ISLEC: An Interactive Learning Scenario Framework
AbstractThis paper presents an innovative interactive scenario framework called ISLEC for the learning of electrical circuits by high school students or beginners of higher education. This framework aims to develop investigative, critical, creative, and decision making skills by trainees, as well as aims to tackling and resolving misunderstandings and learning difficulties.During of each section of ISLEC, the student teams through inquiry-based simulations discover electrical principles by comparing a known to an unknown electric circuit for similarities and differences, and make and verify predictions. Making use of the inductive reasoning, they come to conclusions and generalizations. The ISLEC was evaluated by students of civil engineering of the School of Pedagogical and Technological Education of Athens and, except other things, it was considered by them as useful and usable.Â
Abdullah, S. and Shariff, A. (2008). The effects of inquiry-based computer simulation with cooperative learning on scientific thinking and conceptual understanding of gas laws. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(4), 387-398.
Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Method on Studentsâ€™ Academic Achievement in Science Course. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2 (1), 37-41
Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive Science Inquiry Using Mobile Learning Technologies. In Jovanovic, J. and Chiong, R. (Eds.) Technological and Social Environments for Interactive Learning, Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press. (pp.363-90). Available from: http://www.formatex.org/micte2006/pdf/121
Birchfield, D., Ciufo, T., Minyard, G., Qian, G., Savenye, W., Sundaram, H., et al. (2006). SMALLab: A mediated platform for education. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH, Boston, MA.
Cakir, M. & Irez, S. (2006). Creating a reflective learning community: The role of information technology in Genetics learning. [Online]. [Accessed Feb,20, 2017].
Carroll M. J. (1999). Five Reasons for Scenario-based Design, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3.
Chi M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In Vosniadou S. (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). Hellsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152â€“158.
Grigoriadou M. and Papanikolaou, K. (2000). Learning Environments on the WEB: The Pedagogical Role of the Educational Material, Journal Themes in Education, 1(2), 145-161.
Harlen W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 9-33.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K. & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283-301
Hung, D. & Chen, D. (2002). Two kinds of scaffolding: The dialectical process within the authenticity-generalizability (A-G) continuum. Education Technology & Society, 5(4), 148-153.
Jaakkola T. & Nurmi S. (2004). Academic impact of learning objects: the case of electric circuits. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation & Competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: International Book Company.
Keys CW, Bryan LA. (2001). Co-Constructing Inquiry-Based Science with Teachers: Essential Research for Lasting Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38(6), 631-645.
Lee, H. - S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71â€“90.
Lee, V. S. (1999). Creating a Blueprint for the Constructivist Classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8(4), 1-4.
Linn, M. C. & Eylon, B-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P.A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology(2ndEd., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strike Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14 â€“19
McDermott, L.C. (1990). Research and Computer-Based Instruction: Opportunity for Interaction, American Journal of Physics, 58(5), 452-462.
McDermott, L. & Shaffer, P. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. American Journal of physics, 60(11), 994-1013.
Meir, E., Perry, J., Stal, D., Maruca, S., & Klopfer, E. (2005). How Effective Are Simulated Molecular-Level Experiments for Teaching Diffusion and Osmosis? Cell Biology Education, 4(3), 235-248.
Mikroyannidis, A., Okada, A., Scott,P., Keynes, M. Rusman, H. Specht, M., Stefanov, K., Boytchev, P., Protopsaltis, A., Held, P., Hetzner, S., Kikis-Papadakis, K., Chaimala F. (2013). weSPOT: A Personal and Social Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(14), 2093-2111.
Norton, G., Taylor M., Stewart T. Blackburn, G., Jinks, A., Razdar B. (2012). Designing, developing and implementing a software tool for scenario based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 28(7), 1083-1102.
Okada, A. (2013). Scientific Literacy in the digital age: tools, environments and resources for co-inquiry. European Scientific Journal, 4, 263â€“274.
Ronen, M. & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation. A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of computer assisted learning, 16(1), 14-26.
Slotta, J.D. (2004).The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): Scaffolding Knowledge Integration in the Science Classroom. In M.C. Linn, P. Belland E. & Davis(Eds). Internet Environments for Science Education. 203-232. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. http://www.encorewiki.org/download/attachments/11961270/SlottaWISE2004.pdf
Srisawasdi N., Panjaburee, P. (2015). Exploring effectiveness of simulation-based inquiry learning in science with integration of formative assessment. Journal of Computers in Education. Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 323â€“352
Srisawasdi, N., & Sornkhatha, P. (2014). The effect of simulation-based inquiry on studentsâ€™ conceptual learning and its potential applications in mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(1), 24â€“49.
Stewart, Î¤.Îœ., & Brown,Îœ.Î•.(2008). Developing interactive scenarios: The value of good planning, hiteboards and table-based schemas. Proceedings of ascilite (pp. 983-990) Melbourne, Australia.
Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078â€“1088.
Winn, W. D., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P. and Lee, Y-L. 2005. Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1): 25â€“42
Copyright (c) 2017 Alexandros G. Papadimitriou
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).