Session S4G
Work in Progress - A Transparency and Scaffolding Framework for Computational Simulation Tools Alejandra J. Magana, Dragica Vasileska, and Shaikh Ahmed
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract - Technological advances in cyberinfrastructure have paved the way for research grade computational simulation tools, such as those available on nanoHUB.org. Even though benefits have been acknowledged for incorporating these tools into teaching and learning environments, difficulties have also been identified. To address some of these difficulties researchers have emphasized that inquiry learning with simulations, in order to be successful, needs adequate but not intrusive scaffolding. As a response to this need, nanoHUB.org affiliated faculty have proposed toolbased curricula to be used for training 21st century engineers in the nanoelectronics field. Motivated and informed by our previous work and related literature on inquiry learning with simulation, a transparency and scaffolding framework is proposed to be integrated into existing nanoHUB tool-based curricula. Index Terms – computational simulations, cyberlearning, nanoHUB, scaffolding, tool-based curricula INTRODUCTION Technological advances in cyberinfrastructure have resulted in research grade computational simulation tools, such as those available on the nanoHUB.org, which have the potential to provide learners with the ability to do things they could not do in the real world. Even though benefits have been acknowledged for incorporating these tools into teaching and learning environments, difficulties have also been identified. For example, de Jong [1] summarized these as students’ inability to: i) choose the appropriate variables to work with, ii) estipulate testable hypotheses, iii) link experimental data and hypotheses, iv) translate theoretical variables to observable ones, v) design effective experiments and vi) devise correct predictions, among others. To address some of these difficulties researchers have emphasized that inquiry learning with simulations, in order to be successful, needs adequate but not intrusive scaffolding [2-6]. As a response to this need, nanoHUB.org affiliated faculty have proposed a novel methodology, the so-called tool-based curricula, to be used for training future engineers in the optoelectronics and nanoelectronics fields. TOOL-BASED CURRICULA Tool-based curricula consists of assembling a set of related tools together with instructional materials and learning strategies that would allow the learner and potential instructors to incorporate research grade computational simulation tools into the teaching and learning of
nanoelectronics and related topics. ABACUS (Assembly of Basic Applications for Coordinated Understanding of Semiconductors), AQME (Advancing Quantum Mechanics for Engineers), ANTSY (Assembly for Nanotechnology Survey Courses) and ACUTE (Assembly for Computational Electronics), are examples of tool-based curricula already installed on the nanoHUB.org. Our test-bed, ABACUS, was designed for the purpose of better understanding the operation of basic and advanced semiconductor devices and comprises the following simulation tools: Crystal Viewer, Periodic Potential Lab, Piece-Wise Constant Potential Barrier Tool, Bandstructure Lab, Carrier Statistics Lab, Drift-Diffusion Lab, PN Junction Lab, BJT Lab, MOS Capacitor Lab, MOSFET Lab. Motivated and informed by our previous work and related literature of inquiry learning with simulation tools we have revamped ABACUS by integrating a transparency and scaffolding framework embedded within ABACUS. INQUIRY LEARNING WITH SIMULATION TOOLS Inquiry learning with simulation tools, in order to be successful, needs adequate and unintrusive scaffolding [26]. Scaffolding refers to a process that enables, provides assistance or support a novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal beyond his or her own reach if pursued independently when "unassisted" [7, 8]. Free exploration without any support, has been shown not to benefit learners [5, 9]. Therefore, to support students while they interact with ABACUS simulation tools, we adopted educational frameworks that support inquiry learning. For example, Quintana et al. [10] presented a set of scaffolding guidelines: i) the use of representation and language that bridge learners prior conceptions, ii) organization of tools and artifacts around the semantics of the discipline, iii) use of multiple representations that make explicit properties of underlying data, iv) provide structure for complex task and functionality, v) embed expert guidance about scientific practices, vi) automatically handle non-salient routine tasks, and vii) facilitate ongoing articulation and reflection during the investigation. Similarly, Kali and Linn [11] suggested a set of design principles: i) make science accessible, ii) make thinking visible, iii) help students learn from others, and iv) promote autonomy and lifelong learning. Another aspect to be considered for the integration of simulation tools into educational settings is to provide students with transparency of the simulation tool. Tanimoto [12] defined transparency as a property of some systems where the inner workings and the design of the system are
978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S4G-1
Session S4G visible to users (p.1). The two most common approaches for simulation transparency are the black box and the glass box simulations [13]. The glass box simulations differ from the black box simulations by providing learners with visibility [14]; i.e., the ability to inspect and modify the equations that constitute the simulation’s model. Also, transparency has been related to students’ levels of engagement [13] in which the learning environment causes learners to engage in cognitive processes in similar ways as experts. THE SCAFFOLDING AND TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK Over the past four years we have investigated how instructors and students perceive and experience nanoHUB computational simulations as teaching and learning tools in naturalistic learning environments. In particular, qualitative research studies were conducted aiming to identify the potential aspects that may inhibit students’ learning processes with computational simulation tools. Open-ended interviews and think aloud protocols were conducted with 33 undergraduate and graduate students who used nanoHUB simulation tools as part of their learning experiences inside and outside the classroom. Two major themes emerged from the data related to students’ encountered obstacles when using nanoHUB as part of their learning experiences. One obstacle was related to the transparency of the simulation tool and the other was the need of further instructional support (scaffolds) when students worked with the simulation tools on their own. To overcome students’ limitations, a transparency and scaffolding framework was proposed that has been integrated into ABACUS tool-based curricula as follows. The transparency aspect has been addressed by facilitating learning materials at three different levels of transparency: transparency of the physics level, transparency at the mathematical level, and transparency at the computational level. Table I depicts an example of how the transparency framework has been integrated, through learning objectives, in the PN Diode Lab (within ABACUS). TABLE I . EXAMPLE OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH PN DIODE LAB IN ABACUS ABACUS Physical Mathematical Computational Tool Model Model Model PN Diode Apply drift-diffusion modeling via goal: solution of Poisson and continuity Describe the equations physical and Apply numerical solution techniques mathematical for Sparse Matrices to solve driftoperation of diffusion set of equations PN-Junctions Develop and validate a simple PN-Junction simulation tool
and the hard scaffolds through pedagogical approaches to be introduced by instructors during class time. FUTURE WORK The research team is currently investigating the fidelity and effectiveness of this framework in students’ learning. Inspired by the opportunities and challenges offered by cyberlearning as identified by Borgman et al. [16], the longterm goal of this research is to incorporate advances in learning sciences into authoring curriculum, assessment and other materials to appropriately scaffold learning processes in nanoelectronics and optoelectronics instruction by incorporating authentic and realistic data from research, models, simulations and other resources to improve lifelong learning. Ongoing research studies also involve re-designing and evaluation of the proposed framework. REFERENCES [1]T. de Jong, "Computer Simulations: Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning," Science, vol. 312, pp. 532-533, 2006. [2]T. de Jong and W. R. van Joolingen, "AECT Handbook of Educational Communications and Technology. 3rd. Ed," J. M. Spector, et al., Eds., ed: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp. 457-468. [3]R. E. Mayer, "Should there be a three-strikes rule against prue discovery learning?," American Psychology, vol. 59, pp. 14-19, 2004. [4]D. J. Reid, et al., "Supporting sicentific discovery learning in a simulation environment," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 19, pp. 9-20, 2003. [5]W. R. van Joolingen, et al., "Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 23, pp. 111-119, 2007. [6]W. Winn, "Research into Practice: Current Trends in Educational Technology Research: The Study of Learning Environments," Educational Psychology Review, vol. 14, pp. 331--351, 2002. [7]R. D. Pea, "The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity," The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13, pp. 423-451, 2004. [8]D. Wood, et al., "The role of tutoring in problem solving.," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, vol. 17, pp. 89100, 1976. [9]K. Veermans, et al., "Use of Heuristics to Facilitate Scientific Discovery Learning in a Simulation Learning Environment in a Physics Domain," International Journal of Science Education, vol. 28, pp. 341--361, 2006. [10]C. Quintana, et al., "A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry," The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13, pp. 337--386, 2004. [11]Y. Kali and M. C. Linn, "Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning," in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, J. M. Spector, et al., Eds., 3rd. ed: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007. [12]S. Tanimoto, "Transparent Interfaces: Model and Methods," presented at the Workshop on Invisible and Transparent Interfaces, ITI, Gallipoli, Italy, 2004. [13]M. Resnick, et al., "Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation," The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 7--30, 2000. [14]B. Du Boulay, et al., "The black box inside the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 51, pp. 265--277, 1999. [15]T. Brush and J. W. Saye, "A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment," The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 1, pp. 1--12, 2002. [16]C. Borgman, et al., "Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge," Report of the NSF Task Force on Cyberlearning, 2008.
The scaffolding aspect of the framework has been integrated through soft and hard scaffolds [15]. The distinction between soft and hard scaffolds is that soft scaffolds are feedback, questions or information provided by the instructor, and perhaps peers, while hard scaffolds are embedded (or hard-wired) into the computer learning environment (e.g. tool-based curricula) [15]. We have implemented soft scaffolds embedded in the tool-based curricula in the form of tutorials, online demonstrations, etc. 978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S4G-2
