搜索


PhET: Research and Development: How PhET simulations are designed, and the research process of refining the simulations to best promote learning.



PhET所引导的研究能够在设计和应用两个方面让人更好地理解交互仿真程序：
  1. 这些特性能够让这些工具有效地支持学习以及理解为什么
  2. 学生是如何浸入学习并利用这些工具交互来进行学习，这些工具将会为这个学习进程带来什么影响？
  3. 何时，以何种方式以及为什么这些工具是在不同的学习环境中是有效的？
PhET 仿真程序的设计准则是来自于对学生如何学习 的研究 (Bransford et al., 2000) 以及对仿真程序的测试面谈 (查看 PhET设计过程). 我们选取了4-6名学生，采用发生思考的方式来让每个学生单独测试每一个仿真程序。这些面谈为我们收集了大量关于交互设计以及学生如何学习的相关数据。 PhET 外观及感觉简单描述了我们的交互设计原则，同时在Adams et al., 2008一系列的论文当中进行了全面的讨论.

经常会被问到的问题的研究解答：

“PhET能够代替真正的实验室设备吗？”
我们的研究已经显示：在概念理解方面，PhET仿真程序更有效；但是，仍然有一些实验室的目标是仿真程序还没有解决的。例如，和功能性的设备相关的特殊能力。到底是仅仅使用仿真工具更有效还是混合使用仿真工具和真实设备更有效，这个要根据实验室的目标来确定。

“仅仅告诉学生回家玩这些仿真程序的话，他们会学习吗？”
绝大部分学生并没有花费他们自己的时间来玩一个科学仿真程序（它们是有趣的，但是并没有那么有趣）的必需动力，除非有一个类似于分数的直接动机。这也是我们追求把仿真程序最好整合到家庭作业里面的理由之一。

“在我的课程中，哪里最适合使用PhET仿真程序？”
我们已经发现PhET仿真程序在演讲、课堂活动、实验室和家庭作业中非常有效。这些仿真程序在设计的时候只有最少量的文本，方便它们可以很容易被整合到一节课的任意环节当中。

我们直接及现有的利益是：

使用类推法来建构理解：学生们在仿真程序中使用类推法来理解不熟悉的现象原理。表达在学生使用类推法中扮演了关键的角色。

仿真程序作为改变教室规范的工具：仿真程序是按照经济-文化的标准发展而来的，但是它同样被用于改变学生在教室中认真学习的传统规范。

仿真程序中促进学习并乐于探索的特点：我们的设计准则定义了那些让工具能够使学生更加投入的关键特性。现在我们希望能够深入研究每一个特性是如何影响学生的理解。

把仿真程序整合到家庭作业当中：仿真程序拥有其它大部分学习工具所没有的特性（交互性、动画、动态反馈、允许创造性的探索）。

化学仿真程序的有效性：我们已经开始调查研究化学仿真程序在何处以及以何种方式成为有效的学习工具。

出版物和演示文稿

有效仿真程序设计的重要特性（主要是根据访谈数据）

应用在课堂中的研究

关于PhET仿真程序

学生关于学习的理解

其他PhET 研究者的著作

其他研究者发表过的关于PhET仿真程序的出版物

  • Constructionism and microworlds as part of a 21st century learning activity to impact student engagement and confidence in physics, Wickham, C. M., Girvan, C., & Tangney, B., (2016, Feb). Sipitakiat, A., & Tutiyaphuengprasert, N. (Eds.) Proceedings of Constructionism 2016. Paper presented at Constructionism 2016, Bangkok Thailand (34-41).
  • Effectiveness of an inquiry-based learning using interactive simulations for enhancing students’ conceptual understanding in physics , Fan, Xinxin, (2015). PhD Thesis, School of Education, The University of Queensland.
  • Use of physics simulations in whole class and small group settings: Comparative case studies, A.L. Stephens & J.J. Clement , Computers & Education 86, 137-156, 2015.
  • Balancing Act: Do Preservice Teachers in an Integrated Mathematics/Science Course Categorize a Levers Problem as Mathematics or Science?, P. Cormas, Annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), San Antonio, January, 2014.
  • Investigating the Relationship Between the Substance Metaphor for Energy and Its Proposed Affordances and Limitations, L. M. Goodhew and A. D. Robertson, in preparation for 2014 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by P. V. Englehardt, A. D. Churukian, and D. L. Jones (AIP, Minneapolis, MN), 2014.
  • Not a magic bullet: the effect of scaffolding on knowledge and attitudes in online simulations, Roll, I., Briseno, A., Yee, N., & Welsh, A., In J. Polman, E. Kyza, I. Tabak, & K. O’Neill, proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. (30%), 2014.
  • Students’ adaptation and transfer of strategies across levels of scaffolding in an exploratory environment, Roll, I., Yee, N., Briseno, A, In proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Honolulu, HI, 2014.
  • The impact of computer simulations as interactive demonstration tools on the performance of Grade 11 learners in electromagnetis, Kotoka J and Kriek J., African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 18(1), 2014.
  • Animation or Simulation: Investigating the Importance of Interactivity for Learning Solubility Equilibria, Akaygun, S. & Jones, L. L., In J. P. Suits & M. J. Sanger, (Eds.) Pedagogic Roles of Animations and Simulations in Chemistry Courses, (pp. 127-159), Washington, DC: Oxford University Press, 2014.
  • How Does Level of Guidance Affect Understanding When Students Use a Dynamic Simulation of Liquid-Vapor Equilibrium?, Akaygun, S. & Jones, L. L., In I. Devetak, & S. A. Glazar, (Eds), Learning with understanding in the chemistry classroom, (pp. 243-263), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2014.
  • Multimodal study of visual problem solving in chemistry with multiple representations, S. Hansen, Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2014.
  • Designing online scaffolds for interactive computer simulation, Chen, C.-H., Wu, I.-C., & Jen, F.-L, Interactive Learning Environments, 21(3), 229–243, 2013.
  • Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding, Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N., Learning and Instruction, 23, 10–23, 2013.
  • Applying cognitive developmental psychology to middle school physics learning: The rule assessment method, Hallinen, N. R., Chi, M., Chin, D. B., Prempeh, J., Blair, K. P., & Schwartz, D. L., 1513, 158–161, 2013.
  • “Re-Simulating”: Physics Simulations for Blind Students, Bulbul, M. S., Demirtas, D., Garip, B., & Oktay, O., Presented at the New Perspectives in Science Education., 2013.
  • Electromagnetic Induction, Yochum, H., et.al., Science & Children. 51(2):63-67, 2013.
  • Teacher candidates' knowledge construction with technology, Zhou, G., & Xu, Z., Knowledge construction and multimodal curriculum development (pp.112-127). IGI Global, 2013.
  • Enhancing Students’ Scientific Literacy In Science Education Using Interactive Simulations: A Critical Literature Review, Fan, X. & Geelan, D.R., Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(2), 125-171, 2013.
  • Radiation and Atomic Literacy for Nonscientists, Johnson, A, Science 342(6157): 436-437, 2013.
  • Students’ Conceptual Change in Electricity and Magnetism using Simulations: a Comparison of Cognitive Perturbation and Cognitive Conflict, Dega, BG, Kriek J & Mogese, TF, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50(6)pp.677-698, 2013.
  • Teacher education using computer simulations—pre and in-service primary school teacher training to teach science, Pinto, A., Barbot, A., Viegas, C., Silva, A. A., Santos, C. A., & Lopes, J. B., Learning Science in the Society of Computers, 28–36., 2012.
  • Designing a Web-Based Science Learning Environment for Model-Based Collaborative Inquiry, Sun, D., & Looi, C.-K., Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2012.
  • The learning effects of computer simulations in science education, Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T., Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153, 2012.
  • Adding value to physics education technology simulations. , Kruhlak, R. J., Vanholsbeeck, F., & Coghill, C., 2012.
  • Inquiry-based Lessons and PhET Simulations - A Great Match for Middle School Classrooms, Zimmer, E., Presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012: AACE, Chesapeake, VA., 2012.
  • Effectiveness of Computer Simulations in Physics Teaching/Learning, Aklilu, T., LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH &Co. KG and licensors, 2012.
  • Effects of Computer Simulations on Undergraduate Science Students Physics Achievement, Aklilu, T., Bereket, G., Melak, M., & Tefaye, G., A stand-alone paper virtually presented at the 2012 Annual international Conference of NARST held on March 25-28/2012 at Indianapolis, Indian, USA, 2012.
  • Integrating Information Technology and Science Education for the Future: A Theoretical Review on the Educational Use of Interactive Simulations, Xinxin Fan & David Geelan, in Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Computers in Education Conference: It's time, Australian Council for Computers in Education, Australia, 2012.
  • Effectiveness of Scientific Visualizations in Year 11 Chemistry and Physics Education, David Geelan, in Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Computers in Education Conference: It's time, Australian Council for Computers in Education, Australia, 2012.
  • The usefulness of log based clustering in a complex simulation environment, Kardan, S., Roll, I., & Conati, C. (to appear), In S. Trausen-Matu & K. Boyer, proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2012.
  • Identifying & Resolving Problematic Student Thinking About Ionizing Radiation, Maidl, R., et al., National Conference on Undergraduate Research, Weber State College, Ogden, UT, UNC Asheville, 2012.
  • Inservice science teachers' views of a professional development workshop and their learning of force and motion concepts, Ramlo, S., Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), pp 928-935, 2012.
  • Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations., Committee on Science Learning Computer Games, S. A. E., Education, B. O. S., Education, D. O. B. A. S. S. A., National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2011.
  • Science modelling in pre-calculus: how to make mathematics problems contextually meaningful. , Sokolowski, A., Yalvac, B., & Loving, C., International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(3), 283–297, 2011.
  • Discussion-based strategies for use of simulations and animations in middle and high school science classrooms, Leibovitch, A., Stephens, L., Price, N., & Clement, J., Proceedings 
of
 the 
NARST
 2011
 Annual 
Meeting, 2011.
  • Effectiveness of Computer Simulations in the Teaching/ Learning of Physics, Aklilu, T., Tilahun T., and Mesfin T., A stand-alone paper presented at the 2011 Annual international Conference of NARST held on April 3-6/2011 Orlando, Florida, USA, 2011.
  • The use of Interactive Computer Simulations with regard to access to Education – a social justice issue, Kaheru, SJM, Mpeta M and Kriek J, Journal of Educational Studies 10(2) pp 89 - 106, 2011.
  • The activity of simulations to the practical work of foundation physics students at the University of Limpopo, Mhlongo, R, Kriek, J and Basson I, Multicultural education and technology journal. 5(4) p 288-302, 2011.
  • Explaining across contrasting cases for deep understanding in science: An example using interactive simulations, Chase, C. C., Shemwell, J. T., & Schwartz, D. L., 2010.
  • In-service science teachers’ views about learning physics after a one week workshop, Ramlo, S. & Nicholas, J., Human Subjectivity, 1, pp 109-120, 2010.
  • Teachers’ beliefs and their intention to use interactive simulations in their classrooms, Kriek, J. and Stols, G., South African Journal of Education 30 pp. 439 - 456, 2010.
  • Spatial Learning and Computer Simulations in Science, Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L., International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 419–438, 2009.
  • Student perspectives on learning physics and their relationship with learning force and motion concepts: A study using Q methodology, Ramlo, S., Human Subjectivity, 2, pp 73-90, 2008.
  • Pengembangan Lembar Kerja Siswa Berbasis Inkuiri Melalui Media Virtual PhET Untuk Melatihkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Siswa Pada Materi Pemanasan Global, K. Rohmah, Rachmadiarti F. & Setiawan B., Universitas Negeri Surabaya (Indonesian).
  • Kerja laboratorium Melalui Phet untuk meremediasi miskonsepsi siswa kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Sungai Raya pada materi Hukum Archimedes, Diar Dwi Winarto, Tanjungpura University (Indonesian).
  • Scientific Inquiry in Mathematics: A Case of Implementing Scientific Simulations for Analyzing Problems on Motion., Sokolowski, A..
  • Teachers using interactive simulations to scaffold inquiry instruction in physical science education, Geelan, D.R. & Fan, X., In J. Gilbert and B. Eilam (Eds.) Science Teachers' Use of Visual Representations. Dordrecht: Springer..
  • Action Research Paper for Master's in Interdisciplinary Studies at University of Northern Colorado: The Effect of Computer Simulations on Learning High School Physics, K. Bibbey.
  • Impact of Electronic Simulations on students’ learning in Lebanese 10th Grade Electricity Courses. (Ph.d research), F. Yehya.
  • Comparison between two active methodologies for learning basic electric circuit’s concepts: demonstrative experiments and interactive simulations, D. Lopez.
  • Evaluating a Novel Instructional Sequence for Conceptual Development in Physics Using Interactive Simulations, Fan, X., Geelan, D. & Gillies, R., Submitted to the International Journal of Science Education, Under Review.