Using Simulations to Improve Achievements and Motivation in ICT Studies

Orit Zeichner*
Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, Israel.
Periodicity:June - August'2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.16.1.17426

Abstract

This study examined the effect of learning in a computerized environment that includes simulations on the students' achievements and motivation, and is based on models that show that learning through simulation has more potential to promote the comprehension of abstract principles and concepts than traditional learning does. The theoretical background describes studies on technology in teaching, simulations and their role in teaching, learning motivation, and achievements. To examine the relationship between learning through simulation and achievements in the learning of operation systems in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) classes, we developed five simulations on a FLASH platform for each unit in the study program. The simulations were accompanied by interactive activity pages. This is a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) research. The tools included preliminary and summary questionnaires. The sample included 151 high school students, who were divided randomly into two groups: experiment group – learned through online simulations (N=74); control group – learned without simulations (N=77). The findings indicated that students in the experiment group significantly improved their achievements. Also, integrating simulations in learning increased the students' motivation to learn ICT, and improved their comprehension of the study topics. The participants in the experiment group noted that learning ICT was important, and should be learned at school, as it is closely linked to their everyday lives.

Keywords

Learning Through Simulation, Motivation, Achievements, ICT.

How to Cite this Article?

Zeichner, O. (2020). Using Simulations To Improve Achievements And Motivation In ICT Studies. i-manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 16(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.16.1.17426

References

[1]. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. Student Perceptions in the Classroom, 1, 327-348.
[2]. Anderson, J., Van Weert, T., & Duchâteau, C. (2002). Information and Communication Technology in Education: A Curriculum for Schools and Programme of Teacher Development. UNESCO.
[3]. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
[4]. Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303.
[5]. Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 179-191.
[6]. Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75-103.
[7]. Blue, E., & Tirotta, R. (2011). The benefits and drawbacks of integrating cloud computing and interactive whiteboards in teacher preparation. TechTrends, 55(3), 31-39.
[8]. Cayvaz, A., Akcay, H., & Kapici, H. O. (2020). Comparison of simulation-based and textbook-based instructions on middle school students' achievement, inquiry skills and attitudes. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(1), 34-43.
[9]. Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). “Games are made for fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the classroom use of computer games. Computers & Education, 56(3), 604-615.
[10]. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
[11]. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. Teachers College Press.
[12]. Cunningham, C. A. (2009). Transforming schooling through technology: Twenty-first-century approaches to participatory learning. Education and Culture, 25(2), 46-61.
[13]. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. (1996). Assending students' motivation and learning strategies in the classeoom context: The motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.). Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 319-339). Boston, MA: Kluwer
[14]. Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: Exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386-401.
[15]. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008 (NCES 2010- 034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
[16]. Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in school. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2).
[17]. Honey, M. (2001). Testimony before the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee. United States Senate, Retrieved from http://main.edc.org/newsro om/features/mhtestimony.asp
[18]. Karsenti, T. (2016). The interactive whiteboard: Uses, benefits, and challenges: A survey of 11,683 students and 1,131 teachers. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 42(5).
[19]. Keller, J., & Kopp, T. (1987). Application of the ARCS model of motivational design. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[20]. Kohen, Z. (2019). Informed integration of IWB technology, incorporated with exposure to varied mathematics problem-solving skills: Its effect on students' real-time emotions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(8), 1128-1151.
[21]. Kramarski, B., & Zeichner, O. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Educational Media International, 38(2-3), 77-82.
[22]. Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42-78.
[23]. Lin, H. H., Yen, W. C., & Wang, Y. S. (2018). Investigating the effect of learning method and motivation on learning performance in a business simulation system context: An experimental study. Computers & Education, 127, 30-40.
[24]. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2006). Dynamic relation between achievement, goal orientations and affect. (Unpublished.)
[25]. Liou, H. H., Yang, S. J., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W. (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 110-121.
[26]. Manny-Ikan, E., Dagan, O., Tikochinski, T., & Zorman, R. (2011). Using the interactive white board in teaching and learning: An Evaluation of the smart classroom pilot project. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 249-273.
[27]. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423.
[28]. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., De Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., ... & Bullock Mann, F. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017. NCES 2017-144. National Center for Education Statistics.
[29]. McKagan, S. B., Handley, W., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect. American Journal of Physics, 77(1), 87 –94.
[30]. Merriam, S. B., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2020). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
[31]. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
[32]. Ormanci, U., Cepni, S., Deveci, I., & Aydin, O. (2015). A thematic review of interactive whiteboard use in science education: Rationales, purposes, methods and general knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 532-548.
[33]. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learning.
[34]. Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153.
[35]. Sarı, U., Hassan, A. H., Güven, K., & Şen, Ö. F. (2017). Effects of the 5E teaching model using interactive simulation on achievement and attitude in physics education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 25(3), 20-35.
[36]. Schacter, J. (1999). The Impact of Education Technology on Student Achievement: What the Most Current Research has to Say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
[37]. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1-46.
[38]. Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation. In Ryan, RM (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation.
[39]. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.
[40]. Shieh, R. S., Chang, W. J., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 401–415.
[41]. Siahaan, P., Suryani, A., Kaniawati, I., Suhendi, E., & Samsudin, A. (2017, February). Improving students' science process skills through simple computer simulations on linear motion conceptions. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 812, No. 1, p. 012017). IOP Publishing.
[42]. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528.
[43]. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A metaanalysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students' academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331.
[44]. Stern, L., Barnea, N., & Shauli, S. (2008). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students' understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 305–315.
[45]. Tinto, V. (2019). Learning Better Together. In Jones, A., Olds, A., & Lisciandro, J. G. (Eds.). Transitioning Students in Higher Education: Philosophy, Pedagogy and Practice Routledge.
[46]. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-33.
[47]. Wen, C. T., Liu, C. C., Chang, H. Y., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, S. H. F., ... & Hwang, F. K. (2020). Students' guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 1-14. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
[48]. Widiyatmoko, A. (2018). The effectiveness of simulation in science learning on conceptual understanding: A literature review. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 24(1), 35-43.
[49]. Zeichner, O. (2018). The impact of cognitive and noncognitive feedback on students' achievement in a distance learning environment. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 13-27.
[50]. Zeichner, O. (2019a). The impact of safe internet intervention programs on pupils. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 34-43. https://doi.org/10. 26634/jet.16.3.16572
[51]. Zeichner, O. (2019b). The relationship between extrovert/introvert attributes and feedback on students' achievements. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 17(2), 1-17.
[52]. Zeichner, O., & Zilka, G. (2016). Feelings of challenge and threat among pre-service teachers studying in different learning environments--virtual vs. blended courses. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 7-19.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.