A novel sequence for teaching students physics concepts and inquiry skills was developed and evaluated. It was found to enhance students' conceptual understanding, confidence in their understanding and skills in inquiry learning

1. Evaluating an Instructional
Sequence for Scaffolding
Inquiry Learning with
Interactive Simulations
Xinxin Fan
The University of
Queensland
David Geelan
Griffith University
Wei Liang
Beijing Normal
University

2. So what?
The instructional approach we will describe
during this session has been demonstrated to
yield measurable (large) increases, relative to
‘normal’ teaching, in physics students’:
• Conceptual knowledge of physics concepts
(forces)
• Confidence in their own knowledge
• Skills in participating in inquiry learning
We suspect and hope that this approach has the
potential to support learning in other science
(STEM?) fields and levels.

3. Background
 Lots of good evidence that students enjoy
learning with visualisations
 Lots of teachers adopting them, lots of
money being spent developing, hosting and
sharing them
 Not much good quality quantitative
evidence of their educational effectiveness,
particularly at the high school level

4. Interactive Simulations
• Computer-based visualisations
• Are like ‘virtual laboratories’ (in some ways)
• Make it easy to do a number of experiments
quickly
• Students manipulate variables and generate data

5. Examples

6. Inquiry Sequence using Interactive
Simulations (ISIS) – outlined in a chapter by
Geelan and Fan in the forthcoming Springer
book edited by Eilam and Gilbert

7. • This instructional sequence is referenced
to a constructivist epistemology and
draws on conceptual change pedagogy
• It also draws on Vygotsky’s ZPD
• It is a scaffolded, supported approach to
inquiry learning, in which students
actively engage in ‘testing to destruction’
candidate concepts for explaining
phenomena
• It develops students’ understanding that
scientific concepts are those that have
(so far) survived such testing

8. The Zeroth Step
• First, decide whether you can use real
experiments instead of interactive
simulations
• Real experiments and experiences are
almost always better than virtual ones for
conceptual development
• Different tools can complement one
another for learning

9. Step One
• Elicitation and clarification of existing
conceptions and the ‘target’ scientific
conception
• Know the literature in relation to student
misconceptions in your subject area
• Well formulated questions, discussions,
possibly quizzes (use with care), POE
• Introduction of scientific concept

10. Step Two
• Outlining the predictions and implications
of students’ existing conceptions and the
scientific conception
• In relation to a specific experiment to be
completed using the interactive
simulation, ask students to make
predictions using the rival conceptions

11. Step Three
• Testing predictions of competing
conceptions using interactive simulations
• Use the interactive simulation to test the
predictions students make
• At every test, it should be clear to the
students what each concept predicts, and
what the findings mean

12. Step Four
• Clarification of findings and linking results
to the scientific conception
• Demonstrate and discuss how the findings
and results support the scientific concept
and do not support the misconception
• Ensure that students understand how the
theory predicts the observed results

13. Step Five
• Further testing to develop and deepen
understanding of the scientific conception
• Extend the experience to novel contexts
and problems
• Demonstrate the fruitfulness of the
scientific concept

14. Sequence and Repetition
• While some of these steps need to happen
before others, it may not be necessary for
the full sequence to be completed
• It may also be necessary to cycle through
the whole sequence or some subset of it
again to ensure understanding
• Like all models, it is (potentially) useful
rather than true

15. Evidence For Effectiveness
• In a preliminary study (as part of her PhD)
Xinxin Fan, supported by Wei Liang,
compared this sequence with ‘normal’
teaching in 4 classrooms (N=115) in two
schools in Beijing for 8 weeks
• Two teachers participated in the study.
Each received training and support in using
the instructional sequence, and each taught
one ‘experimental’ and one ‘control’ class

16. Research Design
• Force Concept Inventory (FCI)
• Addition of a 5-point Likert scale for
confidence
• Addition of an explanation of their answer by
students
• Classroom observations, interviews
• Also analysed by sex of students and academic
achievement level (thirds of class)
• Cronbach alpha coefficients of the conceptual
understanding test, confidence survey and
inquiry skills survey were .81, .94 and .87
respectively

17. Evidence For Effectiveness
Conceptual Understanding
• F (1, 115) = 25.11, p = .000, η2 = .18
• This is considered a large effect size,
equivalent to a Cohen’s d value of 0.94 :
students taught using the instructional
sequence with interactive simulations
significantly outperformed those taught
without it

18. Evidence For Effectiveness
• True for both sexes and across all
achievement levels
• ANCOVAs for conceptual understanding
revealed no significant differences in gains
for female vs male students and for levels of
academic achievements

19. Evidence For Effectiveness
• Confidence
• F (1, 115) = 15.65, p = .000, η2= .12
• (equivalent to d = 0.74)
• No significant differences for sex or level

20. Evidence For Effectiveness
• Inquiry Skills
• F (1, 115) = 71.36, p = .000, η2= .38
• (equivalent to d = 1.57)
• No significant differences for sex or level

21. Further Research
• Clearly, given the small sample size and the
specific Beijing context, our findings are tentative
at this point – we would like to replicate and
expand the study in multiple contexts
• It seems plausible that such an approach would be
quite easily adapted to chemistry learning,
although the affordances of the technology are
likely to be different
• Are there other contexts or content domains
across STEM Education where an approach of this
kind may have potential?

22. Example Question
Two metal balls are the same size but one weighs twice as much as the
other. The balls are dropped from the roof of a single story building at
the same instant. The time it takes the balls to reach the ground below
will be:
A. About half as long for the heavier ball as for the lighter one.
B. About half as long for the lighter ball as for the heavier one.
C. About the same for both balls.
D. Considerably less for the heavier ball, but not necessarily half as
long.
E. Considerably less for the lighter ball, but not necessarily half as
long.
: Could you please explain why you choose this answer? You can use
your physics knowledge or your own words to write down your
understanding.
: How sure are you of your answer to the question?
A. Very sure; B. Sure; C. Neutral; D. Unsure; E. Very unsure.

23. Sample Inquiry Skills Item
I understand the physical problems that I am exploring, but
there are still some people who do not understand what I said
or wrote.
5 = strongly agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = no opinion; 2 = disagree; 1 =
strongly disagree