You are here:

Simulated and Virtual Science Laboratory Experiments: Improving Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Learning Skills.
PROCEEDINGS

, Nassau Community College, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper is a report on the findings of a study conducted on undergraduate level laboratory science courses. A causal-comparative quantitative study was conducted with 150 learners enrolled at a two-year community college, to determine the effects of simulation laboratory experiments on Higher-Order Learning, Critical Thinking Skills, and Cognitive Load. The treatment population used simulated experiments, while the non-treatment sections performed traditional experiments. Comparisons was made using the Revised Two-Factor Study Process survey, Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, and the Scientific Attitude Inventory survey, using a Repeated Measures ANOVA test for treatment or non-treatment. Virtual laboratory experiments using interactive computer simulations are not being employed as viable alternatives to laboratory science curriculum at extensive enough rates within higher education. Rote traditional lab experiments are currently not addressing inquiry, Critical Thinking, and cognition throughout the laboratory experience, linking with educational technologies (Pyatt & Sims, 2007; 2011; Trundle & Bell, 2010).

Citation

Simon, N. (2014). Simulated and Virtual Science Laboratory Experiments: Improving Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Learning Skills. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 453-459). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 7, 2024 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Artino, A. (2007). Self-regulated in online education: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Education, 4(6), 3-18.
  2. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149. .
  3. Bloom, B., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  4. Clark, D. (2007). Learning domains or bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html.
  5. Cook, M. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and Cognitive Load on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6): 1079-1091. .
  6. Corter, J., Nickerson, J., Esche, S., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Trans. Computer Human Interaction, 14(2), Article 7, 27. .
  7. Limniou, M., & Whitehead, C. (2010). Online general pre-laboratory training course for facilitating first year chemical laboratory use. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 39-55.
  8. National Research Council. (2005). America's lab report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber, Editors. Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  9. National Science Teacher’s Association. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org.
  10. National Science Teacher’s Association. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org.
  11. Pintrich, P. (1991). Implications of psychological research in behavioral research, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
  12. Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2007). Learner performance and attitudes in traditional versus simulated laboratory experiences. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/pyatt.pdf. Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2011). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance, and access. Journal of Science Educational Technology. Doi:01.1007/s10956-011-929-6.
  13. Smetana, L., & Bell, R. (2007). Computer simulations to support science instructions and learning: A critical review of the literature. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
  14. Tiernan, P. (2010). Enhancing the learning experience of undergraduate technology students with LabView TM software. Computer in Education, 55, 1579-1588. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2010.07.001
  15. Trundle, K., & Bell, R. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasiexperimental study. Computers& Education, 54, 1078-1088. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2009.10.012.
  16. Zoller, U., & Pushkin, D. (2007). Matching higher0order cognitive skills (HOCS) promotion goals with problembased laboratory practice in a freshman organic chemistry course. The Royal Society of Chemistry, 8(2), 153-171.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts