The Effects of 3D computer models to academic achievement and spatial ability: Atomic models

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed that is there any effect of 3D computer models on students’ academic achievement and three dimensional thinking and spatial ability. The sample of study consist of 67 second year science education students who attended as Experimental and Control Group in which the unit of Structure of Atom, were taught Primary Science Education Department. Study was grounded on semi-experimental design method. As the data collection instruments, Academic Achievement Test (AAT) and Spatial Visualization Test (SVT) were used. The data obtained on instruments were evaluated by using descriptive statistics, compare tests and effect size. The results of the study indicate that 3D computer models are more effective than traditional teaching method on increasing students’ academic achievement and improving their and spatial abilities.

Keywords

• Model, modeling, model based learning-teaching, 3D computer models, the atom

3D bilgisayar modellerinin akademik başarıya ve uzamsal canlandırmaya etkisi: Atom modelleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, 3D (üç boyutlu) bilgisayar modellerinin Modern Fizik dersi “Atomun Yapısı” ünitesi çerçevesinde Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi 2. Sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına, üç boyutlu düşünebilme ve uzamsal canlandırabilme yeteneklerinin artmasına etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Anabilim Dalında öğrenim gören ikinci sınıflar oluşturmaktadır. Atomun Yapısı ünitesindeki uygulamaya 34’ü Deney, 33’ü Kontrol Grubunu oluşturacak şekilde toplam 67 öğrenci katılmıştır. Araştırmanın deseni, yarı-deneysel ön test–son test kontrol gruplu modele göre dizayn edilmiştir. Araştırmada, verilerin toplanması amacıyla Akademik Başarı Testi (ABT) ve Uzamsal Canlandırma Testi (UCT) kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi için tanımlayıcı istatistikler, karşılaştırma testleri ve kullanılan 3D bilgisayar modellerinin etkilerini hesaplamak amacıyla etki büyüklüğü değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, 3D bilgisayar modelleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen öğretimin, öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını ve üç boyutlu düşünebilme ve uzamsal canlandırma yeteneklerini arttırdığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Model, modelleme, model tabanlı öğretim, 3D bilgisayar modelleri, atom

References

1. Alias, M., Black, T.R. and Gray, D.E. (2002). Effect of instructions on spatial visualization ability in civil engineering students. International Educational Journal, 3, 1, 1–12.
2. Barab, S.A. Hay, K.E. Barnett, M. and Keating, T. (2000) Virtual solar sysytem project: building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 7, 719-756.
3. Bekiroğlu Ogan, F. (2006). Pre-servise physics teachers’ knowledge of models and perceptions of modeling. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Annual GIREP Conference, (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). eric document number: 494979.
4. Bekiroğlu Ogan, F. (2007). Effects of model-based teaching on pre-service physics teachers' conceptions of the moon, moon phases, and other lunar phenomena. International Journal Of Science Education, 29, 5, 555- 593.
5. Bodner, G.M. and Guay, R.B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2, 4, 1- 17.
6. Borges, A.T. and Gilbert, J.K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal Of Science Education, 21, 1, 95-117.
7. Boulter, C.J. and Buckley, B.C. (2000). Constructing a topology for science education In J.K. Gilbert and C.J. Boluter. (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education (pp.41-58). UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Buckley, B.C., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A.C.H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R.F. and Gerlits, B. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn, how do they learn, how do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 1, 23–41.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Deneysel Desenler, Öntest-Sontest Kontrol Grubu Desen ve Veri Analizi. (2. Baskı). Ankara: Pagem A Yayıncılık.
10. Byl, P. and Taylor, J. (2007). A web 2.0/web3d hybrid platform for engaging students in e-learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8, 3, 108-127.
11. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 9, 1041-1053. Dahlqvist, P. (2000). Animations in physics learning. Web: http://people.dsv.su.se/~patricd/Publications/Animations_in_Physics_Learning.pdf alınmıştır. 07.05.2009’da
12. Dalgarno, B., Hedberg, J. and Harper, B. (2002). The contribution of 3D environments to conceptual understanding. Web: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/051.pdf 17.07.2011’de alınmıştır.
13. de Jong, T., Martin, E., Zamarro, J., Esquembre, F., Swaak, J. and van Joolingen, W.R. (1999). The integration of computer simulation and learning support: an example from the physics domain of collisions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 5, 597–615.
14. Dickey, D.M. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of active worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 3, 439-451.
15. Duit, R and Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Teaching, 36, 5, 597-615.
16. Ebenezer, V.J. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 73-91.
17. Frederiksen, J.R., White, B.Y. and Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing dervational linkages among models. Journal of Reserach in Science Teaching, 36, 7, 806-836.
18. Gilbert, J.K. and Boulter, C.B. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin. (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp.53-66). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19. Gobert, J. D. and Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students. epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 1, 7-22.
20. Gobert, J.D. (2000). A topology of casual models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 9, 937–977.
21. Gobert, J.D. and Buckley, B.C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 9, 891 – 894.
22. Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 6, 392–404.
23. Karaçöp, A. (2010). Öğrencilerin elektrokimya ve kimyasal bağlar ünitelerindeki konuları anlamalarına animasyon ve jigsaw tekniklerinin etkileri. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
24. Kim, P. (2006). Effects of 3D virtual reality of plate tectonics on fifth grade students’ achievement and attitude toward science. Interactive Learning Environments. 14, 1, 25-34.
25. Koponen, I.T. (2007). Models and modeling in physics education: a critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science Education, 16, 751–753.
26. Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E.A., Palyvos, J.A. and Spyrellis. N. (2009). 3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: a case study for 8th grade students in Greece. Computers and Education, 52, 2, 390–401.
27. Küçüközer, H., Korkusuz, M.E., Küçüközer, H.A. ve Yürütmezoğlu, K. (2009). The effect of 3d computer modeling and observation-based ınstruction on the conceptual change regarding basic concepts of astronomy in elementary school students. Astronomy Education Review, 8, 1. 1-18.
28. Kwon, O.N. (2003). Fostering spatial visualization ability through web-based virtual-reality program and paperbased program. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2713, 701–706.
29. Linn, M.C. (2003). Technology and science education. Starting points, research programs and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 6, 727–758.
30. Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 1, 89–100.
31. Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 2, 157–176.
32. McMillan, J. H. and Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. (6th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
33. Rosnow, R.L., Rosenthal, R. and Rubin, D.B. (2000). Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation. Psychological science, 11, 6, 446-453.
34. Sanger, M.J. and Badger, S.M. (2001). Using computer-based visualization strategies to improve students’ understanding of molecular polarity and miscibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 10, 1412–1416.
35. Schnotz, W. and Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects of Animations in Multimedia Learning: Why Reduction of Cognitive Load Can Have Negative Results on Learning. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 53, 3, 47-58.
36. Straford, S.J., Krajcik, J. and Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing and testing models of stream ecosystems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 3, 215–234.
37. Taylor, I. Barker, M. and Jones, A. (2003). Promoting mental model building in astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 10, 1205-1225.
38. Treagust, F.D. (2002). Student’s understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal Of Science Education, 24, 4, 357-368.
39. Valanides, N. and Angeli, C. (2008). Learning and teaching about scientific models with a computer modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2, 220–233.
40. Wang, H.C., Chang, C.Y. and Li, T.Y. (2007). The comparative efficacy of 2D- versus 3D-based media design for influencing spatial visualization skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1943–1957.
41. Williams, E.G. and Clement, J.J. (2006). Strategy levels for guiding discussion to promote explanatory model construction in circuit electricity. Physics Education Research Conference 2006. Physics Education Research Conference series, Syracuse, NewYork: July26-27, 883, 169-172.
42. Williamson, V.M. and Jose, T.J. (2008). The effects of a two-year molecular visualization experience on teachers' attitudes, content knowledge, and spatial ability, Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 5, 718-723.
43. Wu, K. and Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 3. 465–492.
44. Young, Y.Y. (2004). A learner-centered approach for training science teachers through virtual reality and 3D visualization technologies: Practical experience for sharing. Conference Paper for The Fourth International Forum on Education Reform (September, 2004).
45. Web:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.4865&rep=rep1&type=pdf 27.05.2011’de alınmıştır.
46. Zhang, B., Liu, X. and Krajcik, J.S. (2006). Expert models and modeling processes associated with a computer- modeling tool. Science Education, 90, 4, 579–604.