CMASTE Discussion Group presents:
1

2
Abstract
This study investigates students’ interpretations of visual models used to represent an electrical circuit that is accessed using a simulation in conjunction with an interactive white board. Interactive simulations are software programs that visually represent real world phenomena by making use of models to represent scientific concepts. These simulations can be presented on an interactive white board to allow students to view and interact with the simulations. The models used in the simulations may or may not be interpreted by the students in a manner that does not allow the construction of canonical knowledge accepted by the scientific community. In this study a group of Alberta grade 9 students was interviewed after they completed a lesson on electrical circuits which involved the use of an interactive simulation on an interactive white board in order to determine how they interpreted the models being used in the simulation.
The results of the study indicate the students were able to correctly interpret and identify the models used in the simulation, but some students had difficulty understanding the role of the models in the simulation. In addition, all students interviewed liked using the simulation in conjunction with the SMART board to learn about electrical concepts, and they found the technology fun to use in their classroom setting. On the basis of the findings in this research it is recommended that designers of simulations provide visual models that represent as accurately as possible the phenomena being studied in order to aid in the construction of student knowledge. It is also recommended that teachers place an emphasis on helping students understand the role of models and their affordances and constraints. A final recommendation is that teachers should be aware that lessons using technologies such as the SMART boards may not automatically translate to improved understanding of conceptual concepts, and that teachers need to provide the students other associated and meaningful learning experiences to further their understanding of scientific concepts.
Project Report
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, did it make a sound, or better yet, if there was no one to see it, did it even fall? This philosophical question exemplifies the difficulty that science teachers face when teaching students theoretical knowledge because science teachers often have to use models or theories to help students understand the concepts of the natural world that they cannot experience. For example, one theoretical concept that high school students are required to learn firsthand is electricity, including electrons and electrical circuits. A relevant question concerning this theory is: “If an electron flows in an electrical circuit and you are unable to see it, did it actually flow, or better yet, is there such a thing as an electron?” Even though electrons are not visible, students are expected to believe that they exist by accepting information presented during lessons. They are then asked to form an understanding of electrical circuits based on knowledge that is often communicated through the use of visual models.
A computer simulation that uses visual models of electrons and electrical equipment can allow students to view an imitation of electrons moving within the wires of an electrical circuit. This may allow students to modify their previous understanding of

3 electrical circuits and develop new mental images of electrical circuits to further help them understand electrical concepts. It then becomes important that the visual models of electrical circuits used in the simulation are designed and used appropriately so that students develop the appropriate canonical understanding of electrical circuits.
Research Questions
Interactive simulations are software programs that visually represent real world phenomena by making use of models to represent scientific entities. When students view the visual models in the simulation they interpret the images, which allows them to create a mental picture to help them understand in their own way the phenomenon being studied. The specific simulation examined during this research is the Circuit Construction
Kit (CCK) produced by Colorado Physics. The intent of the simulation is to help teachers to develop students’ understanding of electrical circuit behaviors by using models to represent equipment such as wires, batteries, and electrons.
However, the models used in the simulation may be difficult to interpret and prevent students from understanding electrical circuit concepts. Research has shown that
“the represented behavior may be oversimplified and unrealistic, relevant detail may be missing or difficult to see, or causes of the behavior may be unclear or missing” (Gilbert and Boulter, 2000, p. 133). Research also indicates that students often do not understand the role of models and often see the visual models as replicas of the real thing, rather than abstract representations (Treagust, Chittleborough and Thapelo, 2002). Given the possible unrealistic representation of the visual models used in the simulations along with students’ assumptions that the models are actual physical entities of the real object, students may construct mental images that are not commensurate with the currently accepted knowledge of the scientific community.
This research sought to achieve three objectives: to determine the students’ interpretation of visual models when they viewed a computer simulation on a SMART board designed to help teach them concepts about electrical circuits, to determine if the students understood the role of models used in the computer simulation, and finally to determine the students’ opinion about using an interactive white board as an element to their science lessons. To achieve these objectives, the following questions were examined:
• When the students worked with a simulation on the interactive white board that represented an electrical circuit, how were they interpreting that which the program was designed to represent?
• Did students understand the role of the electrical models as presented in the
computer simulation?
• What do students think are the advantages and disadvantages of using SMART boards to learn scientific concepts?
Method
Data was collected for the research in two stages. The first stage involved observing students using the electrical circuit simulation while working on exercises at the interactive white board. The second stage occurred one week later when the students who worked on the board were interviewed about what they visualized when working with the interactive simulation.

4
Participants
A total of 16 grade nine students enrolled in Science 9 at a high school in Alberta consented to participate in this study, with 15 students present at the time of the research.
The volunteers were studying electrical circuits as outlined by the Alberta Grade 9
Course of Studies (Alberta Learning, 2003) at the time the research was conducted.
They were among approximately 60 students taking Science 9 in one of two back-to-back courses, both of which were taught by the same instructor. Of the 15 students who were given parental consent to be interviewed in the research, 9 were female and 6 were male, and all approximately 13 to 14 years of age.
Results
Of the fifteen students who agreed to participate in the study, seven were able to complete the lab assignment on the first day using the SMART board (Group 1), five did not complete the lab but were able to interact with the simulation and the SMART board on the second day (Group 2), and three did not use the SMART board over the two days, but were able to observe other students and the teacher using the CCK simulation on the
SMART board (Group 3).
Group 1 included Colin, Brenda, Jane, Leah, Norah, Jill, and
Michelle; group 2 included Keegan, Evan, Scott, Joel, and Alison; group 3 included
Brett, Barbie, and Kendal. All names are pseudonyms.
Video recording
As the students worked at the SMART board over the two-day period their interactions were recorded on videotape. The students from group 1 and group 2 were able to work in groups with other students in the class and construct electrical circuits using the CCK simulation.
Jane, Leah, and Norah were a typical group as they completed the assignment using the both the SMART board and CCK simulation. The group had the opportunity to work together on the lab assignment on the first day and, like most groups, spent the majority of their time building the series and parallel circuits that were required for the assignment rather than discussing the answers to the questions. Once they had successfully constructed the circuit they recorded their measurements then proceeded to the next question. Some groups spent less time building the circuits since they were not only more accomplished at using the SMART board, but were also only focused on completing the assignment. During the 23 minutes that Jane, Leah, and Norah worked at the board they made typical comments such as “We need two batteries and two lights”,
“Connect the wires and see if it works”, “It works”, “So we have 6 volts and 0.6 amps”, and “OK, we are done”. This suggests that they were focused on the mechanics of the task. No discussion of the concepts was evident.
A number of technical problems were observed when the groups were working with the simulation, which caused the groups to spend time trouble-shooting and solving technical problems rather than working on the assignment. As the students noted later in the interviews, the SMART board sometimes needed to be realigned in order to manipulate images properly. This was observed on the second day when one group had difficulty moving electrical equipment around on the board, and had to stop their work and realign the SMART board in order to complete the assignment. A second difficulty that occurred was that the local network shut down temporarily, which delayed the start

5 of the lab assignment on day one. The final technical problem, which occurred for all the groups, was that it was difficult to manually manipulate some of the images on the screen, causing one of the groups to go over to the computer and use the mouse instead.
There were a number of visual qualities pertaining to the simulation that caused some difficulties when the students were trying to make electrical circuits. One representation that proved to be problematic for a majority of the groups was the light bulb. It was difficult to see the two red-dashed-circles that represented the electrical terminals on the light bulb, and as a result the students often did not notice the second terminal, which caused them to try to connect the light bulb by using just one terminal.
This would prevent the light bulb from working and prevented the groups from working on the assignment until they discovered the problem. For example, one group of students spent 10 minutes of 32 minutes at the SMART board trying to determine why the light bulb would not turn. Since the teacher was occupied with other students who were working with real electrical equipment, and the students were obviously confused the researcher eventually showed them how to connect the light bulbs in order that they complete the lab.
Jane, Leah, and Norah experienced similar visual and technical difficulties when constructing circuits and made comments that were typical of the other groups, comments such as “It’s not working”, “Why isn’t that light bulb on?”, “This is not good”, “This doesn’t make sense” and “That’s frustrating”.
An observation that was apparent while the students worked at the SMART board was that they enjoyed using the technology and found the exercise fun. Leah, Jane, and Norah worked well as a group and appeared to be to enjoying completing the assignment. This was later confirmed in the interviews. Jane said, “I really like it, it was kind of fun”, while Norah said, “I think it’s fun. We get to use it to, not just the teacher”.
Leah also remarked “Yes, it’s good, I like it, it’s fun to play around with”.
Interview data and analysis
While the interview was designed to determine the students’ interpretation of the models used in the Circuit Construction Kit simulation, the collected data also helped to determine the students’ understanding of the purpose the simulation and their opinions about using SMART boards as a method of instruction in the classroom.
Purpose of simulation
For the first interview question the fifteen students were asked what they thought was the purpose of the simulation, and on the basis of their answers three groups of responses could be identified. The seven students in the first group specifically stated that the purpose of the simulation was to provide an understanding of electrical circuits. These students indicated the simulation helped them learn about currents, electricity, or circuits.
For example, Leah said, “To understand electrical currents and how they work" and Joel replied, "To teach us about electricity”.
The second group consisted of five students who did not specifically mention electrical circuits but who said that the simulation would help their understanding because it was a different method of learning. Alison for example said, “To get kids to have different ways of learning”, and Keegan said, “Give kids a hands on so that kids can understand better”. Norah and Andrea stated that the simulation could be used as a

6 replacement for laboratory experiments. Norah said, “See if we can understand it through the computers, not doing it by hand, and following it up on the computer”.
The final group included three students who indicated that the simulation could be used for purposes other than to further their understanding of electrical concepts. Brenda most likely misunderstood the question because she thought the purpose of the simulation was for the researcher to learn more about how students react to school activities. Barbie and Brett thought that the purpose the simulation was to provide an easier method to learn about electrical circuits because it could be used instead of using real equipment.
Barbie said, “Use it instead of taking all the material out and messing up the classroom, easier way for the teacher to show how to set it up”.
Interpretation of models
When the students were asked to describe what they could see when they looked at a certain model the 58 responses they provided could be categorized into three types.
The first type comprised the large majority of the responses, with 43 responses of this type. The responses provided literal descriptions of what was viewed, with no further statements that indicated an understanding of electrical concepts. There were 11 responses of the second type, which included descriptions of what was viewed followed by a statement that showed some evidence of understanding of electrical circuits. The last type included only 4 responses that were either difficult to categorize or not likely the intent of the designers of the program.
The chart below categorizes exemplar responses to the question that asked the students to describe what they could see when looking at the model of the light bulb.
Keegan was the only student who provided a description that belonged to group 3 because of his use of the word power , which is not the correct terminology to be used when describing light bulbs, although in some colloquial circumstances it could be seen as appropriate.
Table 1
Classification of Light Bulb Responses
Group 1
Allison: “The current or electricity is going through it.”
Joel: “Just flows in a direction, the same on.”
Andrea: “Just the electrons moving through the wire.”
Group 2
Brenda: “The electrons are going through and lighting it up. ”
Michelle: “The electrons are moving through it and making it light up. ”
Evan: “The electrons are
Keegan: “Electrons are going into it and powering it up.”
Group 3
Barbie: “The electrons are going in and out.” flowing through the metal so that light can be produced.”
Kendal: “The electrons are going through the light bulb, instead of just in front of it.”

7
Jill: “Electricity is moving in and out.”
Norah: “It lights up.”
Colin: “The electrons are moving through the light bulb, lighting it up.”
Leah: “Electrons are being used as it is going through
Brett: “The electrons are flowing through the little wire inside and flowing out.” the load. Well, it is going through it and making light bulb light up.”
Jane: “Going in the filament and out and making it light up.”
The data appears to indicate that the students were often interpreting the models as was intended by the designer of the program. Only 4 out 58 responses were difficult to categorize or indicated some misunderstanding of the model used in the simulation. The remaining 54 responses belonged to types 1 and 2, which would appear to indicate that the students were correctly interpreting the models. However, a majority of the responses belonged to group 1, which included literal descriptions of what the students could see without any interpretation of the electrical concepts such as energy is used up by the light bulb. These students may have understood the electrical concepts being shown in the models, but since very few provided any further explanation of what they were viewing it is difficult to determine if they understood the role of the models. As a result the data indicates only that the students interpreted the visual qualities of the model as intended by the designers of the program, but does not indicate whether they fully understood the role of the model and any electrical concepts that were visually illustrated by the models in the simulation.
The final set of interview questions from this area asked the students to identify features of the models that were realistic or unrealistic with respect to what they know about the electrical equipment and related concepts. The models included physical objects such as light bulbs, wires, and batteries; however, there was also a representation of electrons, which are theoretical particles rather than physical objects. The students provided 55 responses for this set of questions that could be classified into three different types. The first type of response included 27 responses in which the students identified physical appearances that were realistic or unrealistic about the model in comparison to the actual object. For example, a physical appearance that was identified by many of the students that was not realistic was the shape of the wires, since the wires were rectangular in appearance instead of round.
The second type of response included 15 responses that identified theoretical properties of the representation that appeared to be either realistic or unrealistic. Unlike the previous type of response these responses were not linked to descriptions of physical aspects of the actual object. Similar to the responses related to the description of the models, these responses suggested an understanding of electrical concepts. They also suggested an understanding of the role of models since it appeared that the students

8 understood that the models are not meant to be exact replicas of the real object, but rather representations of abstract concepts.
The third type of response included 13 responses where the student could not identify visual details that were unrealistic about the model and thought that the model was a realistic representation. For this category the visual model seemed to be consistent with the students’ knowledge about the actual equipment or theoretical concept the model represented, and the students usually provided no further explanation in their responses.
The following chart exemplifies how responses were classified when the students were asked if they thought that the wire was realistic
Table 2
Classification of Wire Responses
Student
Brenda
Michelle
Evan
Kendal
Allison
Colin
Joel
Andrea
Barbie
Leah:
Jill
Response
“Yes, but not looking like this.”
“Too many extra wires.”
“Cartoony, should be more electrons.”
Classification
First category.
First category.
First and second category.
Explanation
Brenda appears to think the model correctly shows electrical concepts, but the appearance of the models is not realistic.
Michelle appears to be talking about the appearance of model.
Evan thinks the cartoony appearance is unrealistic. He also thinks the number of electrons is unrealistic indicating a theoretical understanding of electrical
“The wires are square instead of round”
“Yes.”
First category. currents.
Kendal thinks the square appearance is unrealistic.
Third category. Allison agrees with the model.
“Yes.”
“Well, the wire is straight.”
“Just that you can see electrons
First category.
Colin agrees with the model.
Joel thinks the straight appearance of wires is unrealistic.
Second category. Andrea appears to think that you cannot see through wires and see moving through them.” electrons, which indicates an abstract understanding of electrons.
“No, not really.”
Third category. Barbie agrees with model.
“Not very
First category. Leah thinks the cartoon appearance is unrealistic. insulated and cartoons”
“That you can see through the wires. It is straight.”
First category. Jill appears to think the straight appearance of the wires is unrealistic.

9
Norah
Jane
Brett
Keegan
“It is perfectly straight.”
“It is just perfectly straight, other than that nothing.”
“You can see little electron things, they are going really slow.”
“Nothing, simulates its moving well.”
First category.
First category.
Second category.
Norah thinks the appearance is unrealistic.
Jane thinks the appearance is unrealistic.
Brett is talking about the speed of electrons and theoretical properties electrons, suggesting an understanding of electricity.
Second category. Keegan appears to be talking about the movement of electrons and an understanding of theoretical electrical concepts.
When all 55 responses obtained from the questions were classified the following results were produced.
Table 3
Classification of all Responses
Model
Wire
Electron
Light bulb
Battery
Total = 55
Category 1
8
9
9
1
27/55
Category 2
5
3
3
4
15/55
Category 3
3
6
4
1
13/55
Following analysis of the data a number of observations can be made. The data appears to indicate that the students were able to recognize visual qualities in the model that were realistic or unrealistic since 27 out of 55 responses made by the students were classified into category 1. Since only 15 out of 55 responses were classified into category
2, it also appears that the students were able to recognize visual qualities that were realistic or unrealistic better than being able to recognize theoretical concepts that agreed or disagreed with what they knew about the expressed model. The students also appeared to have difficulty identifying any features that were unrealistic with electrons, since 6 out of the 15 students indicated that the model was realistic. These students included Joel,
Brenda, Allison, Andrea, Barbie, and Jane. When Joel was asked if she could see anything that was unrealistic about what he knew about electrons he simply said, “No, not really”. As well, the data appears to point out that most of students were able to determine some theoretical aspects of the models that they thought were correct or incorrect despite the fact that very few responses were recorded for this second category.
Since eight of the fifteen responses were recorded when the students were questioned about the light bulbs, it suggests the students have a good theoretical understanding of how light bulbs work.
As a result of the analysis of the interview recordings it also appears that Barbie may not have understood the role of the models. When Barbie was asked to describe what

10 she could see when she looked at the models all her responses were literal descriptions that belonged to group 1, such as “They are flowing around.” and “The electrons are going in and out.” These responses suggest little or no theoretical understanding of the electrical concepts being shown in the model. Barbie was also unable to identify any physical or theoretical concepts that were unrealistic about the models representing the electrons, wires, and light bulb. As a result it is possible that she appears to think that models are exact replicas of the real electrical equipment rather than abstract representations of electrical concepts, and she does not understand of the role of the models used in the simulation.
Students’ comments about the SMART board
The data from the interviews overwhelmingly indicates that the students liked the
SMART board and found it fun to use. This was evident because eleven of the fifteen students either said it was fun or that they liked using the SMART board. For example
Michelle commented, “I like it, it’s easier, more controllable”. Brenda said she liked it a lot and that it was better than classroom work. Colin said, “I think it is pretty fun, more interesting than sitting in a desk and writing notes”.
There were a variety of reasons for the students’ enjoyment of the use of the
SMART board. Five of the students commented that they liked it because it was interactive. Colin said, “I think it’s pretty fun and more interesting than sitting in a desk and just writing notes, or listening to the teacher talk, and a way to interact with it without just being bored and sitting in class, actually touch it”. Five of the students appreciated the SMART board's ability to visually display material. Barbie said, “I find it easier to learn, it’s a bigger thing to show”, and Michelle liked it because “you have a better view of it and a better view of everyone else seeing it”. Four of the students commented that they liked using the SMART for doing lab work. Allison remarked, “I like doing labs because you get to actually go and do stuff, but I like this [SMART board] also, because it’s a new way and kind of cool”. Jane thought that it was not as confusing as actual wires because real wires don’t work and they are hard to connect. Jane made the comment, “I guess if some people don’t like it they can still do the other things the like more visuals [lab equipment] but this [SMART board] still works for the visuals”. Two students liked using the SMART board in conjunction with the simulation because they considered the simulation was safer than using actual equipment in the laboratory.
There were only two features of the interactive white board that the students disliked. The most commonly disliked aspect related to technical difficulties that occurred such as having the board go out of alignment, losing an Internet connection, or having difficulty manually moving images around on the board. As previously noted, the video recordings indicated that all of the groups experienced some sort of technical difficulty while working at the board. For example, one group had difficulty moving electrical equipment around on the board and had to stop their work and realign the
SMART board in order to complete the assignment. A second group was working on the
SMART board when the local network shut down temporarily, which prevented them from accessing the PhET website to download the simulation. All of the groups experienced some degree of difficulty dragging visual models around on the board.
Interestingly, the second aspect of the SMART board that some students didn’t like was that they felt that using it was not as effective as performing work in a

11 laboratory. Three of the students made comments about this, including Brenda, who said,
“Not as realistic as you do in the lab or class work. It is safer, but not as fun.” This statement contradicts previous statements of other students concerning the use the
SMART boards for lab work.
Conclusion See abstract