Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Links Between Students’ Learning Engagement and Modeling Competence in Computer-Supported Modeling-Based Activities

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to understand how students engage in computer-supported modeling-based activities (CSMBAs), and the relationship between their engagement and their modeling competence. Different facets of learning engagement were measured through multiple data, including performance on modeling tasks, self-reported level of engagement, and online behavior patterns of science modeling. The research participants were 76 11th-grade students in Taiwan. The research instruments included online student worksheets, an engagement questionnaire, computer logs, and modeling competence tests. Students’ online worksheets were scored and used to group them into three performance groups—the low-level-performance group (LPG), the middle-level-performance group (MPG) and the high-level-performance group (HPG). ANOVA statistics lag sequential analysis (LSA), and ANCOVA statistics were used for the data analysis. The results showed that, first, in analyzing the engagement questionnaires, students’ negative cognitive engagement, negative behavioral engagement, and negative social engagement all played important roles in their low performance in the CSMBAs. Second, through the use of LSA, it was found that the LPG students lacked evaluative behavior, while the HPG students emphasized reflective behavior. Third, analysis of the students’ pre- and post-modeling competence tests showed that those who were in the HPG and MPG scored significantly higher than those in the LPG in two dimensions of the modeling competence post-tests. The results indicate that efforts made in completing tasks in CSMBAs can lead to better modeling competence. Implications for developing future CSMBAs and for promoting student engagement are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W. K. (2010). Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. Il Nuovo Cimento, 33(3), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allcoat, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26.

  • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., Fors, U., & Knutsson, O. (2020). Engagement, disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers & Education, 149, 103783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson, U., Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., & Mascheretti, P. (2007). How to teach friction: Experiments and models. American Journal of Physics, 75(12), 1106–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, G. D., & Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics among poor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., & Gómez-Sánchez, E. (2017). Predicting the decrease of engagement indicators in a MOOC. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference.

  • Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring learner engagement in computer-equipped college classrooms. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Oh, P. S., Maughn, M., Kiriazis, N., & Zuwallack, R. (2015). A review of modeling pedagogies: Pedagogical functions, discursive acts, and technology in modeling instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1).

  • Ceuppens, S., Bollen, L., Deprez, J., Dehaene, W., & De Cock, M. (2019). 9th grade students’ understanding and strategies when solving x (t) problems in 1D kinematics and y (x) problems in mathematics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, J. M., Lancaster, K., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). How guidance affects student engagement with an interactive simulation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiu, B. C., Liu, C. C., Fan Chiang, S. H., Wen, C. T., Hwang, F. K., Wu, Y. T., Chao, P. Y., Lai, C. H., Wu, S. W., Chang, C. K., & Chen, W. (2017). An analysis of student collaborative problem solving activities mediated by collaborative simulations. Computers & Education, 114, 222–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., Wen, C. T., Tseng, L. W., Chang, H. Y., Chang, M. H., & Yang, C. W. (2020). The impact of light-weight inquiry with computer simulations on science learning in classrooms. Computers & Education, 146, 103–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-H., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2019). The roles of engagement and competition on learner’s performance and motivation in game-based science learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 1003–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, D. B., Blair, K. P., & Schwartz, D. L. (2016). Got game? A choice-based learning assessment of data literacy and visualization skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. . Lawrence Earlbam Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, C. H. (2002). Student engagement with simulations: a case study. Computers & Education, 39(3), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). What is the self in self-directed learning? Findings from recent motivational research. Conceptions of Self-Directed Learning: Theoretical and Conceptional Considerations. Munster: Waxmann.

  • Dickes, A. C., Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S. J., Gün‐Yildiz, S., Brennan, K., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2019). Scaffolding ecosystems science practice by blending immersive environments and computational modeling. British Journal of Educational Technology.

  • Dunleavy, J., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today. Exploring the concept of student engagement and its implications for teaching and learning in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Education Association, 14(1), 1-33.

  • Ebel, R., & Frisbie, D. (1991). Essentials of Educational. Englewood Cliffs: NJ.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

  • Eccles, J., & Wang, M. T. (2012). Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 133-145): Springer.

  • Erfan, M., & Ratu, T. (2018). Analysis of student difficulties in understanding the concept of Newton’s law of motion. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika, 3(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763-782): Springer.

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gama, C. (2004). Metacognition in interactive learning environments: The reflection assistant model. Paper presented at the International conference on intelligent tutoring systems.

  • Gobert, J. D., Sao Pedro, M. A., Baker, R. S., Toto, E., & Montalvo, O. (2012). Leveraging educational data mining for real-time performance assessment of scientific inquiry skills within microworlds. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 4(1), 104–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J., O’Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B., Levy, S., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students’ epistemologies of models and conceptual learning in three science domains: Biology, Physics, & Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 653–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. A. (2015). Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: Reflections from over 20 years of research. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2015). Exploring ecosystems from the inside: How immersive multi-user virtual environments can support development of epistemologically grounded modeling practices in ecosystem science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 148–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., & Pollock, S. (2007). Assessing the effectiveness of a computer simulation in introductory undergraduate environments. Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings.

  • Keshwani, D. R., Anderson, M. R. D., Keshwani, J., Subbiah, J., Guru, A., & Rice, N. (2017). Educational immersive simulation game design to enhance understanding of corn-Water-ethanol-beef system nexus. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. ASEE Conferences. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-28198

  • Kong, S. C. (2011). An evaluation study of the use of a cognitive tool in a one-to-one classroom for promoting classroom-based dialogic interaction. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1851–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement: Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, V., & Chen, C. H. (2016). Promoting science learning in game-based learning with question prompts and feedback. Computers and Education, 103, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., & Park, J. (2013). Deductive reasoning to teach Newton’s law of motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1391–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. W. Y., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). A comparison of the students’ engagement in participatory and non-participatory simulations. Paper presented at The 4th International Symposium on Educational Technology. Osaka, Japan.

  • Lee, S. W. Y., Shih, M., Liang, J., & Tseng Y. (2021). Investigating learners’ engagement and science learning outcomes in different designs of participatory simulated games British Journal of Educational Technology 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13067

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Lee, J., Kang, J., & Liu, S. (2016). What we can learn from the data: A multiple-case study examining behavior patterns by students with different characteristics in using a serious game. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(1), 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, N., Jones, D., & Holden, G. (2015). Social engagement in online design pedagogies. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Aalto University, Finland.

  • Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining learning through modeling in K-6 science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 192–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., Vieira, C., Reese, M. J., Jr., Alabi, O., & Patinet, S. (2017). Affordances and challenges of computational tools for supporting modeling and simulation practices. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(3), 352–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A. J., Vieira, C., Fennell, H. W., Roy, A., & Falk, M. L. (2020). Undergraduate engineering students’ types and quality of knowledge used in synthetic modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 38(4), 503–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96(6), 1071–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2016). Teaching assistants’ performance at identifying common introductory student difficulties in mechanics revealed by the Force Concept Inventory. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, Y. G., Bollen, L., de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2016). Scaffolding learning by modelling: The effects of partially worked-out models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 502–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 614–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling-Oriented Assessment in K-12 Science Education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012).A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies. Washington DC

  • Nicolaou, C. T., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Assessment of the modeling competence: A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 13, 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papaevripidou, M., Nicolaou, C. T., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). On defining and assessing learners’ modeling competence in science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

  • Pendrill, A.-M., Ekström, P., Hansson, L., Mars, P., Ouattara, L., & Ryan, U. (2014). Motion on an inclined plane and the nature of science. Physics Education, 49(2), 180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phage, I. (2020). Undergraduate students’ difficulties with motion of objects on horizontal and inclined surfaces. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

  • Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Students’ emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants of well-being and achievement in school. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 149-172): Springer.

  • Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S.-C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 307–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabourin, J. L., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Affect and engagement in Game-BasedLearning environments. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, K., & Clarke-Midura, J. (2018). The many faces of scientific inquiry: Effectively measuring what students do and not only what they say. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1469–1496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeman, T. E., Miller-Martinez, D. M., Stein Merkin, S., Lachman, M. E., Tun, P. A., & Karlamangla, A. S. (2011). Histories of social engagement and adult cognition: Midlife in the US study. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66(1), 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. (2016). Playing modeling games in the science classroom: The case for disci- plinary integration. Educational Technology, 56(3), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Lei, J., Chang, H. Y., & Namdar, B. (2014). Technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 529-540): Springer.

  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomara, M., Tselfes, V., & Gouscos, D. (2017). Instructional strategies to promote conceptual change about force and motion: A review of the literature. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. J. & Lee, S. W. Y. (2018). Developing a modeling-oriented test items based on force concepts in physics. 2018 International Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education.

  • Wen, C. T., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, S. H. F., Liu, C. C., Hwang, F. K., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The learning analytics of model-based learning facilitated by a problem-solving simulation game. Instructional Science, 46(6), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9461-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [grant numbers 104-2511-S-003-059-MY4, 108-2628-H-003-007-MY4].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Changhua University of Education, Graduate Institute of Science Education, Changhua, Taiwan

    Ya-Joe Wang & Pai-Chuan Lin

  2. Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Silvia Wen-Yu Lee

  3. Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Chen-Chung Liu

  4. Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Cai-Ting Wen

Authors
  1. Ya-Joe Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia Wen-Yu Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen-Chung Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pai-Chuan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cai-Ting Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Wen-Yu Lee.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of conducting a social science study.

Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All of the participants voluntarily participated in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Scoring rubric for modeling competence items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, YJ., Lee, S.WY., Liu, CC. et al. Investigating the Links Between Students’ Learning Engagement and Modeling Competence in Computer-Supported Modeling-Based Activities. J Sci Educ Technol 30, 751–765 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09916-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09916-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation