You are here:

Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of Colorado Boulder, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Denver, Colorado, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-95-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

For 10 years, the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado has been creating and researching interactive simulations for advancing science education. Each PhET simulation creates an animated, interactive, game-like environment in which students learn through scientist-like exploration. Here, we describe our current approaches to and perspectives on effective simulation design – approaches that are grounded in research on learning, informed by over 500 student interviews, and refined over the course of developing 115 simulations across multiple science topics. Applying these approaches has resulted in a suite of simulations that are freely available, integrated into diverse learning environments, used over 30 million times per year, translated into 67 languages, and transforming how students learn science. Many elements of PhET’s framework for effective design can be adapted and applied to a variety of learning tools.

Citation

Perkins, K., Podolefsky, N., Lancaster, K. & Moore, E. (2012). Creating Effective Interactive Tools for Learning: Insights from the PhET Interactive Simulations Project. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2012--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 436-441). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 1, 2023 from .

© 2012 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M.K. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven ResearchBased Principles for Smart Teaching (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  2. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 152, 121.
  3. Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2007). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.
  4. Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  5. Hawkins, D. (1965) Messing about in science. The Informed Vision, Essays on Learning and Human Nature. Agathon Press 1974
  6. National Research Council (2001). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.
  7. Norman, D.A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.
  8. Piaget, J. (1926). The Language And Thought Of The Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
  9. Podolefsky, N.S., Perkins, K.K., & Adams, W.K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020117.
  10. Rieber, L.P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research& Development, 44(2), 43-58
  11. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about meta-cognition. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 189 – 215). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, 1–51. Information Age Publishing.
  13. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257 – 285.
  14. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.) (14th ed.). Harvard University Press.
  15. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by Design. Prentice Hall. Acknowledgements We thank the entire PhET team for their contributions and dedication to this work. This work was supported by grants from the O’Donnell Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the National Science Foundation (CCLI-0817582 and DRK12-1020362).-441 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

  • Exploring the Rules of the Game: Games in the Classroom, Game-Based Learning, Gamification, and Simulations

    Jana Willis, University of Houston-Clear Lake, United States; Spencer Greenhalgh, Michigan State University, United States; Larysa Nadolny, Iowa State University, United States; Sa Liu, University of Texas, United States; Tugce Aldemir, Penn State World Campus, United States; Sandra Rogers, University of South Alabama, United States; Monica Trevathan, Tietronix Software, United States; Susan Hopper, Pedagogical Balance of Effective Learning, United States; Wendy Oliver, Thrivist, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (Mar 05, 2017) pp. 475–480

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections