2006 - Hennessy, Et Al - Situade Expertise

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]
On: 21 November 2014, At: 09:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Situated Expertise in Integrating Use of

Multimedia Simulation into Secondary
Science Teaching
a a a
Sara Hennessy , Rosemary Deaney & Kenneth Ruthven
a
University of Cambridge , UK
Published online: 23 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Sara Hennessy , Rosemary Deaney & Kenneth Ruthven (2006) Situated Expertise
in Integrating Use of Multimedia Simulation into Secondary Science Teaching, International Journal
of Science Education, 28:7, 701-732, DOI: 10.1080/09500690500404656
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404656
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 28, No. 7, 1 June 2006, pp. 701–732
RESEARCH REPORT
Situated Expertise in Integrating Use of

Multimedia Simulation into Secondary
Science Teaching
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 09:23 21 November 2014
Sara Hennessy*, Rosemary Deaney and Kenneth Ruthven

University of Cambridge, UK
0SaraHennessy
00
Faculty
000002005
International
10.1080/09500690500404656
TSED_A_140448.sgm
0950-0693
Original
Taylor
2005 and
& ofArticle
EducationUniversity
Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
JournalLtd
of Science of CambridgeUKsch30@cam.ac.uk
(online)
Education
This study explored teachers’ pedagogical strategies for using multimedia simulation to structure
and support secondary science teaching. Expertise was investigated across a range of classroom
settings to analyse how specialist knowledge is situated within and adapted to the teaching and
learning context. Analysis of data arising from 10 lesson observations and post-lesson interviews
with five teachers and their pupils highlighted significant variation in pedagogical approaches
shaping simulation use in three topic areas. Two contrasting case studies involving a “terminal
velocity” simulation exemplify this: one was characterized by some “dialogic” whole class interac-
tion and collaborative testing of pupils’ own ideas; the other by a more typical, more authoritative,
discourse with pupil pairs. Over-structuring of tasks and curricular constraints meant that the
rhetoric in the literature and teachers’ aspirations concerning pupil experimentation balanced with
structured tasks were not borne out. Implications for mode of use and the design of technology-
integrated activity are discussed.
Introduction
Rationale for Using Multimedia Simulation of Scientific Processes

The current model of the use of information and communication technologies
(ICT) in school science takes as its starting point the practical investigative
approach. This aims to teach both theoretical content and scientific reasoning
processes. Various forms of ICT potentially enhance this model (McFarlane &
Sakellariou, 2002; Wertsch, 1998). Multimedia simulation (although under-
researched) is considered one of the most powerful applications of ICT to science at
*Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road,

Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UK. Email: sch30@cam.ac.uk
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/06/070701–32

© 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690500404656
702 S. Hennessy et al.
present. It animates and simulates real processes such as motion, photosynthesis,

diffusion, or bonding atoms and allows learners to execute “virtual experiments”
that would be dangerous, costly, or otherwise not feasible in a school laboratory. In
England, the setting for our study, national guidelines for lower secondary science
assert that the use of models and analogies to develop scientific concepts is central:
Pupils can modify rules and variables to explore the science of the model, question,
predict and observe outcomes and test hypotheses. (DfES, 2004, p.18)
Simulation is perceived to “add value” to learning activities in several ways. Devel-

oping understanding of theory through practical work has long been recognized as
problematical. This is because pupils can see only what is happening, and not why the
demands of familiarization with equipment and procedures, taking measurements,

and interpreting data can lead to overload and adoption of a recipe approach
(McFarlane & Sakellariou, 2002). Simulation can potentially overcome some of these
constraints through eliminating the need for handling cumbersome apparatus and
offering simultaneous representations of the physically manifest and theoretically
framed behaviours of the system under investigation (e.g., a dynamically changing
force arrows window adjacent to simulated motion), which reinforces their relation-
ship. Simulating experiments reportedly thus maximizes the use of learning time
(Baggott & Nichol, 1998).
Visualization—incorporating the mental imagery produced in the course of perceiv-
ing an object that is seen or touched—plays a major role in science education (Gilbert,
2005). Visualizing abstract knowledge through manipulating physical phenomena,
viewing the results, and seeking causal explanations is a key “affordance” (perceived
benefit) of simulation that is highlighted throughout the previous research in this area
(reviewed by Osborne & Hennessy, 2003). A recent treatise of design principles for
“multimedia e-learning” by Boyle (2004) describes how “interactive visualisation”
and grounding abstract tasks in terms of familiar objects serve to foster development
of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Moreover, Monaghan and Clement
(1999) found that memory of a motion simulation acted as a “framework for visuali-
sation” of problems solved off-line.
Baggott and Nichol (1998) describe how using simulation allows the possibility of
asking “what if” questions that can be pursued to their conclusion via immediate feed-
back. Simulations can offer genuine interactivity in terms of active learner contribution
and engagement, which may include prediction, trial, and evaluation (Rogers, 2004).
“Open” simulations support this engagement by offering students a substantial degree
of control in manipulating variables themselves (McFarlane & Sakellariou, 2002). For
instance, “open” genetics simulation software can be used to substitute for complex
selective breeding operations over several generations (Soderberg & Price, 2003).
However, students in the studies of “scientific discovery learning” with simulation
reviewed by de Jong and van Joolingen (1998) engaged in unplanned, inefficient, and
inconclusive experimentation. Productive learning requires staged, structured tasks
and systematic experimentation, and generating predictions beforehand and recon-
ciling these with experimental outcomes results in more inquiry learning (Linn, 2004).
Integrating Use of Multimedia Simulation 703
Although development of pupils’ investigative skills is a key objective in science,

use of such open simulations is seemingly in its infancy in the typical secondary
classroom. “Closed” simulation environments (such as the Multimedia Science
School [MSS] ones used in our own study) that concentrate on concept develop-
ment through demonstrating an idealized system are more common. Students can
alter key variables, but only within an acceptable range; the learner thereby has to
infer the underlying theoretical model (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). Closed
simulations thus offer activities that involve learners in “exploring” scientifically
accepted ideas about a topic rather than expressing their own conceptions; this is
powerful in leading learners to confront other viewpoints and to bring their own
ideas to interact with those provided in the model (Mellar & Bliss, 1994). However,
they can absolve the student from any responsibility for the investigative aspects of
the task and for theory building (McFarlane & Sakellariou, 2002). This form of
simulation was likewise criticized by the InterActive Education science team for
being used in a way that reinforces the traditional subject pedagogy through which
scientific inquiry is said to be executed in a “sanitised” and prescribed manner
(Baggott la Velle, McFarlane, John, & Brawn, 2004).
Indeed, the content-overloaded and formulaic science curriculum and assessment
structures that fuel prevailing classroom practice in the United Kingdom and else-
where in the world (e.g., Gray, 1999; House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee, 2002; NRC, 1996) appear to clash with the culture of student explora-
tion, collaboration, debate, and interactivity within which much technology-
supported activity generally is said to take place (Schofield, 1995). For instance, we
previously noted a marked lack of reference by science teachers to trialling and
refinement of ideas with ICT, compared with English and mathematics teachers
(Ruthven, Hennessy, & Brindley, 2004). Could this reflect the significant shift
observed by Hacker and Rowe (1997) towards a more transmissive mode of teaching
and persistence of an entrenched “memorisation” model of knowledge acquisition in
science? The systemic subject culture may thus simply subsume new technologies
such as simulation environments and interactive whiteboards by using them mainly
for whole class demonstration.
The majority of science teachers now recognize the benefits of using ICT. The
greatest effects of the UK’s national inservice training programme are evident where
it included software applications like MSS (Ofsted, 2002), which the major training
agency provided for participating schools. However, it is unclear whether the poten-
tial of using interactive simulation has yet been widely exploited. The InterActive
Education interview study concludes that “pragmatic incorporation into existing
modes of working was the predominant response” to the challenge presented by ICT
from the five volunteer teachers (Baggott la Velle et al., 2004). While one would
expect the use of simulation to be shaped by the established culture, in this study we
examined whether recommended, enthusiastic, and confident practitioners with
well-developed and reflective pedagogical thinking about integrating ICT use are
beginning to transcend conventional practice by encouraging more learning through
systematic experimentation in their classrooms and laboratories.
Linking Simulation Use, Theory and Practical Work

Although simulations can provide a virtual alternative to practical work in some situ-
ations, using ICT is not perceived—by pupils, teachers, or educators—as a sufficient
replacement for other activities. To appreciate fully the substantial differences
between the real and simulated worlds, pupils are thought to need to experience
both, and complementary use is often stressed (e.g., Wellington, 2004). Handling a
physical model or employing visual aids can enhance learning during simulation-
supported activity; our previous interviews with science and technology teachers
indicated that “hands-on” experiences are highly valued (Hennessy, Ruthven, &
Brindley, 2005). Moreover, rather than using the technology in isolation, the prod-
ucts of simulation-based activity can be explicitly linked with other class activities
before, during, and after the computer-based lesson (Finlayson & Rogers, 2003;
Hennessy et al., 1995). This means that practical demonstration and development
of pupils’ investigative skills retain some importance.
There is wide variation in views about the timing of practical work and of introduc-
ing, exploring, and consolidating scientific concepts in the context of simulation use.
The technology is often used to follow up and apply theory so that students are first
familiar with key concepts, terms, or procedures (Barton & Still, 2004). Some teachers
prefer all feasible experiments to be carried out manually first; conversely, virtual
experiments can be used for prediction and planning before practical work (Walker,
2002). Teacher perceptions of this complex relationship between theory, “hands-on”,
and computer methods are investigated in the current research study.
Supporting Pupil Learning with Simulations

Simulations and virtual experiments offer a further major advantage over far less
predictable laboratory experiments in that they represent “cleaned-up” versions of
the complex and messy real world (e.g., Newton & Rogers, 2001). This idealiza-
tion is helpful in reducing error and focusing attention on particular abstract
concepts or isolating variables that are normally combined. However, it is also
linked with invisible, unquestionable, often simplified models of a scientific process
that give students the impression that every variable is easily controlled. Pupils
seem to attribute a great deal of authority to the computer and may develop
misconceptions by taking animations and images of abstract concepts too literally
(Wellington, 2004). Complementary use of practical investigation and simulation
are helpful here, but the well-established literature on pupils’ prior conceptions
and experiences (Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Osborne, 1985) indicates
the importance of activities that additionally make implicit reasoning explicit so as
to highlight any inconsistency. The teacher plays a critical role here in intervening
to discuss and challenge pupils’ own ideas. This role is subsumed within current
subject pedagogy and national curriculum initiatives (e.g., DfES, 2004), which
encourage teachers to employ mini-plenaries to quickly identify and address
misconceptions and to use pupils’ errors as teaching points. Teachers might also
highlight the limitations of computer models themselves (Wishart et al., reported

in Hennessy et al., in press).
The teacher’s role is thus critical in terms of structuring tasks and questioning in
ways that prompt pupils using simulation to think about underlying concepts and
relationships, and to reason, hypothesize and interpret for themselves (Soderberg &
Price, 2003). It involves being available when learners are most receptive to guid-
ance, helping them to reformulate their thinking by rationalizing explanation with
everyday knowledge (Parker, 2004), and leading the post-activity discussion deemed
particularly important in simulation-based lessons:
Those issues, concepts and procedures covered in the simulation must be aired in order
to set the real context, as well as to consolidate these. (Baggott & Nichol, 1998,
pp. 267–268)
How these aims are most effectively addressed is open to debate and was also
examined in our study.
Situated Pedagogical Expertise

The research literature indicates that teachers’ pedagogical expertise—their largely
intuitive, specialist “knowledge in action”—is situated within and finely tuned to the
teaching and learning setting; it is shaped by the structuring resources available in
the situation (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988). Specifically, scientific
knowledge is restructured and recontextualized (Wynne, 1991), and pedagogical
expertise is adapted to the constraints imposed and the affordances offered when
educational technologies such as simulation are introduced (Wertsch, 1998).
Our definition of “pedagogical expertise” in this context draws on Shulman’s
notion of pedagogical content knowledge, which includes “the ways of representing
and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible” to students (Shulman,
1986, p. 9). This notion also encompasses the teacher’s awareness of learners’ char-
acteristics and understandings, knowledge of the difficulties typically encountered in
the process of learning about a particular topic, and potential strategies for overcom-
ing them. Moreover, the teacher must be familiar with both “the tools of the trade
and the contextual conditions that will either facilitate or inhibit teaching efforts”
(Shulman, 1987, p. 10). Tools can be digital or non-digital, and in this case they
included the MSS simulations plus the worksheets and teacher guide accompanying
them. It is recognized that all such tools embody theories of their use (Cole, 1988).
Indeed, Segall (2004) asserts that since content and pedagogy are inseparable and
inter-related, pedagogy may be shaped before the activity reaches the classroom.
Our own investigation of ICT use employed a definition of pedagogical expertise
that incorporated the following:
● Cognisance of the positive (and negative) affordances of tools designed to support
learning with simulation in a particular topic domain.
● Understanding of how these might be successfully exploited (or overcome) to
support teaching and learning within that domain.
● Recognition that such expertise might be adapted for particular groups of learners
and to a particular educational context.
The study initially selected participants on this basis and then endeavoured to elabo-
rate our understanding of this kind of expertise. (To this end, we also solicited the
student perspective of the lessons we observed.) Note that there are no clear func-
tional boundaries between this—pedagogical content knowledge—component of
expertise on which we focus and the depth of a practitioner’s subject knowledge, the
pedagogical content knowledge that underpinned their effective teaching of the topic
before the introduction of ICT, and their classroom practice.
Aims of the Research

The study reported here investigated how proficient teachers structure and support
learning with a popular simulation environment, MSS.1 Our goals were:
1. To document the strategies that are evolving for exploiting the affordances of
simulation software to support science teaching, to describe typical modes of
simulation use and strategies for its integration with other teaching and learning
activities, and to elicit the rationale behind different kinds of teacher support
and intervention.
2. To examine practitioners’ expertise across a range of classroom settings and to
investigate situational adaptation—to different pedagogical approaches, exter-
nally regulated curriculum demands, pupil characteristics, technical and learn-
ing resources available, and the physical constraints of the setting.
3. To investigate, and ultimately clarify, how simulation can be used to increase
students’ opportunities for learning through guided participation in investigative
activities within particular classroom settings.
Design and Methods

This study formed part of a larger research project2 examining the integration of ICT
into the mainstream practice of secondary mathematics and science education, with
a particular focus on the associated pedagogical thinking of successful practitioners.
In the first phase of the project, a process of multiple recommendation and refer-
ence (informed by academic colleagues, subject advisors, practitioners, and school
inspection reports) was used to identify subject departments regarded as relatively
successful, particularly in terms of the integration of ICT into their practice. To
identify what practitioners themselves regarded as examples of successful practice,
semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with key ICT users (includ-
ing some recommended individuals) within 10 science departments during the
2002/03 school year. Through a process of review, a smaller number of practices
were selected for more intensive subsequent investigation; use of multimedia
simulations emerged as one such promising practice. While many science simula-
tions are available, focus group participants consistently nominated as successful
those practices that incorporated use of MSS tools (probably because these had been
widely distributed to secondary schools as part of a national training programme in
using technology in science). These simulations were therefore used in all of the
cases selected for study in Phase 2, although their mode of use differed between
practitioners, as elaborated later.
In the second, case study, phase (conducted during 2003/04), teachers whose
pedagogical thinking was well developed, and who had been particularly articulate
about exploiting the affordances of simulation to support learning, were invited to
help the researchers gain greater insight. The aim was to work with several teachers
engaged in the same practice, in different settings, varied by school, pupil group, and
topic. Specific lesson scheduling meant that eventually not all of these teachers were
available. The final case study portfolio comprised five practitioners in three schools,
one of whom was a recently qualified, but enthusiastic and articulate, protagonist of
ICT use, working within a department where ICT was well established. Each was
observed twice, teaching the same topic to different classes in the same year group
(see Table 1). Topics included terminal velocity, diffusion and osmosis, and light
mixing. MSS simulations (comprising a series of “slides” for each scenario) were
used across cases.
Post-lesson semi-structured interviews were designed to elicit teachers’ thoughts
about key actions in making the use of ICT successful. A series of printed prompt
cards was displayed and discussed in sequence. Their use was intended both to
provide participants with a focus for reflection and reference, and to standardize
data collection within and across cases. Where possible, six students (boys and girls,
teacher-selected from across the academic range) were interviewed after each lesson.
Prompt cards invited their thoughts on what they learned about the topic, what they
found difficult, how using ICT may have helped, and what the teacher did to help
them learn. Observation and interview techniques were piloted with two science
teachers and their pupils.
All three schools were mixed-sex, state-funded 11–18 colleges (two had Technol-
ogy specialist status). School W enjoyed an exceptionally high level of ICT resource
provision and had a distinctive ethos in which students and staff shared facilities on
an equal basis and student-centred approaches to teaching and learning were
emphasized. The most recent report by the national inspection agency (Ofsted)
reported that “frequent and effective” use of ICT was “well embedded in practice”
here and that “teachers in all subjects … use it effectively to support learning”.
Teaching of science at ages 11–14 was highlighted as being “particularly strong”. At
school J, use of ICT in science was reported to be “very well integrated into schemes
of work” and employed “particularly effectively” by practitioners whose “dynamic
teaching inspires students”. Inspection comments at school D again pointed to
“particularly effective” use of ICT by science teachers.
Lesson observations and post-lesson interviews were audio-taped and transcribed.
Transcripts were analysed through an iterative process of constant comparison
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), starting with open coding of a teacher’s ideas about a
particular lesson, proceeding to coding across lessons, resulting in the thematic
Table 1. Characteristics of lessons observed
Lesson (school/ Class Science Mode of simulation

teacher/occasion) (year, set) topic use Lesson activities
W/G/1 11, Terminal Projected display; Simulation activity; short plenary

mixed velocity teacher-led whole class questions and answers
discussion; worksheet
W/G/2 11, Terminal Pairwork at single Introduction (whole class) with
mixed velocity machines; worksheetprojected PowerPoint slides; pairs
used simulation; short plenary
D/K/1 9, upper Terminal Projected display; Whole class data-logging activity
velocity teacher-led whole class (distance/time graphs); simulation
discussion generating speed/time graphs;
terminal velocity simulation;

plenary quiz
D/TK/2 9, high Terminal Projected display; Whole class data-logging activity
velocity teacher-led whole class (distance/time graphs); terminal
discussion velocity simulation; plenary written
exercise
J/A/1 8, upper Splitting Pairwork with laptops Demonstration of splitting light
and mixing with prism; practical work in pairs;
light plenary introducing light mixing;
demonstration using coloured
torches; whole class discussion with
worksheet; use of simulation; short
plenary
J/A/2 8, middle Splitting Pairwork with laptops; As above
and mixing worksheet
light
J/R/1 10, high Diffusion Projected display; Pupils copy definition of osmosis;
and teacher-led whole class teacher shows practical model;
osmosis discussion of whole class discussion of
worksheet answers worksheet, referring to projected
Note. Pupils used simulation
simulation on laptops
and began worksheet
in previous lesson
J/R/2 10, Diffusion Projected display; Teacher shows practical model;
middle and teacher-led whole class pupils copy definition of osmosis;
osmosis discussion of whole class discussion as above
worksheet answers
D/C/1 10, low Diffusion Individual/pair work at Practical demonstration of
and PCs; worksheet; notes diffusion; use of simulation
osmosis generated in Word (diffusion); brief introduction to
osmosis slides; simulation use
continued; plenary
D/C/2 10, high Diffusion Individual/pair work at Introductory whole class
and PCs; worksheet; notes discussion; use of simulation; short
osmosis generated in Word plenary
Note. Teachers and lessons are identified throughout the text by (anonymized) identifiers in this format. Note
that “FG” refers to focus group rather than case study interviews. “P” refers to pupil interviews.
organization of ideas. The naturalistic tradition of research underpinning the theo-

retical orientation of this study seeks to access the complex “craft knowledge” of
practitioners, through eliciting teacher accounts and interpretations of their own
pedagogic practices, implicit theories, and responses to evolving situations (Brown &
McIntyre, 1993). Investigating pupils’ perspectives, hitherto relatively untapped,
along with scrutiny of the researchers’ observation notes and the earlier departmen-
tal focus groups, provided triangulation and extension of teachers’ accounts. These
sources were used to refine analysis of some themes.
A critical methodological issue in case study research is the tension between
context-specific pedagogies—developed for specific pupil groups (e.g., by age,
subject, and technological capability), and adapted to particular school, departmen-
tal, and subject cultures—and a desire for wider generalizability. The analytic tradi-
tion in the case study literature (Yin, 1998) advocates analysis across multiple cases
plus complementary analysis within cases, and across multiple data sources. Draw-
ing on this, we conducted analyses both within and across the simulation cases.3
These served to identify generalizable pedagogic principles plus situationally specific
ways of realizing ideas shared by different practitioners engaged in similar practices.
Teachers’ Rationale for Using Simulations

Participating teachers described a range of ways in which they perceived simulations
to support science learning, and these corroborated the key affordances reported in
the literature. Typically, their goals were to get across “principles” and “ideas”,
establish “understanding”, and encourage pupils to “think a little bit more deeply”.
All of the teachers regarded simulations as providing models that helped pupils to
visualize the physical phenomena being studied. Animation and dynamic representa-
tion of changing relationships were viewed as key features that facilitated pupils’
understanding of processes and abstract concepts considered otherwise difficult for
the teacher to explain and for the pupils to grasp: “what is actually quite difficult to
get across verbally is there in front of them” (R1). Terminal velocity was one such
example:
You start drawing things on the board, and you’re rubbing out arrows, and you’re
saying “Right, that’s increasing, the arrow’s getting bigger and bigger.” And it’s very
difficult for the kids to see and to record in their notes. So I would be … rubbing things
out and changing things, but I know for a lot of learners that … would confuse, because
it is a dynamic, changing model … (K2)
For other topics, such as diffusion and osmosis, dynamic visualization helped to
build up a conceptual picture systematically:
They could picture it … they can sort of discover it as they go along, and they actually
build on one concept and then sort of go a bit further … as you move through the
slides. (C2)
Three teachers noted how the highly simplified, idealized scenarios were helpful in
constraining the domain, by “limiting the opportunities” and “focusing on what’s
really important”. Several teachers and pupils felt that these also provided memorable
images that “stick in your mind” for recall in future learning or assessment.
Simulations also offered consistent and repeatable results—in contrast with less
reliable outcomes from practical work in some topic areas. They added value by
complementing and overcoming further drawbacks of practical work and textbook-
based activities; for example, enabling investigations to take place within the
classroom that would otherwise be too dangerous, or difficult to observe (e.g.,
radioactivity). The opportunity afforded for exploration and experimentation was a
further important element of teachers’ rationale. Teachers viewed extant explor-
atory use of the software (usually guided by worksheet prompts) as assisting pupils’
own development of scientific theory.
Designing Activity to Support Learning with simulation

Preparing Resources
During post-lesson interviews teachers described their thoughts on preparing the
observed lessons. One common theme was the necessity of thorough familiarization
with navigation and content of the software in order to develop “adept” classroom
use of simulations. This involved trialling the software to identify potential opera-
tional difficulties, features to prioritize, and areas where learning points might easily
be missed. Three teachers also adapted resources by selecting “key” slides or custom-
izing accompanying worksheets to suit particular groups.
Integrating Simulation with Other Teaching and Learning

The pattern of integrating simulations with other lesson activities varied between
teachers, reflecting the timing, purpose, and mode of use of software within the
lesson series. In one observed lesson (C1) the simulation was used as a platform to
introduce and illustrate the concept under study. In remaining lessons, use of the
simulation was intended to build more directly on previous work, or to offer reinforce-
ment. All but one of the teachers observed used a plenary session to consolidate
learning with simulations. Prompting students to make links and assimilate new
knowledge with prior learning was considered particularly important, although
associations were not always made explicit:
I made a point [in both lessons] of talking about … the way the water particles are
attracted to the larger molecules and hopefully … they’ll start to think about the reasons
why. And I didn’t make explicit links but … there’s always an overlap into different
areas, and if you can see that and make use of it, even if it’s just to … prompt them to
think about making the links themselves, then I think it’s important to do that. (R2)
Consensus about the complementary role of practicals and the importance of linking
examples with real life experience was expressed both in focus group and post-lesson
interviews. Far from co-opting technology to dispense with practical work, all of the
case study teachers felt that simulations and experiments could be used together in a
powerful way, enabling pupils to see simultaneously “what’s happening in the real
world and what’s happening on the microscopic scale as well”. C pointed to the
benefits of using simulations either to introduce or “get an idea” of practical work
beforehand, or afterwards to offer insight into, or support description of, the demon-
strated/observed processes:
I guess they could explain it perhaps, or draw drawings of what’s happening in terms of
particles. Or they could describe it … in detail, for each of the different solutions. (C2)
All five teachers employed visual aids or practical demonstrations in conjunction

with the simulation in at least one lesson. For example, Teacher C involved pupils in
a demonstration of diffusion using an aerosol spray, as a prelude to discussion of
random movement of molecules, expounded through use of the simulation. Teacher

R modelled osmosis by displaying an egg reduced through immersion in strong
saline solution, prior to whole class discussion of the osmosis simulation. Follow-up
practical work was planned for both reinforcement (for “those that already
understand”) and remediation (doing “a little bit of one-to-one work” with the
others [R2]). Teacher A’s lesson started with a practical demonstration of splitting
light with a prism, which pupils repeated themselves. He then used three torches to
show how beams of red, blue, and green light could be mixed to form white light,
and pupils used the simulation to investigate the effects of mixing different light
combinations.
Mode of Use and Situational Adaptation

There was some variation in the mode of simulation use during lessons, as shown in
Table 1. Two teachers (A and C) combined a mixture of individual or pair work at
desktop/laptop machines with whole class teaching in both lessons, and a third
teacher (G) did so in one lesson. She and two other teachers used projected simula-
tions and whole class teaching in the remaining lessons observed. Teacher G favoured
doing so sometimes because it facilitated classroom management by maintaining pupils’
attention and avoiding distraction by their exploration of software features. Two of the
teachers using individual machines would ideally have liked to employ projection, one
for the same reasons (“they can’t resist pressing the buttons” [C1]) and one in order
to convene a subsequent class discussion of worksheet answers.
Another reason given by one teacher for favouring the whole class approach
related to the variation in pupils’ technical skills, which could create considerable
additional demands on the teacher during hands-on sessions. It was also asserted by
three teachers that demonstration alone was less likely to maintain the interest of
“lower ability” pupils for whom structured, “hands-on” activity was seen as prefera-
ble, although time consuming and thus not always practicable. Notwithstanding the
reported advantages of whole class approaches, teachers also noted that hands-on
use enabled pupils to “guide their own pace” and develop understanding by “playing
it again and again”. Self-regulated learning (mainly guided by worksheets) was a
feature of all five hands-on sessions.
Organizational constraints included the time of day of the lesson. In one school a
meal break occurring half-way through Teacher G’s second lesson “provide[d] a
natural break to move between two different focuses” and led to her decision to
employ the software in “interactive” mode with pupil pairs in this particular lesson
(see case studies). A further related influence on this teacher and others concerned
the ability to prepare resources and set up equipment where a break occurred just
before the lesson: “otherwise you can’t physically do it—because the kids are rioting
before you’re ready to start” (J/FG).
Balancing Experimentation with Structured Activity

Although some teachers were conscious of pupils potentially being distracted by too
much freedom to interact with simulations, there was also agreement that investiga-
tion and confrontation of their own ideas was important, and that the design
constraints of some simulations could potentially inhibit learners here.
Four teachers described how they were supporting pupil experimentation and
exploiting opportunities for hands-on use and pupils working at their own pace,
simply by allowing pupils to interact with the simulation during the activities
provided:
Pupils can say to themselves “What happens if I remove the yellow light?” Whereas if
I’m demonstrating it, then … it’s kind of much more didactic … I think part of the
motivation about using computers is that freedom of, you know, they can make the
decision to do something first, and then see what happens, rather than just getting
spoon fed. (A1–2)
Pupils were reportedly manipulating variables for themselves: “fiddling and seeing
what the effects are” (G/FG). Simultaneously, the importance of providing structure
was strongly emphasized by three teachers; it sometimes emerged from trialling of a
“too open-ended” approach (Teacher A). Teacher C described pupils as needing
both “room to test some of their own ideas” and “boundaries”. This is essential for
working towards very specific learning objectives and for “low ability groups”, who,
according to Teacher R, need to feel a sense of control but ideally require a limit on
“the amount of variables that they can input” and a “worksheet that guides them
without being very restrictive”.
A variety of further strategies was employed by the teachers to achieve the desired
balance. Teacher R asserted that an effective way of getting a concept across is to
“let them play with the IT stuff and then to go over it as a question-and-answer
discussion”. Teacher A was concerned about retaining control over the learning
experience and “what the pupils are exposed to, what sort of information” (both with
and without ICT). His role was described as “being there to sort of modify the
experience … not just to let them have free rein”. He considered that he had “more
control over what they’re doing” during practical work where he could see immedi-
ately how pupils were progressing, and where the physical setting yielded fewer
constraints:
One disadvantage of using the simulation on the laptops is that you can’t just glance
around and instantly see what everyone’s doing. You have to actually walk round and …
kind of talk things through. (A1–2)
In practice, we observed very little of the experimentation that teachers desired to

foster. However, two teachers specifically emphasized allowing pupils to “play” with
variables as an inherent part of learning about some of the processes of “doing”
science:
I think that’s what the whole idea is. And very often the underlying concept or principle
is something… that nobody understands anyway. So for example … you could have a
simulation of a magnet, but nobody really knows why the magnets are kind of attracting
each other. And I think, I think that’s what scientists do. They manipulate or play with
variables, that’s quite good description of science. (A1–2)
There is an apparent tension here—between the philosophy expressed by this

teacher and his need to retain control—which was echoed in our observations of
other cases too. The professed desire for pupil experimentation did not seem to
strongly influence pedagogical approaches to using ICT, since three of the five
teachers employed highly structured and directive MSS worksheets that acted as mediat-
ing artefacts in framing pupils’ interactions with the software. These worksheets
included explanations, diagrams, and questions purporting “to lead students
towards a better understanding of the topics covered”. They typically required
pupils to carry out a particular action using specified variable settings, and to
observe, record, and sometimes explain the results. A sample task was:
Start the animation again from 10s. Watch the force values. Pause it at 20s. What are
the values of the forward force and the friction when you reach a constant velocity?
A fourth teacher (Teacher A) devised his own worksheet (on splitting and mixing
light) that provided a framework for pupils’ investigation of the effects of combining
coloured light sources during both practical and simulation activities. This
contained a diagram with overlapping segments that required pupils to trial different
combinations in order to label it.
Teachers recognized the “restrictive” nature of the worksheet tasks but seemed
unwilling to relinquish much of their tight control over the activities; Teacher R
would ideally
broaden it and give them the feeling that perhaps they’d got more play time but in effect
they probably wouldn’t have …
It was important to him that pupils were “more in control” and “the constraints on
what they can do perhaps less obvious”— rather than lifted. Pupils themselves
reported that they would like to have had more time to explore the software:
I wanted to have a look at what happened if you put three different colours through two
glasses apart, see what would have happened then with the different colour because it
gets lighter and weaker, the light. (A2/P)
The question arises of how far teachers and pupils were channelled by the simulation
materials themselves into the kind of highly structured use observed. As mentioned
earlier, the suite of MSS simulations is accompanied by worksheet activities. According

to the Teacher’s Guide,4 these are designed to “offer semi-independent learning”
where students work at the computer, “exploring at their own pace” while the teacher
circulates, “helping and questioning”. This explicitly assumes that all students have
access to a computer, although:
MSS is designed to be flexible—you can adapt it to fit your preferred way of teaching
and … ICT facilities in your school. With just a single machine, you can offer students
“turns” or lead a very useful discussion. (MSS Teacher’s Guide, p. 4)
It is significant that the teacher notes for each MSS simulation tool also state that
“the worksheet should drive the activity”, as this is exactly what we observed in most
cases. There is a degree of customizability of both simulation slides and worksheets
available,5 yet most teachers appeared to have lacked the time or inclination to
exploit this facility (beyond omitting some worksheet tasks for certain pupil groups).
One individual told us:
It has the facility there to make your own slides and sort of customise it for what you
want, which is fantastic, but we don’t have the time in order to do that. (R2)
The impact of worksheet mediation is elaborated further in the following section,

where we describe two case studies in which teachers controlled and structured
activity in very different ways and to varying degrees.
Exploiting Interactivity: Two contrasting case studies of simulation use

We focus on two teachers, K and G (in separate schools),6 each teaching the second
of two observed lessons on terminal velocity, incorporating the MSS simulation on
that topic (and additional ICT tools). The simulation offered two optional scenarios
that were regarded by these teachers as particularly helpful in aiding pupils’ under-
standing of the concept of balanced forces:
Terminal velocity is a classic one where the kids do find it so hard to understand that an
object moving at a constant speed has balanced forces acting on it … and they can see
bicycles and parachutes displayed with force arrows on and how they change; how for
instance a parachutist jumps out of a plane and you see the gravity arrow being there
and being big from the start and the arrow growing and a graph plotting the speed until
it comes to the constant speed—so that’s a real good one for visualisation, you know, for
seeing things you wouldn’t see in an experiment. (K/FG)
Trying to show the fact that friction increases with acceleration, is a very difficult
concept. So just, such simple things as having a couple of arrows, and the numbers
increasing or decreasing depending on the situation, really makes quite a big difference.
(G1)
Teacher G also told us that:

As a non-specialist of that subject, it’s an immensely helpful way because I haven’t got
stories. With chemistry and biology I’ve got stories and pictures, and ways to relate and
draw the mind into things.
Both lessons took place towards the end of the respective modules of study, but
the precise teaching and learning aims differed. Whereas Teacher K’s primary aim
was to consolidate and extend learning by asking pupils to “consider how forces
affect motion … be predictive and apply learning in other contexts”, Teacher G
wanted her students to “learn about speed, velocity, acceleration and terminal
velocity through manipulating the simulation, … to really build some ideas and then
compound them”.
Teacher K’s lesson began with an interactive data-logging activity in which pupils
emulated distance/time graphs, followed by whole class discussion focusing on the
projected simulation. During the short plenary he dictated brief notes (in the form of
a “fill-in-the-blanks” summary) on terminal velocity before checking answers with
the whole class.

Teacher G’s lesson began with whole class discussion around PowerPoint slides,
projected onto an interactive whiteboard, depicting a “classic” investigation of free-
fall, followed by a brief recap on the concepts of speed, acceleration, and velocity.
During the second phase, students worked collaboratively in pairs at desktop
computers (situated in two dedicated areas located some distance apart), using the
simulation in conjunction with worksheets. The whole group finally reconvened for
a short plenary question-and-answer session.
Teacher K’s use of the simulation as a whole class teaching tool and Teacher G’s
deployment of the simulation as a hands-on activity (with supporting work-
sheets) broadly typify the two main modes of use observed across the five cases (see
Table 1). In the following sections these contrasting approaches are explored and
exemplified with reference to the detailed accounts presented in Table 2 of episodes
drawn from audio transcripts of the two case study lessons. The two accounts are
placed in the same table for convenience but note that direct line-by-line comparison
is not intended.
Worksheet-driven Pupil Activity versus Whole Class Interactive Teaching

Use of projected simulation of a parachutist’s descent by Teacher K in a whole class
interactive teaching mode was notable for the absence of worksheets and for being the
only case where prediction or “what if” kinds of exploration were observed. The
excerpt of his second lesson in Table 2 illustrates how the teacher invited pupils to
conjecture about the forces acting on a body in simulated freefall, and praised
pupils’ theories that air resistance and gravity will be equal (lines 1–3) and that air
resistance acts only when a body is in motion (lines 4–6). He discussed these ideas
around the simulation and used analogy to support their development (lines 6–10).
Two further pupil hypotheses about the effect of equal forces were corroborated
and elaborated by the teacher (lines 11–14), who went on to ask the class to predict
(and vote on) what would happen in terms of forces acting on the body when the
parachute opens (lines 15–20). The class then tested this collaboratively with the
teacher questioning and probing pupils, explaining and interpreting what was happening
as he manipulated the simulation (lines 23–26). Their consensus prediction was
Table 2. Excerpts from two contrasting lessons on terminal velocity
Teacher K, lesson 2 Teacher G, lesson 2
1 K: This guy, he’s just jumped out of the hot-air balloon […] Any other 1 Phase 1. G refers to problems 11 and 12:
forces acting on him at the moment? … Paul, you did mention air
resistance. Is there air resistance just for that fraction when he’s
stationary …?
2 Paul: Yeah … Would the air resistance and gravity be equal? • Problem 11. What is the difference between velocity and speed?
3 K: Good idea … A very good theory. John? • Problem 12. A model train travels at a constant speed of 3 cm/s
around its track. What is the train’s velocity at points A, B, C and
D?
4 John: He wouldn’t have any until he starts speeding up. 2 G: Chaps, can I just explain something to you. Those of you that
have questions 11 and 12 … to state from a speed to a velocity, you
need to say the direction it’s moving in. So … in a circular track the
speed stays constant but the velocity constantly changes because it’s
moving in a constantly differing direction. So at any one fixed point,
as long as you state the direction, you state the velocity. So it’d be 3m/
sec North at A. […]
5 K: … At the moment we are sitting and standing still. Do you have air 3 Phase 2 [G circulating]. G: He starts off, accelerates, notice the air
resistance on you at the moment? resistance, counterforce has to build up, stops accelerating.
6 P: No. K: We don’t, no […] Right, watch very carefully what happens 4 P: Is that terminal velocity? G: yes.
now then when I tell this bloke to go, when I actually let gravity get to
work on him … what’s this third force at the top?
7 P: Air resistance. 5 [G helps another pair, telling them to restart the simulation] G: He
accelerates; until the two forces become equal, that’s terminal
velocity.
8 K: … Good. Why is it getting bigger all the time? 6 G [speaks to another pupil]: Velocity is increasing here, however …
pedal power … air resistance is building up, as he accelerates, the
opposite force builds up until it plateaus and he reaches terminal
velocity. P: He’s not moving.
9 P: Speeding up. 7 [G tells P not to keep changing the slope]. G: Try to stay focused.
Answer the questions, go back to the beginning, do it properly. You
have 20 mins. to complete it all.
Table 2. (Continued.)
10 K: Because he’s speeding up, good. Just like the force of air on your 8 [G repeats to this P her earlier statement that as the cyclist
hand in a car. If you are driving along at 30 mph in the car, the forces accelerates, wind resistance builds up, air resistance]: he starts slowing
are very big … at 70 mph, the force is much bigger. The faster he goes down … however when the two forces cancel, you notice that velocity
the bigger that force of air resistance is. stops increasing, it remains constant, that’s terminal velocity.
11 P1: Sir, if they’re both the same, wouldn’t he just stop? 9 [P asks inaudible question]. G: Yes, he can pedal more but that’s
not the point … The forward force acting on the bike makes it
accelerate.
12 K: … A very good theory. 10 P: That’s acceleration.
13 P2: Wouldn’t the speed stay the same? 11 G: That makes it accelerate.
14 K: In fact you are both right … When the forces are equal, an object 12 P: Friction is a force which acts as?
will either remain stationary or it will move at a constant speed. [K
points to a pencil case] The forces on this pencil case right now are
balanced; gravity is pulling down … the table is pushing up … with an
equal and opposite force and so the pencil case is just remaining
stationary. But what can also be the case is if the speeding up force, for
instance, gravity, is equal to the slowing down force, for instance air
resistance, then an object will continue to move at a constant speed. So
balanced forces do give us a constant speed.
[Discussion of gravity, mass and weight] 13 G: Opposite.
15 K: I’m going to open the parachute in just a moment, but not until 14 [G sits next to pair of girls talking about task]. G: This is a more
we’ve made a good prediction as to what will happen. … What do you streamlined chap so it takes longer for the opposite force to build up;
reckon will happen, in terms of forces, when I open the parachute? he is pedalling harder too … Twice the pedal power produces twice
the final terminal velocity. […]
16 P: There’ll be more air resistance. 15 G: The force acting in the opposite direction, that’s reducing your
acceleration.
17 K: … Good. Anything else? P: [inaudible].
18 P: Will he go up a bit more, because of the up thrust? G: Here he’s applying 100N of force to his pedals so his velocity is
rising, that’s called acceleration. At this point he is ceasing to
Integrating Use of Multimedia Simulation
accelerate. The opposite force is maximum speed as two forces cancel,

so he can now no longer accelerate.
717
19 K: What do you mean by ‘Go up’? Explain what you mean. 16 G: Don’t forget to label your axes and put a title [on graph]. [Most
pupils have v–t graphs of cyclist on screens showing results for two
different pedal force values.]
20 P: A lot of the air will be caught because he’s coming down so fast … 17 G: Jenny, you’re not getting sidetracked are you?
21 K: OK, right … we’ve got a theory here that I want you to consider. 18 [10 mins. later, pupils return to classroom.]
So the parachutist is falling downwards, opens the parachute and then

suddenly he starts going up. Now what do you reckon? A’s saying at first
he’ll go up a bit. P: He’ll go up a bit. […]
22 K: Do you know, we’ve got an inbuilt misconception that a lot of 19 Phase 3. G to class: OK, very quickly, to recap … Richard, can you
people have until they study Physics, and it’s because of TV … the only describe what terminal velocity means?
way you can see [skydivers] on TV is if somebody is filming them. So
you’ve got one bloke dropping and another bloke with a camera
dropping as well. And then when the bloke opens his parachute, the
camera continues to drop at the same rate, whereas this bloke who’s just
opened his parachute, slows down. So suddenly the bloke who’s opened
the parachute disappears off the top of the screen. See what I mean? […]
K: So it looks like on telly when people open parachutes that they shoot 20 R: When you’re going at a steady speed and forces are balanced.
upwards. Well that actually isn’t the case, it’s just because the camera
continues to drop downwards, and we’ll see that now, that doesn’t
actually happen. […]
23 K: OK … Let’s set him off dropping. So initially just weight acting 21 G: Excellent, the power force pushing you forward and resistance
on him, you can see air resistance there, getting bigger and bigger and force. David, how might we, without increasing the power, increase
bigger, and here we go, we’re just about to open the parachute, watch the terminal velocity?
very carefully, let’s have a quick prediction, what’s going to happen to
the gravity, to the weight force? Any ideas? OK, let’s vote. Put your
hand up … who goes with stay the same? OK, put your hand up please
if it’s going to get bigger? [over half the group respond] Put your hand
up if it’s going to get smaller. OK. The weight force, well I’ll tell you
what, let’s just watch it. [Pupils watch screen as parachutist falls and K
presses button to activate parachute] […]
24 K: Let’s get it up to a constant speed. Do you know what the 22 D: Decrease the friction.
constant speed is called when the force of weight is equal to air
resistance? Yes?
25 P: Terminal velocity? 23 G: Excellent, and how might I do that?
26 K: Very good. So we’re going to wait until he reaches his terminal 24 D: By decreasing the drag.
velocity, his max speed (where the speeding up force equals the slowing
down force) and watch that air resistance force. [Pupils watch again; K
activates parachute]
27 K: Now isn’t that bizarre? It’s actually where it was—and we all said 25 G: How would I do that?
it was going to go up. [Ps asked to describe how the force changed] …
Who can tell me … what’s going on here?
28 P: Because it slowed down, that meant there was less air resistance. 26 D: Do something with air resistance.
29 K: Yes, good. So basically a parachute opens, a big force going 27 G: No, air what?
upwards … a slowing down force, so his speed reduces and reduces and
reduces to the point where the speeding up force and the slowing down
force are again equal and he moves along at a constant speed [K points
to graph display on screen; see Figure 1]. OK. So bizarrely, at the end of
the day, the air resistance force will always be equal to the weight force
when he’s going at a constant speed.
28 D: Stream, streamline.
29 G: Thank you! I think Ferrari wouldn’t do quite so well if they
made a car more air resistant. Streamlining!
30 G: Right, just before we finish up … now we’ve considered the
forces acting against movement: will it be falling through the air or
just moving at a constant velocity. We’ll be taking this on to look at
how satellites are launched into orbit, as well as considering what size
[they] are … at what heights they were fixed … So that’s how this
piece of work fits into the next piece of work. [Lesson ends]
Integrating Use of Multimedia Simulation
719
ultimately proved wrong and the class were asked to explain why (line 27); one pupil
immediately did so (line 28). The lesson closed with reinforcement of the impact of
balanced and unbalanced forces on speed via class discussion of a written activity.
The teacher explained the importance of inviting prediction, and “adapting to the
students’ needs during the lesson” rather than being “too rigid”, as follows:
The learning only is successful once we dig away and find out where they are weak and
then start to pinpoint those areas … building the lesson around them … to hit the target
areas.
Teacher K also described his use of the simulation in this lesson to stretch the pupils,
“to create problems that would get them to think a little bit more deeply” and “to get
the conceptual ideas together and quite quickly go towards … and discuss the answer.
So … rapid firing of complex problems and solutions, and discussion of that” (K2).
Using the simulation to stimulate pupil questioning, scientific reasoning and conjecture,
collaborative investigation, and reflection upon outcomes appeared to be successful in
terms of learning: “from the oral questioning, they seemed to be picking it up quite
fast” (K2). While “being able to see it change” was helpful, pupils attributed a key
role to the teacher having used “analogies” with real-life situations (parachutists on
television), having “explained all the different stages of it, what was going on”, and
“talking us through it”. They also described how the teacher fostered their participa-
tion and comprehension when he “asked us to get involved instead of just keep telling
us” and “kept checking to see whether we actually knew what he was on about, instead
of just keep moving on, so that we didn’t get lost” (K2/P). By eliciting and exploring
pupils’ views, and seeking to make their understanding explicit (e.g., line 19), Teacher
K exemplified an interactive “dialogic” style of communication concerned with bring-
ing together everyday and scientific views (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). He achieved this
by highlighting which of the pupils’ ideas ultimately fit with the scientific account
(“the target areas”) and which needed revision, and explaining why.
A contrasting, somewhat more “authoritative”, discourse was evident in the
second case study of G2; this is the most common style in science lessons and aims
to teach subject content directly (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The first phase of the
lesson mainly involved the teacher in introducing, explaining, and reinforcing target
concepts in a whole class setting (see Table 2). This was designed to “bring [these]
into a clearer context than going straight through into the terminal velocity”, and
especially to clarify the complex notion of “forces cancelling”. In lines 1–2, we see
how the teacher reminds pupils of the difference between speed and velocity, and
guides the pupils in using that knowledge when answering written questions on a
velocity worksheet.
In the second phase, pupils themselves interacted with the simulation and
discussed their observations with partners while the teacher circulated among the
pairs. They were steered through a fixed series of steps using a 3-page MSS-
provided worksheet that involved much more written work than in Teacher K’s
lesson. The teacher’s role here was primarily one of explaining, describing, and inter-
preting what was happening as pupils manipulated the simulation (lines 5–6 and 8–15).
There was very little probing of pupils or discussion of their own views; interaction
was mainly focused on articulating the correct scientific concepts. The teacher was
also constantly concerned with keeping pupils on task (see lines 7, 16, and 17) and she
clamped down on unauthorized manipulation of variables:
A couple of people, they were just flicking through and playing rather than going
through the questions … by keeping students on task, and drawing them back to it and
using [simulation] for the use that it’s meant, rather than a piece of entertainment,
that’s what makes it successful for the job it’s supposed to do. (G2)
Teacher G was aware that the students mentioned had not covered everything she
had intended, but asserted that “that will be met by the needs of the homework”.
Despite some “off-task behaviour”, then, particularly when the teacher was absent,
she felt that she was able to reinforce learning by explaining to pupils where the topic
fitted in (e.g., line 30): “Any one snapshot on its own is actually a small part … it’s
the whole picture that’s important”. While there was little time to develop the “take-
home messages” listed on the board (in advance), “the students met their own
learning needs, rather than [those of] the class”. Ironically, this may have been more
true because split locations prohibited the teacher from supervising both groups at
once, leading to more pupil experimentation than was desired. The teacher believed
that more learning took place than in the previous lesson observed, which was
teacher-led from the front, and most students were perceived to have progressed:
There’s a couple in there that are quite keen cyclists, and they [said] “Oh, yes, that’s not
wearing a lycra, Miss”! …the fact that they can take a very firm piece of physics like
understanding terminal velocity, and then they can start to understand it in their own
terms, add humour … shows a great learning leap … a comfort with the topic … And
just making the two associations, whether it be lycra and streamlining, therefore sort of
reaching a higher terminal velocity without changing force … that’s really amazing.
(G2)
The pupils’ responses to the teacher’s evaluation of their understanding in the
plenary discussion phase (lines 19–29), along with the subsequent interviews,
provided corroboration of learning outcomes in terms of more secure understanding
of terminal velocity. As in the first case study, pupils attributed a key role to the
teacher giving “examples of everyday things in life”, especially drawing on her own
experience of skydiving when introducing the notion of terminal velocity. Explaining
it “properly” made “working out the terminal velocity” a bit easier.
To conclude, pupils enjoyed “hands-on” use of the simulation and valued being
able to replay experiments and “change different things on the computers to see how
they all affect each other”. Use of simulation in this mode was consistent with the
teacher’s stated views that “learning by doing” is “a fantastic tool”—“far better than
just answering questions [from] a text book”— and that experimentation is “at the
cutting edge” of science (G1). However, she also stated that “one of the advantages
of doing it as class activity [as in the previous observed lesson] is it very much limits
the playing factor” and “when you send students off to do things on computers …
they will play quite frequently, rather than staying on track”. This view may help to
illuminate our observation that in practice the pupil contribution was limited, and
highly structured tasks played a central scaffolding role in this lesson, with the
ultimate aim of developing pupils’ knowledge of Newtonian theory. Freedom to
experiment with changing variables was accordingly curtailed. By contrast, in
Teacher K’s lesson, the teacher himself was clearly directing the activity and using
the simulation as a visual aid to scaffold pupils’ theory building. However, there was
plenty of encouragement for pupil participation—and evidence of spontaneous
contribution—within the whole class setting and a similar reported desire to respond
to individual needs arising; in a sense this mode of teaching proved to be more
genuinely “interactive”.
A common feature of both case study lessons was that talk was typically focused
upon the phenomena made visible via the simulation on the computer screen.
Teacher G continually accentuated changes and concepts underlying the simulated

motion (e.g., see lines 3–6 and 8–10: “notice the air resistance …”). Similarly,
Teacher K focused pupils’ attention onto target concepts while manipulating the
simulation himself (e.g., lines 23, 26: “you can see air resistance there, getting
bigger”). Teacher K’s pupils found this form of teacher mediation very helpful:
Instead of him just telling you, he was showing you how things worked. You could like
understand the movement.
In summary, the teacher’s role in supporting learning within the MSS simulation
environment emerged as multi-faceted but as critical in rendering salient the target
underlying concepts and processes. Both teachers and pupils perceived teacher input
to be key in enabling pupils to make effective use of the software and to gain insights
from that use, and this was a consensus view across the wider sample.
Attending to Pupils’ Everyday Conceptions

In contrast with the more authoritative approach of Teacher G described earlier,
three teachers outlined strategies for pre-empting or challenging pupils’ informal
conceptions. One of these (R1) considered “one of the benefits of going through the
software before[hand]” was that “you become aware, hopefully, of the misconcep-
tions that might arise and you can address them before they do”. Exactly how he did
this was unclear, although he used the simulation to address incorrect ideas about
osmosis arising during the lesson, where “having the simulation there and my expla-
nation at the same time may well have made it easier for them to correct what they’d
done” (R1).
Similarly, Teacher K wanted to “start to get an idea of where they were, where their
misconceptions were, what they’d covered, and then build the lesson really around
their needs” (as alluded to earlier). Table 2 illustrates how, during the process of stim-
ulating the pupils’ predictions about forces acting on a parachutist, he subsequently
elicited the common everyday belief arising that the body elevates momentarily upon
opening the parachute (lines 18–20), which “flies in the face of normal physics sense,
but would be what they would normally observe”. He considered that a “key part of
the lesson” was where he “tried hard to hit their misconceptions”, using the simulation
as a dynamic visual aid (lines 21–22). This was apparently successful, as pupils
confirmed in interview that they had learned that “parachutes don’t go flying up when
you pull the thing”, having previously thought that this happened. The teacher was
uncertain, however, whether pupils had fully understood the relative movement of the
cameraman and the parachutist, and felt that if this point had been included in the
simulation, they would have understood it more easily. However, the excerpt
demonstrates that he recognized—and skilfully operated within—the “gap” between
everyday and scientific conceptions (Mortimer & Scott, 2003).
In keeping with our prior research (Hennessy et al., 1995), it seems that deliberate
use of simulations employing real-world scenarios that visually challenge common
everyday beliefs and hence create conceptual conflict, and using those that persist as
teaching points during discussion with pupils, can be quite successful in helping
both to identify learning demands (Leach & Scott, 2004) and to move children’s
thinking on towards a more scientific model.
Pre-empting and Handling Literal Interpretation of Screen Images

While simulations can be used effectively to confront existing beliefs, it was
suggested that pupils may reject new concepts if they are represented in idealized
ways that seem at odds with their experience:
If you had a trolley, you know, sort of like in a friction-free environment … the pupil
might think “I’m not going to accept this at all, because I know that if you push a trolley
it slows down and stops.” So, they might just completely kind of reject what you’re
trying to explain. (A1–2)
Some indicated the need to select simulations that modelled learners’ perceptions of
reality as closely as possible, while challenging their misconceptions. Certain simula-
tions, particularly in biology, were associated with less inherent risk of misinterpretation
(“the action of a heart is fine … to be taken literally” [C]) than other “more abstract”
ones, notably in chemistry and physics, as in the MSS terminal velocity simulation,
where “the parachutist falls for ever and ever and ever” (G1). Pupils’ comments
reinforced this need for any simulation to be closer to reality:
Maybe if it had sounds… if you heard the way it changed, because… on parachutes, it’s
almost like you can hear the “pfff” some air pressure … and if the [sky]diver actually
landed [perfectly] or splatted. (K/P2)
Some teachers also expressed the wish for training and software so that they could
write simulations themselves, controlling the way in which the simulation affected
their pupils’ learning: “I think a good way of avoiding pitfalls would be to sort of do
them yourself” (A1–2).
Discussion and Conclusions

This study scrutinized teacher accounts and lesson observations across a range of
secondary classroom contexts in order to investigate how teachers plan for and
support learning with simulation. Although some generic principles have emerged,
teachers integrated the use of technology and structured activity in markedly differ-
ent ways, to support diverse pedagogical approaches and communication styles.
This was exemplified through our two contrasting case studies of simulation use in
the area of force and motion, which portrayed the two main modes of use. In the
first case, Teacher K assimilated the technology into his whole class interactive
teaching. He employed the projected simulation as a visual stimulus for skilful
questioning that directly engaged with pupils’ thinking, and hence as a tool to
support dialogic communication and individual meaning making (Mortimer &
Scott, 2003).7 His practice could be described as fostering pupil participation in
both a collaborative community of inquiry and in the expert discourse of science
(Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004; Sutherland, 2004). The latter describes, explains, and
predicts behaviour of the world; the “scientific story” is built up and made accessible
to students through teachers using the social language of school science to express
and discuss ideas about familiar phenomena (Leach & Scott, 2004; Ogborn, Kress,
Martins, and McGillicuddy, 1996). This teacher demonstrated how simulation can
be used in conjunction with talk to challenge everyday beliefs and communicate
scientific ideas in ways that are convincing to pupils.
In the second case, Teacher G was enthusiastic about the simulation software
enabling pupils to “actually get their hands in and have a play”. She allowed them to
manipulate the software themselves, albeit only within the confines of a tightly struc-
tured set of tasks. These tasks—along with the teacher’s interactions with pairs of
pupils—mediated simulation use and kept pupils “on track”. Interactions tended to
be brief and focused on authoritatively explaining the science underlying the
observed motion rather than building on pupils’ own ideas (her lack of confidence
with physics may have been a factor here). This teacher described how she met the
students’ learning needs by “responding to the moment, to the individual, and
where they’re going”, by “guiding them through” and “helping with specific
questions”. Responses from pupils during the brief lesson plenary and post-lesson
interviews indicated that her strategies for promoting learning through articulating
the target science concepts were also effective.
Worksheet-driven lessons of this nature were much more typical across our
sample, where little evidence for the notion of “learner as explorer” (Newton &
Rogers, 2001) emerged. Materials such as those provided with MSS seem to
provide both a time-saving device for busy teachers and useful props for some less
experienced teachers, including Teacher G as a non-specialist in physics. They also
enable teachers to adapt to situational constraints by addressing the difficulty of
effective teacher guidance and timely intervention with multiple individuals or
groups in “hands-on” mode—by providing a structured framework for independent
activity where necessary. However, in practice the pedagogical approach built into
the worksheets and teacher guide accompanying the software strongly influenced
the nature of activity. This is consistent with the notion of an intricate relationship
between a cultural tool and the agent who uses it (Cole, 1988; Segall, 2004;
Wertsch, 1998). These particular tools presented little opportunity for pupil
engagement in scientific reasoning, exploration of their own ideas, and experimen-

tal manipulation of variables—activities that both the “discovery learning” slant in
the simulation literature and the national curriculum espouse. Over-structuring of
tasks meant that the rhetoric and teachers’ own educational aspirations concerning
“arousing pupils” curiosity” were not borne out. Teachers’ reported concerns
about unfocused “playing” are understandable and mirror those of de Jong and
van Joolingen (1998) concerning inefficient experimentation. They reflect the fact
that developing and applying investigation skills to simulation use undoubtedly
takes a great deal of time. In-depth familiarization with the software and prepara-
tion of bespoke worksheets or investigative activities are also constrained by lack of
available time and support.
Wider pedagogical exploitation of interactive simulations by even recommended,

confident teachers whose views were consistent with this aim is currently constrained
by external pressure to “cover the curriculum”, as a somewhat frustrated teacher
explained at length:
We’ve got these curriculums that we have to teach to them and they have to be able to
answer the questions. So personally I would like to be able to … say, “this is the simula-
tion, this is what it does; we’ll have a couple of lessons and play with it” literally, and
just add different bits and let them sort of learn through change and different environ-
ments. […] If I had the time I’d encourage that because I think that there’s a great deal
of learning in there, but unfortunately with the science curriculum the way it is, it
doesn’t really lend itself to doing it very often … 5 hours a week with the amount that
we’ve got to get through it would be … to the detriment of some other areas. […] I
mean I’d like to be able to do that definitely with all of the concepts that we have to
teach but … there are only so many lessons over the year. (R1)
Curricular demands and consequent lack of time also constrained Teacher A, who
described how in many lessons it is “90% exposition and 10% recap”. He would
ideally have liked to have spent more lesson time “questioning individual pupils
about their understanding”. These findings resonate with teachers’ comments about
the demise of practical work under the “overloaded, rushed and often mechanistic”
national curriculum (Donnelly, 2000, p. 32), and they reconfirm the observation
made over 15 years ago by Cuban (1989, p. 221) that teachers integrating technol-
ogy use are “trying to meet neoprogressive expectations that are out of sync with
organizational realities”.
Our recent studies of interactive whiteboard use similarly highlighted a high
degree of teacher control and task structure (Hennessy et al., 2005). It appears
that ICT use in secondary science has been subsumed into the systemic subject
culture, whose unease with “uncertainty” and pedagogical emphasis on pointwise
coverage of content (Donnelly & Jenkins, 1999) were strengthened through stan-
dardization of content when the UK national curriculum was introduced and
departmental schemes of work became more influential. Development has been
constrained especially by the associated shift in the assessment framework (such
that scientific reasoning skills encapsulated in “Ideas and Evidence” were not
initially assessed). Assessment inevitably drives classroom teaching; it is said to be
“stifling innovation” and creating a “pedagogical trap” in school science (Baggott

la Velle et al., 2004).
Although some areas of science such as terminal velocity have more firmly estab-
lished underlying models than others, the range of alternative conceptions entrenched
in pupils highlights the persisting need for development of critical evaluation skills so
that they can ultimately be persuaded to bridge the “gap” between everyday and
scientific conceptions (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). Yet our observations of worksheet-
driven simulation use whereby pupils were guided towards verifying expected
relationships confirm that the goals, methods, and values of the established culture in
which teachers typically pre-structure practical “investigations” and treat writing as a
means of recording results rather than forming or evaluating ideas (Baggott la Velle
et al., 2004; Donnelly & Jenkins, 1999) likewise shape ICT-enhanced activity. Iron-
ically, the danger of introducing simulation, particularly in a domain such as terminal
velocity where there is no feasible practical alternative, is that investigative activity
may be reinvented in ways that are even more formulaic. The potential of the tech-
nology to support development of scientific reasoning, critical reflection, and analytic
skills (e.g., Cox, 2000)—whose profile is now increasing in the United Kingdom and
USA at least—may thus remain unexploited.8
Nevertheless, the varied patterns of use found within our study, and the selection
and adaptation of MSS resources, indicated that teachers were incorporating these
tools into classroom practice thoughtfully, attuning to situational conditions. Timing
of inclusion within lesson series, integration with other resources and activities, and
strategies for supporting these differed both between individual teachers and
between their lessons with different groups. Interactive use of simulations in our
study was most often introduced at a stage after some theory had already been
discussed. In several cases, related practical work had previously been carried out or
was planned for following sessions. Interestingly, assumption of prior domain-
related knowledge was inherent within the design of all three simulations studied.9
The review of concepts and audit of pupils’ knowledge during the first phase of the
case study lessons of Teachers G and K, and the inclusion and discussion of
practical activities or models in other lessons, could thus be viewed as strategies for
priming learners for more effective interaction with the simulation in terms of
knowledge building. However, although several teachers stressed the desirability of
making links between simulations and other activities, it appeared that opportunities
to make them explicit were sometimes missed, particularly in follow-up plenary
sessions.
In conclusion, the benefits of using computer-based simulations in overcoming
constraints of laboratory work were widely acclaimed by teachers and pupils alike.
It seems that teachers employ a range of strategies to exploit the affordances of
operating within a simulated world. They configure simulation use to fit their own
settings, including the perceived levels of subject “ability” and technical compe-
tence of their pupil groups, preferred pedagogical approaches, familiarity with the
subject matter, time available, physical and organizational factors, and various
inter-related cultural constraints. These frame the pedagogical perspectives of
software developers and teachers alike, and thereby serve to curtail (desired) experi-
mentation by pupils. We can characterize “expert practice” only in light of these
currently operating contextual factors. They mean that the intended investigative
simulation use by pupils working in “hands-on” mode may prove unproductive in a
topic area such as motion that is strongly associated with commonly shared
misconceptions. The latter may be reinforced or even disseminated to peers when
pupils experiment and conjecture without a teacher present. (Previous research
indicates that pupils are often given insufficient teacher guidance and leadership in
order to use ICT effectively: Cox, 2000; Hennessy et al., 2005). The need for
teachers “to walk around and talk things through” (and provide procedural/
technical help) is a feature of much practical work too, but, as one teacher pointed
out, computer screens are less visible from a distance and knowing where assistance
is needed can be difficult.
Case study Teacher G, who chose to circulate among pairs working in hands-on
mode, described her strategy to address these issues in terms of “drawing back” the
class to highlight particular points that were coming up repeatedly for individuals.
She was reportedly building “a stepwise sequence” while helping pupils to see “the
whole picture”; her conceptual synthesis during the subsequent plenary supported
this as well, although time constraints meant that it was rather short. Our observa-
tions of Teacher K, who chose to work with a whole class instead, illustrated an
alternative strategy through which a practitioner can facilitate articulation of the
scientific knowledge pupils are acquiring and can offer public feedback on its expres-
sion (Laurillard, 1993). Teachers will be aware of—and can plan to address—the
common misconceptions when individuals express them, while other pupils can
benefit from this collective and systematic hypothesis testing and synthesis of find-
ings. Mercer (1995) describes a key aspect of the teacher’s guiding role in knowledge
construction in terms of helping learners to perceive continuity—through describing
and reformulating shared experience. Both approaches potentially encompass this,
although there is apparently more time available for it when the teacher drives the
simulation. Teacher K capitalized upon this by developing a classroom community
of practice in which predominantly dialogic forms of interaction were used to engage
pupils in collaborative prediction and investigation. This approach potentially
increases opportunities for pupils to critically scrutinize and build upon everyday
conceptions while “talking their way into the scientific story” (Mortimer & Scott,
2003).
With either teacher-controlled or hands-on use, simulation can be employed as a
stimulus and a dynamic object of joint reference—one that facilitates visualization
of the effects of manipulation, and makes conflict explicit, when testing ideas.
Pupils’ use of an interactive whiteboard with simulation in a public setting may in
principle enhance this process by allowing pupils to express ideas through direct
manipulation of simulated models rather than relying on verbal expression and a
teacher intermediary. Teachers might also extend opportunities for pupils to
consolidate their learning with simulation; for example, by introducing new forms
of recording that involve pupils working collaboratively with peers to analyse,
discuss, and present their ideas and findings. The use of projection technology may
also contribute here.
Implications and Future Directions for Instructional Design

While “ready-made” worksheets may offer time-pressed teachers useful means of
structuring pupils’ interaction with simulated environments, these often prove too
prescriptive for both teachers and pupils. Provision of more skeletal, editable frame-
works might encourage teachers to devise extra tiers of support tailored for different
pupil groups, targeting specific educational goals or prior conceptions. Introduction
of optional, predictive, exploratory tasks may also facilitate pupils’ inductive investi-
gation of the domain (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). MSS does enable some user
adaptation, both of slides and worksheets, although time and teachers’ technical
skills and confidence may be inhibiting.
The educational potential of some simulation tools (including MSS) is intrinsically
constrained, however, by their limited “click and show” functionality. Richer user-
oriented interactivity could tailor the learning process better to an individual’s
responses and could adapt to the varied pedagogical approaches that teachers evidently
employ. Thomas and Milligan (2004) offer a template tool (JeLSIM) for creating and
customizing simulations to support different teaching approaches and individual learn-
ing styles through a range of common visualization objects illustrating the outputs of
a model. Instructional designers might also draw on the methods teachers use to
address children’s misconceptions, and use these to inform the design of simulation
environments deliberately constructed to elicit and address common everyday beliefs.
These may go so far as to provide “alternative realities”; for example, the simulations
devised by Hennessy and O’Shea (1993) and colleagues allowed users to manipulate
the underlying laws of motion themselves and therefore to experience, reflect on, and
debate the consequences of breaking the rules under which objects normally behave.
Recent innovations integrate simulation with other tools within complex learning
environments that collectively address the perceived need to make thinking about
the model visible. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment developed by Linn
(2004) and colleagues supports development of transferable investigation skills by
combining tools for argument construction, reflective note-taking, causal modelling,
and data representation. Similarly, the “Learning-for-Use” model offers detailed
guidelines for the design of technology-supported content-intensive inquiry in
science with the aim of supporting “deep” conceptual learning, as embodied in the
“Create-a-World” climatic inquiry project (Edelson, 2001). Tools for investigation,
data creation, and record-keeping are used with simulation to support (content and
process) learning activities. The latter are designed to express, confront, and refine
informal conceptions, to foster discovery learning through hands-on structured
observation, to communicate knowledge, and to foster reflection. Such sophisticated
tools do not undermine the importance of the teacher’s role that emerged in our
study, namely that of optimizing use of simulation and the artefacts that mediate its
use in supporting investigation.
Acknowledgements
The authors are especially grateful to the dedicated practitioners who shared their
expertise and to the pupils for their views. Many thanks also to Mark Winterbottom
for his contributions to this article, to Roy Barton and the anonymous reviewers for
their insightful comments on earlier drafts, to Theresa Daly for her vital secretarial
assistance, and to the Economic and Social Research Council for funding the “SET-
IT” project (R000239823).
Notes
1. Multimedia Science School Software on CD-ROM (New Media Press Ltd; http://www.new-
media.co.uk). Tools include animations, models, databases, and video clips with teacher
notes, sample lessons, worksheets, and pre-set slideshows. Slides include instructions to focus
attention on a particular concept illustrated in the tool.
2. The ESRC-funded “SET-IT” project (2002–2004) coordinated by Ruthven and Hennessy
(R000239823) aimed to elicit and disseminate “Situated Expertise in Technology-Integrated
Teaching” in mathematics and science. Website: http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/istl/pub.html.
3. A subsequent analysis elicited key cross-practice themes related to using simulation, data
logging, and interactive whiteboards; the outcomes are summarized by Hennessy et al. (in press).
4. Multimedia Science School Teacher’s Guide: “Technology changing the way we teach”
(2002). Published by New Media Press Ltd. Available from PLATO Learning (UK) Ltd,
http://www.platolearning.co.uk
5. Slideshows can be customized by altering the level of interactivity allowed, and adding,
deleting, or changing the order of slides. Worksheets can be edited in Microsoft Word.
6. Teacher K was an experienced physics teacher; he did not normally teach this group,
however. As Head of Science (and of the Physics Department) he had developed and widely
promoted the use of ICT resources within the subject area. Teacher G was a young science
teacher with 2 years experience and whole school responsibility for gifted and talented
provision. She had previously undertaken a Ph.D. in biochemistry and so was not a physics
specialist. She was enthusiastic about ICT use and involved in school initiatives such as
development of an intranet for sharing subject resources.
7. This process is situated within what we call whole class “technology-integrated instructional
conversation” (Hennessy, Deaney, & Ruthven, 2005b).
8. See Osborne and Hennessy (2003) for a fuller account of historical trends and values in UK
science education and the potential role of ICT; see also NRC (1996) for an account of
the U.S. situation, and the survey by Becker (2000) indicating that U.S. science teachers
believe more strongly than some other subject teachers in the importance of broad content
coverage.
9. Assumed prior knowledge for each simulation is listed in the Notes for Teachers included on
the MSS CD-ROM.
References
Baggott, L., & Nichol, J. (1998). Multimedia simulation. A threat to or enhancement of practical
work in science education? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science (pp. 252–270).
London & New York: Routledge.
Baggott la Velle, L., McFarlane, A., John, P. D., & Brawn, R. (2004). According to the promises:
The sub-culture of school science, teachers’ pedagogic identity and the challenge of ICT.
Education, Communication & Information, 4(1), 109–129.
Barton, R., & Still, C. (2004). Planning, teaching and assessment using computer-aided practical
work. In R. Barton (Ed.), Teaching secondary science with ICT (pp. 52–68). Cambridge,
England: Open University Press.
Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey. Is Larry Cuban
night? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved November 25, 2005 from http://
epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n51/
Boyle, T. (2004). Designing multimedia e-learning for science education. In R. Holliman & E.
Scanlon (Eds.), Mediating science learning through information and communications technology
(pp. 103–119). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham, England: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition. Human Development,

31(3), 137–152.
Cox, M. J. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Their role and value for
science education. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What
research has to say. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Cuban, L. (1989). Neoprogressive visions and organizational realities. Harvard Educational
Review, 59(2), 217–222.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simula-
tions of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
DfES (2004). ICT across the curriculum: ICT in science. Key stage 3 national strategy. London: DfES.
Donnelly, J. F. (2000). Secondary science teaching under the National Curriculum. School Science
Review, 81(296), 27–35.
Donnelly, J. F., & Jenkins, E. W. (1999). Science teaching in secondary schools under the National
Curriculum. Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, Centre for Policy
Studies, University of Leeds.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported
inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.
Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula
shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 905–935.
Finlayson, H., & Rogers, L. (2003). Does ICT in science really work in the classroom? Part 1. The
individual teacher experience. School Science Review, June, 105–112.
Gilbert, J. K. (Ed.). (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, L. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gray, B. V. (1999). Science education in the developing world: issues and considerations. Journal
of Research in Teaching, 36(3), 261–268.
Hacker, R. G., & Rowe, M. J. (1997). The impact of a National Curriculum development on
teaching and learning behaviours. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 997–1004.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2005a). Developing pedagogical expertise for integrating use
of the interactive whiteboard in secondary science. Keynote symposium paper presented at the
BERA Conference 2005, Glamorgan, UK.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2005b). Emerging teacher strategies for mediating
“Technology-integrated Instructional Conversations”: A socio-cultural perspective. Curricu-
lum Journal, 16(3), 265–292.
Hennessy, S., & O’Shea, T. (1993). Learner perceptions of realism and “magic” in computer
simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 125–138.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into
subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
37(2), 155–192. Retrieved November 25, 2005 from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/
00220272.asp
Hennessy, S., Twigger, D., Byard, M., Driver, R., Draper, S., Hartley, R., Mohamed, R.,
O’Malley, C., O’Shea, T., & Scanlon, E. (1995). A classroom intervention using a
computer-augmented curriculum for mechanics. International Journal of Science Education,
17(2), 189–206.
Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., La Velle, L., McFarlane, A.,
Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (in press). Pedagogical approaches for technology-
integrated science teaching, Computers and Education.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2002). Science education from 14 to 19.
London: Stationery Office.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Teaching as mediating learning. In D. Laurillard (Ed.), Rethinking university

teaching. A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2004). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach
drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on
learning. In R. Holliman & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Mediating science learning through information
and communications technology (pp. 81–102). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Linn, M. (2004). Using ICT to teach and learn science. In R. Holliman & E. Scanlon (Eds.),
Mediating science learning through information and communications technology (pp. 9–26).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McFarlane, A., & Sakellariou, S. (2002). The role of ICT in science education. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 32(2), 219–232.
Mellar, H., & Bliss, J. (1994). Introduction: modelling and education. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R.
Boohan, J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: Computer-based
modelling in the curriculum. London: Falmer.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon
& Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Monaghan, J. M., & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simula-
tions for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education,
21(9), 921–944.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Bucking-
ham, England: Open University Press.
Newton, L. R., & Rogers, L. (2001). Teaching science with ICT. London: Continuum.
NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ofsted. (2002). ICT in schools: Effect of government initiatives: Progress report, April 2002: A report
from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools. London: Office for Standards in
Education.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Osborne, J., & Hennessy, S. (2003). Literature review in science education and the role of ICT:
Promise, problems and future directions. Bristol, England: Nesta FutureLab.
Osborne, R. J. (1985). Building on children’s intuitive ideas. In R. J. Osborne & P. Freyberg
(Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand:
Heinemann.
Parker, J. (2004). The synthesis of subject ad pedagogy for effective learning and teaching in
primary science education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 819–839.
Rogers, L. (2004). Integrating ICT into science education and the future. In R. Barton (Ed.), Teach-
ing secondary science with ICT (pp. 139–154). Cambridge, England: Open University Press.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Brindley, S. (2004). Teacher representations of the successful use of
computer-based tools and resources in teaching and learning secondary English, Mathematics
and Science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 259–275. Retrieved November 25, 2005
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051X
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content
of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489–504.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: the foundations of the new reforms. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Soderberg, P., & Price, F. (2003). An examination of problem-based teaching and learning in
population genetics and evolution using EVOLVE, a computer simulation. International

Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 35–55.
Sutherland, R. (2004). Designs for learning: ICT and knowledge in the classroom. Computers and
Education, 43(1–2), 5–16.
Thomas, R. C., & Milligan, C. D. (2004). Putting teachers in the loop: Tools for creating and
customising simulations. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 15. Retrieved November
25, 2005 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/15
Walker, D. (2002, November 22). No crossed wires. TES Teacher, pp. 30–31.
Wellington, J. (2004). Multimedia in science teaching. In R. Barton (Ed.), Teaching secondary
science with ICT. Cambridge, England: Open University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mediated action. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive
science (pp. 518–525). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), 111–121.
Yin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: design and method. In L. Bickman
& D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 229–259). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

2006 - Hennessy, Et Al - Situade Expertise

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2006 - Hennessy, Et Al - Situade Expertise

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]

On: 21 November 2014, At: 09:23

International Journal of Science

Situated Expertise in Integrating Use of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404656

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Situated Expertise in Integrating Use of

Sara Hennessy*, Rosemary Deaney and Kenneth Ruthven

Rationale for Using Multimedia Simulation of Scientific Processes

*Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road,

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/06/070701–32

present. It animates and simulates real processes such as motion, photosynthesis,

Simulation is perceived to “add value” to learning activities in several ways. Devel-

demands of familiarization with equipment and procedures, taking measurements,

Although development of pupils’ investigative skills is a key objective in science,

Linking Simulation Use, Theory and Practical Work

Supporting Pupil Learning with Simulations

highlight the limitations of computer models themselves (Wishart et al., reported

Situated Pedagogical Expertise

Aims of the Research

Design and Methods

Table 1. Characteristics of lessons observed

Lesson (school/ Class Science Mode of simulation

W/G/1 11, Terminal Projected display; Simulation activity; short plenary

terminal velocity simulation;

organization of ideas. The naturalistic tradition of research underpinning the theo-

Teachers’ Rationale for Using Simulations

Designing Activity to Support Learning with simulation

Integrating Simulation with Other Teaching and Learning

All five teachers employed visual aids or practical demonstrations in conjunction

random movement of molecules, expounded through use of the simulation. Teacher

Mode of Use and Situational Adaptation

Balancing Experimentation with Structured Activity

In practice, we observed very little of the experimentation that teachers desired to

variables, that’s quite good description of science. (A1–2)

There is an apparent tension here—between the philosophy expressed by this

earlier, the suite of MSS simulations is accompanied by worksheet activities. According

The impact of worksheet mediation is elaborated further in the following section,

Exploiting Interactivity: Two contrasting case studies of simulation use

Teacher G also told us that:

the whole class.

Worksheet-driven Pupil Activity versus Whole Class Interactive Teaching

Table 2. Excerpts from two contrasting lessons on terminal velocity

Teacher K, lesson 2 Teacher G, lesson 2

Teacher K, lesson 2 Teacher G, lesson 2

accelerate. The opposite force is maximum speed as two forces cancel,

Teacher K, lesson 2 Teacher G, lesson 2

So the parachutist is falling downwards, opens the parachute and then

Teacher K, lesson 2 Teacher G, lesson 2

Teacher G continually accentuated changes and concepts underlying the simulated

Attending to Pupils’ Everyday Conceptions

Pre-empting and Handling Literal Interpretation of Screen Images

Discussion and Conclusions

engagement in scientific reasoning, exploration of their own ideas, and experimen-

Wider pedagogical exploitation of interactive simulations by even recommended,

“stifling innovation” and creating a “pedagogical trap” in school science (Baggott

Implications and Future Directions for Instructional Design

Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the sociohistorical tradition. Human Development,

Laurillard, D. (1993). Teaching as mediating learning. In D. Laurillard (Ed.), Rethinking university

population genetics and evolution using EVOLVE, a computer simulation. International

You might also like