doing the exploring and they [the students] are explaining it. And
thats okay, but when its a simulation and they are
choosing things, then they are doing the exploring
much more. So its a control issue.
As the underlined portions of the above transcript suggest,
the teacher perceived that [the software he chose] afforded
students with greater choice over the selection of variables
and design of tests compared to other forms of media.
Indeed, observers noted spontaneous (not teacher-directed)
instances of students selecting and reselecting variables,
pointing to color-coded curves on the graph and comparing
curves, conducting what if scenarios, and pushing values to
their extremes using the simulation technology. In addition
to teacher encouragement of students to design new tests
and select their own variables, spontaneous student use of
the computer simulation underscores the teachers contention that student exploration can be supported with
computer simulations.
Teachers TPCK: When to Use Computer Simulations
To further articulate the heuristics by which the teacher
made decisions about computer simulations in science, the
teacher was asked about when computer simulations should
be used to teach science:
[T]he time to be able to do it [begin to use computer
simulations] is [when students] know what it is
theyre looking at. They need to know what the
information is telling them in each data point by data
point instance, but the thing that they should not
know before they start looking at it is what the overall
relationship and guiding principles are.
Sofor instance, say you are looking at ionization
energy for elements. Theres lots of really good ways
to teach trends in that. And theres a lot of understanding about how electronic structure and atoms
work because of it, but you would not use the simulation to get them to know what ionization energy is.
So what you would do is you need to tell them ionization energy is the following thing. And thats just
something, they dont discover that, you just tell them
that, so they know what it is. And you give them a
couple of examples. And like so for hydrogen its
this, and for, you know, beryllium its that. So they
know that its different for different elements, and
they know a rough range of where its coming from,
so they have an idea of what it is. The thing theyre
looking at is.
Then you give them the simulation, so they can look
at trends in that thing. So they know what it is and
123
when they see the numbers change they know what it

means. They can grasp that relationship because
they know what theyre looking at.
The teacher did not encourage the students to read ahead on
the topic, rather, he utilized simulation technology and
conceptual exercises to learn about relationships first-hand
within the classroom environment.
Teachers TPCK: Potential Problems with Using
Computer Simulations
In an in-depth interview, the teacher was asked to discuss
potential problems with computer simulations to reveal the
nuances of selecting this approach:
[O]ne main danger thats part of the whole idea of
running a class that way is that it gives them the idea
thats how scientists explore. The one danger, its a
both a good thing and a danger, is that is how the
scientific community explores is a better way of
putting it. Because individual scientists, they have to
do a ton of work to get 5 of these little data points,
that students, in a matter of 10 min, will use 50 of. So
in a class period, they can go through peoples years
worth of work in terms of obtaining the data in the
first place to then putting that all together and then
drawing these conclusions.
So what happens is we are bypassing a whole bunch
of work to get the students to be in a position that the
scientific community overall is into look at a whole
bunch of information and put it all together to come
up with a general concept. And the danger is that
they will come away thinking its that easy! So we
tell them that, By the way you know the experiments, to do this it would take you 3 weeks to get this
data point. We tell them that along the way, but its
the kind of thing they dont really get a gut feel for
until they actually go and do real lab work. Real
research like type lab work. Even doing lab work as
part of the class doesnt really solve that problem.
The single most important concern the teacher had with
this pedagogy was that it students gain a sense of
appreciation of how challenging it is to come up with the
data that are embedded within and made available via the
simulation. Rather than replace laboratory work, his partial
recommendation appeared to be that students conduct
research in labs to augment the conceptual exercises with
simulations in the classroom.
In examining the interview above and patterns in teacher
studentcomputer interaction, the teachers heuristics for
teaching science with computer simulation technology could
be summarized as: (1) ensure students know relevant
definitions before using simulation technology; (2) encourage students to develop an understanding of data values
before using simulations; (3) utilize simulations to elicit
student ideas about a scientific phenomenon and generate
trends among variables and ascertain the scope of relationships; (4) evaluate these relationships with the simulation
serving specific functions in testing; (5) have students return
to their original ideas to modify them repeatedly (6) build
student understanding with the computer simulations incrementally and at a molecular level first so that eventually their
ideas are more successively more refined and can be applied
to a broader scope of novel situations.
The Impact of the Teachers Pedagogy
The students were surveyed in the course regarding the
teachers pedagogy. Their survey responses appeared to
affirm that the teachers pedagogy involving computer
simulations was effective (Table 3.)
Computer simulations may have supported GEM by
being able to process large amounts of information and
view representations in multiple ways. For students, processing large amounts of information via various representations may have had some implications for pattern
generation (G) of relationships and generalizability. As
student respondents reported: Table 4
In terms of evaluating (E) relationships, it is plausible
that designing new tests, selecting and reselecting variables
and extreme values and comparing curves on a graph may
have had some implications for evaluating the consistency
of the relationship across cases.
80% of student respondents agreed that, There are

more frequent opportunities for students to make and
test predictions in this class than in other most other
classes. (15% neutral, 5% disagreed, n = 21).
Table 3 Teachers pedagogy

with computer simulations and
its impact on learners
227
The majority of survey respondents agreed that, I

sometimes input extreme case data in the simulations to
test the boundaries of my ideas about chemistry. (67%
agreed, 25% neutral, n = 24).
In particular, pushing the values to their extremes with

the use of the computer simulation may have afforded what
if scenarios that helped students evaluate the consistency of
the relationship across cases: Table 5
Students were consistently observed regularly engaged
in the evaluation (E) and (M) phases of the GEM cycle
using simulation technology. Of the three phases of GEM,
surveyed students ranked evaluating relationships more key
to their learning than generating relationships, modifying
relationships, or collecting information.
While the vast majority of surveyed students stated that,
In general, I am able to complete 80100% of the activities or exercises called for with the computer in chemistry and that, By the conclusion of the class, I usually feel
I understand the chemistry concept of that lesson, they
still reported that teacher guidance was necessary for the
successful use of the simulations:
76% of surveyed students agreed with the statement that:

Teacher guidance is necessary for the effective use of
the simulations. (14% disagreed, 10% neutral, n = 21)
Out of seven possible choices in a survey ranking
question, the top three student-ranked choices for where
the greatest learning happens for them was (in order):
teacher discussion with the students during class,
simulations, and their electronic homework system
(n = 21).
In a second ranking question on the survey, a majority
of surveyed students (n = 24) ranked the independent
use of simulations outside of class in one of their
bottom three choices out of nine choices to rank where
the greatest learning happens for you in chemistry.
Survey item
%
%
%
n
agreed disagree neutral
The use of simulations in class has contributed to the development of my 75

ability to critically analyze a problem in chemistry
21
24
An important advantage of the computer simulations is that they make

unobservable processes in chemistry more explicit to me
90
21
The computer graphics of molecular structures used in lecture contributed to 76

my learning in this course in a way that went beyond what I learned from
the pictures used in the text
19
21
A demonstration of a chemical phenomenon is more effective for my

50
learning than an interactive simulation of the same chemical phenomenon
18
32
22
When using computer simulations in class, if I do not understand the

14
concept before hand, the in-class simulation compounds my confusion
instead of clarifying the concept
Having us generate, evaluate, and modify relationships in class is valuable 91
for my understanding of the concepts in chemistry
72
14
21
23
123
228
Table 4 Generating
relationships (G)
Survey item
%
%
%
n
This class would be more effective for me if the instructor provided the
information and rules instead of asking me to gather information from the
simulations in class and generate relationships myself
39
35
26
23
21
71
24
95
21
There are more frequent opportunities to generate scientific ideas in this

class than in most other classes
100
22
Survey item
%
%
%
n
I find it difficult to see the patterns in the data from the computer
simulations
I have been asked to construct explanations about scientific information that
was presented in a computer simulation
Table 5 Evaluating and

modifying relationships
(E and M)
I find myself asking what would happen if science questions more often 67
in this course than other courses
29
21
I am asked to challenge or evaluate a scientific idea more often in this class 81

than my other classes
19
21
I have had to modify some of my initial ideas about a chemical relationship 54

by the conclusion of the lesson
38
24
10
19
21
I modify my ideas about chemistry more often because of classroom

discussion than from doing homework
Based on the survey findings and classroom observations, it was hypothesized that these activities with simulation, termed T-GEM, may have had implications for
student pattern generation and hypothesis evaluation and
modification, and ultimately, for student understanding of
science. Student responses about the computer simulations
suggested that this technology, coupled with teacher
guidance, played an integral role in students learning.
1.
2.
Conclusions
Despite a body of literature on the use of computer simulations in science classrooms, comparatively little research
has been done on how to teach with this technology. As
described by Guzey and Roehrig (2009, p. 17), [I]t is
clear that more data needs to be collected from experienced
science teachers who have already incorporated technology
into their teaching. Experienced science teachers with well
developed TPACK may help us to gain a better understanding for how to teach with this technology. This study
is a longitudinal investigation of an experienced teachers
pedagogy with computer simulations. Analysis of classroom observations and memos, transcribed teacher interviews, and statistical results from student surveys revealed
a pedagogy of teaching science with computer simulations.
Three main findings of the research were:
123
3.
71
The T-GEM pedagogical approach. T-GEM is a 3 step,

coordinated pedagogical approach with computer
simulations that involves generating, evaluating, and
modifying student ideas with the full integration of
computer simulation technology in each of these three
phases.
Simulation technology has specific affordances for
teaching science. Simulation technology appears to
afford T-GEM teachers and students with the capacity
to: compile information between variables in order to
generate initial relationships, push values to extremes or
in increments to assess the scope of the relationship, and
provide an environment to make comparisons between
data and visually draw attention to patterns and
contrasts using graphs and animations. Students are
also able to test assumptions, dynamically regenerate
graphs, and view graphics at the molecular level with
computer simulations. Simulation technology may also
afford students with the capacity to engage students in
multiple GEM cycles in one classroom period, beyond
what could be accomplished in the scientific laboratory.
Students report that simulations helped them to critically analyze a problem, make unobservable processes
more explicit, and contribute to their science learning in
ways that go beyond textbooks.
The teachers TPCK framed his approach to teaching
with computer simulations. The teacher had knowledge of: specific teaching roles to help students
examine subject area relationships using computer

simulations; how conceptual classroom activities were
(dis)similar to/from the nature of science, and heuristics about when and where to use simulation
technology.
In summary, digital technologies such as computer simulations can be particularly engaging for science students
because they can manipulate variables in multiple ways and
observe changes as a result of this interaction. A significant
body of literature revealed that when students interacted
with this technology, it was sometimes also associated with
the development of inquiry skills (Vasu and Tyler 1997),
such as being able to generate hypotheses (de Jong and van
Joolingen 1998); interpret data and evaluate arguments
(Rivers and Vockell 1987), and make predictions (Lewis
et al. 1993). Studies also reported that the use of computer
simulations in the classroom was associated with improved
student motivation, enhanced learning of science content
above and beyond what might be learned in comparable
environments (Vogel et al. 2006) including labs (Finkelstein
et al. 2005), development of critical thinking skills;
improved transfer of learning to other situations, and
improved students attitudes towards the subject (de Jong
1991). This body of research established that it is possible to
learn science well with computer simulations.
What remained to be explored is how this technology
can support learning. The instructional supports associated
with computer simulations for science have ranged from
highlighting main points such as those found in paper and
pencil fill in forms (Njoo and de Jong 1991) or in assessment rubrics designed to promote reflective practices
(White and Frederiksen 2000); model progression (Quinn
and Alessi1994; de Jong et al. 1999); sequencing assignments such as those that ask students to predict the relation
between two variables first (Swaak et al. 1998; Lewis et al.
1993), or coaching with programmed hints or feedback
(Lajoie and Lesgold 1992; Rivers and Vockell 1987;
Rieber et al. 1996; Veenman and Elshout 1995; Rieber and
Parmley 1995). It appears, however, that even the use of
very complex computer simulations and these different
types of supports have not always been sufficient to help
science students develop conceptual understanding or
process skills (Njoo and de Jong 1991; Quinn and Alessi
1994; van Joolingen and de Jong, 1991; Simmons and
Lunetta 1993; Lavoie and Good 1988).
Comparatively little research has inquired into the science teachers pedagogy of working with computer simulations: only a handful of detailed studies report multi-step
methods on teaching science with computer simulations,
and almost no studies have delved into the science teachers
TPCK regarding this technology. For example, in a survey
of technology-enhanced science learning environments the
229
role of the teacher was variously described as suggesting:

the need to simplify the research question, giving experiments, picking assessment criteria and asking students to
rate the presentations (White and Frederiksen 2000); help to
develop a model of a scientific process (Hafner and Stewart
1995), help students create sub-questions and need-to-know
charts (Singer et al. 2000), and engage the students in a
discussion of the potential causes of the observed relationships (Edelson 2001). This prior research builds an important foundation for future research that expands on teaching
with these technologies (Hennessy et al. 2007).
The present study aims to contribute to this discussion
on the teaching dimension of digital technologies. Greater
explication of pedagogy has the potential to provide
researchers and practitioners with more prescriptive heuristics and recommendations regarding teaching with
digital technologies. In particular, special insights into
an experienced science teachers TPCK can reveal key
heuristics and instructional patterns on effective classroombased methods for teaching with technology. The elaboration of pedagogy, such as T-GEM and the teaching
heuristics of an experienced teacher noted in this research,
have implications also for science teacher education programs that seek to teach ways to integrate digital technology. Composite portraits of technology integration in
the science classroom would be further enhanced with
additional research on experienced science teachers integral beliefs about technology and its role in society and
teaching, requisite teacher knowledge bases to plan for
technology integration and the pedagogical rationales of
teachers.
Appendix 1: Pedagogy and Simulation Technology
Student Survey
This survey will be used to inform us about your experiences in chemistry. Thank you for your participation in this
survey.
Please respond to the statements using the A to E
scheme below.
A = strongly agree
B = generally agree
C = neutral or agree and disagree about the same
D = generally disagree
E = strongly disagree
1.
A demonstration of a chemical phenomenon is more

effective for my learning than an interactive simulation of the same chemical phenomenon.
2. There are more frequent opportunities to generate
scientific ideas in this class than in most other
classes.
123
230
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
An important advantage of the computer simulations

is that they make unobservable processes in chemistry more explicit to me.
I have been asked to construct explanations about
scientific information that was presented in a computer simulation.
When using computer simulations in class, if I do not
understand the concept before hand, the in-class
simulation compounds my confusion instead of
clarifying the concept.
The use of simulations in class has contributed to the
development of my ability to critically analyze a
problem in chemistry.
Teacher guidance is necessary for the effective use of
simulations.
I sometimes input extreme case data in the simulations
to test the boundaries of my ideas about chemistry.
I find myself asking what would happen if
science questions more often in this course than other
courses.
There are more frequent opportunities for students to
make and test predictions in this class than in other
most other classes.
I am asked to challenge or evaluate a scientific idea
more often in this class than my other classes.
I modify my ideas about chemistry more often
because of classroom discussion than from doing
homework.
The computer graphics of molecular structures used
in lecture contributed to my learning in this course in
a way that went beyond what I learned from the
pictures used in the text.
By the conclusion of class, I usually feel I understand
the chemistry concept of that lesson.
The use of simulations has contributed to the
development of my ability to critically analyze a
problem in chemistry.
Having us generate, evaluate, and modify relationships is valuable to my understanding of the concepts
in chemistry.
This class would be more effective for me if the
instructor provided the information and rules instead
of asking me to gather information from the simulations in class and generate relationships myself.
I find it difficult to see the patterns in the data from
the computer simulations.
I sometimes input extreme case data in the simulations to test the boundaries of my ideas about
chemistry.
I have had to modify some of my initial ideas about a
chemical relationship by the conclusion of the lesson.
For statements 2124, please use the following legend:
123
A = 019%
B = 2039%
C = 4059%
D = 6079%
E = 80100%
21.
22.
23.
24.
In general, I am able to complete _____% of the

activities or exercises called for with the computer in
chemistry.
I am able to comprehend _____% of the material
discussed in the class.
I have been able to solve ____% of the homework
problems on time.
I understand _____ % of the relationships in chemistry that are generated from the class by students.
For the questions below, please use the scheme below:

A = 1st
B = 2nd best
C = 3rd best
D = 4th best
E = 5th best
F = 6th best
G = 7th best
Rank where the greatest learning happens for you in
chemistry between Q. 25 to 31 from 1 to 7th best. Assign
each of the rankings only once between 25 and 31.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Classroom demonstrations
Classroom simulations
OWL (electronic homework system)
Laboratories
Peer discussion
Reading the textbook
Teacher discussion with students during class
For the second ranking question below, please use the

following legend:
A = 1st
B = 2nd best
C = 3rd best
D = 4th best
E = 5th best
F = 6th best
G = 7th best
H = 8th best
I = 9th best
Rank where the greatest learning happens for you in
chemistry between Q. 32 to 40 from 1 to 9th best. Assign
each of the rankings only once between 32 and 40.
32.
33.
Reading the text

Collecting information from the simulation
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Generating relationships in chemistry

Evaluating relationships in chemistry
Modifying the relationship because of new
information
OWL (electronic homework system)
Laboratory
Peer discussion around the computer
Independent use of simulations outside of class
References
Anderson RA, Crabtree BF, Steele DJ, McDaniel RR Jr (2005) Case
study research: the view from complexity science. Qual Health
Res 15(5):669685
Becker HS (2000) Generalizing from case studies. In: Eisner EW,
Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing
debate. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 233242
Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educ Policy Anal Arch
8(1):144
de Jong T (1991) Learning and instruction with computer simulations.
Educ Comput 6:217229
de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning
with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res
68(2):179201
de Jong T, Martin E, Zamarro J-M, Esquembre F, Swaak J, van
Joolingen WR (1999) The integration of computer simulation
and learning support: an example from the physics domain of
collisions. J Res Sci Teach 36(5):597615
Donmoyer R (1990) Generalizability and the single case study. In:
Eisner EW, Peshkin A (eds) Qualitative inquiry in education.
Teachers College Press, New York, pp 175200
Eckstein H (2002) Case study and theory in political science. In:
Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds) Case study method:
Key issues, key texts. Sage, London, pp 119163
Edelson D (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of
technology-supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 35(3):
355385
Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK,
Podolefsky NS, Reid S, LeMaster R (2005) When learning about
the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting
computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev ST
Phys Educ Res 1(1):010103
Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: Why social inquiry
fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
George AL, Bennett A (2005) Case studies and theory development in
the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Glaser BG (2002) Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using
grounded theory. Int J Qual Methods 1(2):131
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, Chicago, IL
Gobert J, Snyder J, Houghton C (2002) The influence of students
understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA
Goetz J, LeCompte M (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Academic Press, Orlando, FL
Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (2000) Case study method: Key
issues, key texts. Sage Publications, London
231
Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology:
case studies of science teachers development of technology,
pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol
Teach Educ 1(9):2545
Hafner R, Stewart J (1995) Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: problem solving in the
context of discovery. Sci Educ 79(2):111146
Hasenekoglu I, Timucin M (2007) Biology teacher and expert
opinions about computer assisted biology instruction materials: a
software entitled nucleic acids and protein synthesis. Paper
presented at the International Educational Technology (IETC)
Conference, Nicosia, Cyprus. 17. Retrieved from the Eric
Database (ED500191) database
Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, Deaney R, Brawn R, la Velle L,
McFarlane A, Ruthven K, Winterbottom M (2007) Pedagogical
approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Comput
Educ 48:137152
Kenny WR, Grotelueschen AD (1984) Making the case for the case
study. J Curric Stud 16(1):3751
Keys CW, Bryan LA (2001) Co-constructing inquiry-based science
with teachers: essential research for lasting reform. J Res Sci
Teach 38(6):631645
Khan S (2007) Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Sci Educ
91(6):877905
Khan S (2008) What if scenarios for testing student models in
chemistry. In: Clement JJ, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model-based
learning and instruction. Springer Publishing, Netherlands,
pp 139150
Kozma RB (2000) The use of multiple representations and the social
construction of understanding in chemistry. In: Jacobsen MJ,
Kozma RB (eds) Innovations in science and mathematics
education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning.
Teachers College Press, New York, pp 1146
Lajoie SP, Lesgold A (1992) Apprenticeship training in the
workplace: computer-coached practice environment as a new
form of apprenticeship. In: Farr MJ, Pstokas J (eds) Intelligent
instruction by computers: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis,
Washington
Lavoie DR, Good R (1988) The nature and use of prediction skills in
a biological computer simulation. J Res Sci Teach 25(5):
335360
Lewis EL, Stern J, Linn M (1993) The effect of computer simulations
on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educ Technol
33:4558
Li SC, Law N, Lui FA (2006) Cognitive perturbation through
dynamic modelling: a pedagogical approach to conceptual
change in science. J Comput Assis Learn 22(6):405422
Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002a) The only generalization is: There is no
generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds)
Case study method. Sage, London, pp 2744
Lincoln Y, Guba E (2002b) The only generalization is: There is no
generalization. In: Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds)
Case study method. Sage, London, pp 2744
MacDonald B, Walker R (1977) Case study and the social philosophy
of educational research. In: Hamilton D (ed) Beyond the
numbers game: A reader in educational evaluation. MacMillan,
Basingstoke, UK, pp 181189
Mathison S (1988) Why triangulate? Educ Res 17(2):1317
Merriam SB (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative
approach. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec
108(6):10171054
Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2008) Introducing technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, pp 116
123
232
Njoo M, de Jong T (1991) Giving hints, supporting learning
processes, and providing hypotheses. Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL
Quinn J, Alessi S (1994) The effects of simulation complexity and
hypothesis-generation strategy on learning. J Res Comput Educ
27(1):7591
Rieber L, Parmley MW (1995) To teach or not to teach? Comparing
the use of computer based simulations in deductive versus
inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. J Educ
Comput Res 13(4):359374
Rieber LP, Tzeng S-C, Tribble K, Chu G (1996) Feedback and
elaboration within a computer-based simulation: a dual coding
perspective. In: Proceedings of selected research and convention
presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association
for Educational Communications and Technology
Rivers RH, Vockell E (1987) Computer simulations to stimulate
scientific problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 24(5):403415
Rueschemeyer D (2003) Can one or a few cases yield theoretical
gains? In: Mahoney J, Rueschemeyer D (eds) Comparative
historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 305336
Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in
teaching. Educ Res 15(2):414
Simmons PE, Lunetta VN (1993) Problem-solving behaviors during a
genetics computer simulation: beyond the expert/novice dichotomy. J Res Sci Teach 30(2):153173
Singer J, Marx R, Krajcik J, Chambers J (2000) Constructing
extended inquiry projects: curriculum materials for science
education reform. Educ Psychol 3(35):165178
Slotta J, Linn MC (2009) Wise science: Web-based inquiry in the
classroom. Teachers College Press, New York
Smaling A (2003) Inductive, analogical, and communicative generalization. Int J Qual Methods 2(1):131
Soderberg P, Price F (2003) An examination of problem-based
teaching and learning in population genetics and evolution using
EVOLVE, a computer simulation. Int J Sci Educ 25(1):3555
Swaak J, van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1998) Supporting simulationbased learning: the effects of model progression and assignments
123

on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learn Instruc
8(3):235252
Valanides N, Angeli C (2008a) Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade
classroom: An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions
about light and color. J Res Technol Educ 40(3):309336
Valanides N, Angeli C (2008b) Professional development for
computer-enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers.
Res Sci Technol Educ 26(1):312
van Joolingen WR, de Jong T (1991) Supporting hypothesis
generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instr Sci 20:389404
VanWynsberghe R, Khan S (2007) Redefining case study. Int J Qual
Methods 6(2):110
Vasu ES, Tyler DK (1997) A comparison of the critical thinking skills
and spatial ability of fifth grade children using simulation
software or logo. J Comput Child Educ 8(4):345363
Veenman MVJ, Elshout JJ (1995) Differential effects of instructional
support on learning in simulation environments. Instr Sci 22:
363383
Vogel J, Vogel D, Cannon-Bowers C, Muse K, Wright M (2006)
Computer gaming and interactive simulations: a meta-analysis.
J Educ Comput Res 34(3):229243
Webb ME (2005) Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. Int J Sci Educ 27(6):705735
White BY, Frederiksen JR (2000) Metacognitive facilitation: An
approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In:
Minstrell JJ, van Zee E (eds) Teaching in the inquiry-based
science classroom. American Association for the Advancement
of Science, Washington, DC
Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a
firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theoriesan embodied modeling approach. Cogn
Instru 24(2):171209
Yin R (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage,
Thousand Oaks
Zacharia ZC (2007) Comparing and combining real and virtual
experimentation: an effort to enhance students conceptual
understanding of electric circuits. J Comput Assis Learn 23(2):
120132

Kahn - 2011 - New Pedagogies On Teaching Science With Computer Simulations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kahn - 2011 - New Pedagogies On Teaching Science With Computer Simulations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations

Published online: 17 September 2010

Abstract Teaching science with computer simulations is

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Expanding on this earlier work, Mishra and Koehler

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

in this study did not perform significantly better on designing

Computerized molecular drawing programs may not be considered

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

How does the teacher use computer simulations to

What is the role of the teacher in a technologyenhanced environment?

What is the impact of teaching science with computer

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

Table 1 Survey of teaching techniques associated with computer simulations

Role of the teacher described

Descriptions of teaching strategies

Posed a series of 5 what if questions

Soderberg and Price

White and Frederiksen

Helper of students to identify

Actor explains simple

Suggesting the need to simplify the research question,

Actor portraying Gregor Mendel describes the problem

Teacher develops a model of the process of meiosis

Practice simple and

Learning for use

Teacher begins with a driving question from students

Teacher asks students to support their rules with

Helps students make links to

Predict-ObserveExplain (POE) and

exceptional quantitative research. At a theoretical level, the

Students create a world with the simulation and compare

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

How case study is defined and conducted varies in the

Fig. 1 Participating students working with computer simulations in

The electronic classroom of this study had 26 computer

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

Fig. 2 A computer simulation

Teacher pedagogy can be ascertained in a number of

Data Source 1: Classroom observations were conducted

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

Data Source 3: A teacher interview occurred before and

Results and Discussion

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

general instructional approach was identified as generating

Teacher provides background

Teacher asks students to evaluate

data from the present study on where and how computer

Teacher asks students to modify

Fig. 3 The GEM cycle

Stud ents modify

S1 As molecular weight increases the boiling point

J Sci Educ Technol (2011) 20:215232

Table 2 Use of computer simulation technology

Main teaching methods

Teacher guidance strategies

Identified the variables

Selects the general scope of

Asked students to find

Asked students about

Asked students to predict

Teacher asked students to select extreme variables to view the