International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(3) 14-30

Digital Simulation Experiences of Pre-service Science Teachers: An Example of Circuits

Gülşah Uluay

pp. 14 - 30   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.2

Publish Date: June 07, 2021  |   Single/Total View: 217/759   |   Single/Total Download: 412/1.254

PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the self-efficacy levels of pre-service science teachers who participated in a workshop about physical laboratory implementations supported by digital simulations and also to determine their views on digital simulations. For this purpose, a 6-week workshop was designed based on a digital simulation program called Crocodile Physics. The participants in the research were 16 university students who were studying in the science education department of a public university. This study includes quantitative and qualitative data. The Science Learning Self-Efficacy (SLSE) scale was used to collect quantitative data. Qualitative data was collected with a structured interview form. According to analysis results for quantitative data, self-efficacy levels towards physics of pre-service teachers were significantly developed. Analysis results of qualitative data showed that pre-service science teachers mostly have a positive tendency to integrate digital simulations into educational environments.

Keywords: Digital Simulation, Physics, Self-Efficacy, Laboratory, Pre-Service Teacher

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Uluay, G. (2021). Digital Simulation Experiences of Pre-service Science Teachers: An Example of Circuits. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.2

Harvard
Uluay, G. (2021). Digital Simulation Experiences of Pre-service Science Teachers: An Example of Circuits. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), pp. 14-30.

Chicago 16th edition
Uluay, Gulsah (2021). "Digital Simulation Experiences of Pre-service Science Teachers: An Example of Circuits". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (3):14-30. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.2

References
  1. Alpaslan, M. M. & Işık, H. (2016). Fizik öz-yeterlilik ölçeği’nin geçerliliği ve güvenirliliği/Examination of the validity and the reliability of physics self-efficacy scale. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(33). [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health.) San Diego: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bautista, N. U., & Boone, W. J. (2015). Exploring the impact of TeachME™ lab virtual classroom teaching simulation on early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 237-262. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391-409. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brun, M. & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in initial teacher education in Chile. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 222-238. [Google Scholar]
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P. & D’Angelo, C. (2009, October). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. In Learning science: Computer games, simulations, and education workshop sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, A. (1990). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Restructuring for Learning with Technology, December 1990, 31-46. [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: Theory, methods and techniques. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  14. Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. [Google Scholar]
  15. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.): Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  17. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and Computing, 6(3-4), 217-229. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dekkers, J. & Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation as an instructional strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(6), 424-432. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dou, R., Brewe, E., Zwolak, J. P., Potvin, G., Williams, E. A., & Kramer, L. H. (2016). Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students’ physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020124. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ertmer, P. A. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. [Google Scholar]
  22. Espinosa, T., Miller, K., Araujo, I., & Mazur, E. (2019). Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team-and project-based introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010132. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fencl, H. S. & Scheel, K. R. (2004, September). Pedagogical approaches, contextual variables, and the development of student self‐efficacy in undergraduate physics courses. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 720, No. 1, pp. 173-176). American Institute of Physics. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qualitative Report, 18, 1. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fullan, M. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gegenfurtner, A., Quesada‐Pallarès, C. & Knogler, M. (2014). Digital simulation‐based training: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1097-1114. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gundel, E., Piro, J. S., Straub, C., & Smith, K. (2019). Self-efficacy in mixed reality simulations: Implications for preservice teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 54(3), 244-269. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978-1003. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jonassen, D.H. (1992). This is a chapter. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Ed.). New directions in educational technology (pp. 123-131). New York: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. A. & Powers, S. M. (1994). Computer technologies: Attitudes and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 35(6), 745-768. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 1-31. [Google Scholar]
  32. Le Thang, N. (2014). Using crocodile physics software to design virtual experiments in physics teaching at schools (Vietnam). Научно-методический и теоретический журнал, (1), 229. [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lin, T. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A Multi-Dimensional Instrument for Evaluating Taiwanese High School Students’ Science Learning Self-Efficacy in Relation to Their Approaches to Learning Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1275-1301. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindgren, R. & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 419-438. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindstrøm, C. & Sharma, M. D. (2011). Self-efficacy of first year university physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics matter?. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 19(2). [Google Scholar]
  37. Marshman, E. M., Kalender, Z. Y., Nokes-Malach, T., Schunn, C., & Singh, C. (2018). Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020123. [Google Scholar]
  38. Matzen, N. J. & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417-430. [Google Scholar]
  39. Miller, M. D. (1984). The use of simulations in training programs: A review. Educational Technology, 24(11), 39-42. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nissen, J. M., & Shemwell, J. T. (2016). Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020105. [Google Scholar]
  42. Roschelle, J., Abrahamson, L. A. & Penuel, W. R. (2004, April). Integrating classroom network technology and learning theory to improve classroom science learning: A literature synthesis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E. & Kramer, L. H. (2010, October). Positive impacts of modeling instruction on self‐efficacy. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1289, No. 1, pp. 289-292). American Institute of Physics. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self‐efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1096-1121. [Google Scholar]
  45. Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged! Learning physics with digital simulation games. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2004: Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences (pp. 513-520). Santa Monica, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  46. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M. C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213-253. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt J., Fisser, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231-250. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilson, J. I. (2002). A visit to the Springdale school system in 2012. Visions 2020: Transforming education and training through advanced technologies. [Google Scholar]
  51. Woodward, J., Carnine, D. & Gersten, R. (1988). Teaching problem solving through computer simulations. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 72-86. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Peşman, H. (2013). Relations of gender and socioeconomic status to physics through metacognition and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(4), 280-289. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yoder, S. (1994). Math, microworlds, and hypermedia. The Computing Teacher, 21(8), 18-20. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 17 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 3

June 2021

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.