Example of conversation Essays

Example of conversation Essays Example of conversation Paper Example of conversation Paper On the other hand, Stefanos and Angeliki, kinesthetic learners that collaborated in the non-computer based approach, helped each other in a bigger degree during the construction of the model, since they were familiar on working with materials and they both had the chance experimenting with the materials. This reinforces Flemings (2008) suggestion that kinesthetic learners have experience and feel comfortable in the science lab. Still, in some cases Stefanos handled the materials for longer and Angeliki was just helping by bringing the appropriate materials for the development of the model. Stefanos: No Angeliki is not like that, let me do it. I have used this tool again and I can manage better. Go fetch the globe and the Sun, please.  Angeliki: Ok, I am going but then I want to try too You shouldnt do everything by yourself! The teacher said that both together have to develop the model.  Stefanos: Ok, I will let you do the next thing  The above conversations indicate that there were factors that influenced the teaching process and werent strictly related with students learning styles, but with students experiences, as Milgram (2007) suggests too. Boys in both situations tended to dominate girls, while this was more obvious in the computer-based approach. That is due to the fact that boys, as Milgram s (2007) also suggests, have more experience with the hand-on lab equipment than girls, something that was observed occurring in the present study in the computer and the science lab. As it concerns the students that had visual learning preferences and worked in the two groups different characteristics of the two learning approaches revealed to benefit them. Specifically, the fact that Stagecast Creator is a program that uses images for creating rules and doesnt require a programming language was very supportive for Katerina and George (visual learners), since they could easily express their understandings through images. However, students were considering their animations as exact representations of reality, something that Osborne and Henessy (2003) also supported, so they were trying to create a model that was representing the phenomenon. Still, the group of visual learners that participated in the non computer-based teaching approach found some difficulties on developing a model, since they could visualize how they wanted their model to look like by seeing all the materials available to them, but in the practice they found difficulties in actually doing what they wished. Moreover, the two teaching approaches revealed to promote in a big degree the conversations between students with auditory strengths. In both groups, the couples that had auditory learning preference were discussing for longer time than the other two couples in order to express their ideas and find solutions for any problems they came across, something that strengthens Felders (1988) idea that auditory learners are good at explaining things to others and participating in conversations. However, the fact that they could add sound and write text that was explaining what their model represented and how, was an additional advantage for students with auditory learning preference who participated in the computer-based modeling approach. Considering studys findings, I argue that a modeling-based approach can facilitate students understanding about a scientific phenomenon, if educators adopt appropriate activities that correspond to students individual needs. Also, the use of computer-based programming environments for a modeling procedure can be quite beneficial for developing students modeling skills. However, in order for that to be accomplished is essential for students to become comfortable on using computers during science lessons. CONCLUSIONS The current study identifies fifth graders interactions with two different modeling- based approaches, one computer-based and one non computer-based, when they are taught a scientific phenomenon and makes a correlation with students learning styles. Both approaches were based on constructivism, so a link with this pedagogic approach is made. In this sense, the focus was on students conversation types, their activities, the program strategies they developed during their work with the computer-based modeling tool as well as on their opinions that were expressed through group interviews. Through this is recognized which of the two modeling approaches can support and facilitate students understandings in a more coherent way and which factors, basically related to students individual needs, affect that. It was found that the two modeling-based environments that were designed and implemented in this study were valuable in promoting students understanding about the physical phenomenon under study (how day and night occurs). Through modeling-based teaching students were able to express their ideas about the phenomenon and refine them later on in the light of new evidence. Furthermore, the fact that the two approaches included activities that corresponded to every students individual learning preference appeared to be significant, since all students needs were fulfilled. However, the implementation of SC, the computer-based modeling tool that was used for the purposes of this study revealed to be more promising in enhancing students modeling skills. This was due to the fact that the specific programming environment enabled students to test, revise and validate their models through a friendly and motivating environment of experimenting and debugging knowledge. In addition, students individual characteristics seemed to be supported from different features of the two modeling approaches. Specifically, certain activities were helpful for some students with a specific learning style, while they ignored other activities. Therefore, the need for using a range of activities in a teaching approach that correspond to every learning style is highlighted. At this point it is important to be mentioned that gender differences, not strictly related with students learning style were observed. Furthermore, the computer-based program that was used increased students motivation since they received direct and continuous feedback that helped them revise their models. SC offered the ability to every student to use it according to his or her personal needs, since audio, images, animation and hands-on activities were available. On the other hand, students working with materials were likely to create their models with a specific way, since they didnt have many options. However, kinesthetic learners were collaborating more efficiently with the non computer-based approach since both students were able to interact with hands-on activities, while during the computer-based approach one of them was using the mouse. Even if findings from the current study cant be used in generalization for the student population, since it was a small-scale research, it is suggested that modeling-based approaches should be well designed in order to correspond to every students individual needs. Still, it is recommend that apart from learning styles, other factors like gender and age should be investigated in order to see how they affect the modeling-based teaching in a science lesson. Further researchers might also find it useful to examine which modeling approach, a computer-based modeling approach or a modeling approach based on laboratory settings, can support better students on developing modeling skills that can use in novel situations. Moreover, further research could be conducted in order to study how students experiences and confidence with computers or laboratory settings can affect two different modeling approaches similar with those of the present study.