Computer simulations are currently used in diverse scientific disciplines as well as in science teaching. The simulations proposed for physics teaching are designed for specific purposes and allow studying natural phenomena through exploration and/or modeling. In this work, we present an analysis that, based on the theoretical frame provided by the nature of science (NOS), considers some aspects of present discussions on computer simulations that should be taken into account to promote scientifically literate citizens. We examine different types of simulations used, specifically, in the teaching of physics for high school in the past few years. We also explore some of the current philosophical thoughts on scientific simulations and which of their aspects could become part of the teaching–learning process when using simulations in science teaching—for example, the role of the model in simulations, the relationship between simulations and experimentation, the validity of knowledge resulting from simulations, and the role of animation in relation to the simulation used. Discussing these aspects from the viewpoint of the NOS would provide students with an updated vision of scientific activity so that they could analyze the information they receive daily and, as members of society, take a stand accordingly.
WinsbergE.Sanctioning models: the epistemology of simulation. Sci Context1999; 12: 275–292.
2.
LenhardJ.Computation and simulation. In: FrodemanRKleinJTMitchamCThe Oxford handbook on interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.246–258.
3.
JohnsonALenhardJ. Toward a new culture of prediction. Computational modeling in the era of desktop computing. In: NordmannA, et al. (eds) Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011, pp.189–1993.
4.
SimpsonJ.Simulations are not models. Proc Model Simulat2006; 1: 1–33.
5.
JuanD.Nociones de simulación computacional: simulaciones y modelos científicos. Argumentos de Razón Técnica2015; 18: 87–110.
6.
GalisonP.Computer simulation and the trading zone. In: GalisonPStumpDJ (eds) The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1996, pp.118–157.
7.
Fox KellerE.Models, simulations and “computer experiments”. In: RadderH (ed.) The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh, PA: Hans Radder, 2003, pp.198–215.
8.
WinsbergE.Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago, IL: Winsberg, Eric, 2010.
9.
ScaliseKTimmsMMoorjaniA, et al. Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. J Res Sci Teach2011; 48: 1050–1078.
10.
SmetanaLKBellRL. Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: a critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ2012; 34: 1337–1370.
11.
De JongT. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science2013; 340: 305–309.
12.
LópezSVeitEAraujoI. Una revisión de la literatura sobre el uso de la modelación y simulación computacional para la enseñanza de la física en la educación básica y media. Rev Bras Ensino Física2016; 38: 1–16.
13.
VelascoJButelerL. Simulaciones computacionales en la enseñanza de la física: una revisión crítica de los últimos años. Enseñanza las Ciencias2017; 35: 161–178.
14.
HsuYSThomasRA. The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. Int J Sci Educ2002; 24: 955–979.
15.
HennessyS. Integrating technology into teaching and learning of school science: a situated perspective on pedagogical issues in research. Stud Sci Educ2006; 42: 1–50.
16.
GobertJO’DwyerLHorwitzP, et al. Examining the relationship between students’ epistemologies of models and conceptual learning in three science domains: biology, physics, & chemistry. Int J Sci Educ2011; 33: 653–684.
17.
BayraktarS. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. J Res Technol Educ2002; 34: 173–188.
18.
KoponenITTalaS. Generative modelling in physics and in physics education: from aspects of research practices to suggestions for education. In: MatthewsMR (ed) International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014, pp.1143–1169.
19.
GrecaIMSeoaneEArriassecqI. Epistemological issues concerning computer simulations in science and their implications for science education. Sci Educ2014; 23: 897–921.
20.
SeoaneME. Simulaciones computacionales en ciencia y simulaciones en enseñanza de las ciencias: debates epistemológicos actuales y posibles contribuciones para la educación en Física. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad Nacional Tres de Febrero, 2018.
21.
DevelakiM. Methodology and epistemology of computer simulations and implications for science education. J Sci Educ Technol2019; 28(4): 353–70. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-019-09772-0.
22.
Adúriz BravoA. Desde la enseñanza de los “productos de la ciencia” hacia la enseñanza de los “procesos de la ciencia” en la Universidad. Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina: Colección, 2011.
23.
IrzikGNolaR. A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Sci Educ2011; 20: 591–607.
24.
MatthewsMR. Changing the focus: from nature of science to features of science. In: KhineMS (ed.) Advances in nature of science research. Dordrecht: Myint Swe Khine, 2012, pp.3–26.
25.
AllchinD. Teaching the nature of science. Perspectives and resources. St. Paul: Douglas Allchin, 2013.
26.
VázquezAManasseroMA. Una taxonomía para facilitar la enseñanza explícita de la naturaleza de la ciencia y su integración en el desarrollo del currículo de ciencias. Interacções2016; 11: 312–349.
27.
DuránJM. Computer simulations in science and engineering. Concepts-practices-perspectives. Switzerland: Springer, 2018.
28.
SnyderCWMastrandeaMDSchneiderSH. The complex dynamics of the climate system: constraints on our knowledge, policy implications and the necessity of systems thinking. In: HookerCA (ed.) Philosophy of complex systems. Oxford: Cliff Hooker, 2011.
29.
BoltonPDespresMPereira da SilvaLA, et al. The green swan. Central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change. Switzerland: Bank for I, 2020.
30.
HeymannM. Understanding and misunderstanding computer simulation: the case of atmospheric and climate science—an introduction. Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys2010; 41: 193–200.
31.
ÖrenTI. The many facets of simulation through a collection of about 100 definitions. SCS M&S Mag2011a; 2: 82–92.
32.
ÖrenTI. A critical review of definitions and about 400 types of modeling and simulation. SCS M&S Mag2011b; 2: 142–151.
33.
KirschnerPHuismanW. Dry laboratories in science education; computer-based practical work. Int J Sci Educ1998; 20: 665–682.
34.
MintzR. Computerized simulation as an inquiry tool. Sch Sci Math1993; 93(2): 76–80.
35.
DoerrH. Experiment, simulation and analysis: an integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. Int J Sci Educ1997; 19: 265–282.
36.
De JongTvan JoolingenW. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res1998; 68: 179–201.
37.
TverskyBMorrisonJB. Animation: can it facilitate?Int J Hum Comput Stud2002; 57: 247–262.
38.
HöfflerTNLeutnerD. Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr2007; 17: 722–738.
MarshallJAYoungES. Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulate environments. J Res Sci Teach2006; 43: 907–937.
41.
TeodoroVD. Modellus: learning physics with mathematical modeling. Portugal: Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, 2002.
42.
TeixidóCC. Autoaprendizaje de máquinas simples y mecanismos mediante el simulador Algodoo para 3o de la ESO en la asignatura de Tecnología. Barcelona: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, 2016.
43.
RebelloARamosM. Simulação computacional e maquetes na aprendizagem de circuitos elétricos: um olhar sobre a sala de aula. Rev Experiências em Ensino Ciências2009; 4: 23–33.
44.
JaakkolaTNurmiC. Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. J Comput Assist Learn2008; 24: 271–283.
45.
PerkinsKMooreEPodolefskyN, et al. Towards research-based strategies for using PhET simulations in middle school physical science classes. Am Inst Phys2012; 1413: 295–298.
46.
Vreman-de OldeCDe JongT. Student-generated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. Int J Sci Educ2004; 26: 859–873.
47.
MandinachE. Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. J Educ Compu Res1989; 5: 221–243.
48.
SteedM. STELLA, A simulation construction kit: Cognitive process and educational implications. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching1992; 11: 39–52.
49.
DoerrH. STELLA: Ten years later. A review of the literature. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning1996; 1(2): 201–224.
50.
MulderYGLazonderAWDe JongT, et al. Validating and optimizing the effects of model progression in simulation-based inquiry learning. J Sci Educ Technol2012; 21: 722–729.
51.
MendesJFCostaIDe SousaC. O uso do software Modellus na integraçao entre conhecimentos teóricos e atividades experimentais de tópicos de mecánica. Rev Bras Ensino Física2012; 34: 1–9.
52.
ZamarroJMNuñezMMolinaG. Aprender construyendo simulaciones. In: i congreso en tecnologías de la información y comunicación en la enseñanza de las ciencias, La Plata, Argentina, 29-30 September, 2005.
53.
InsuastiJ. Problemas de enseñanza y aprendizaje de los fundamentos de la programación. Rev Educ Desarro Soc2016; 10: 234–246.
54.
SinsPHMSavelsberghERVan JoolingenW, et al. The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. Inter J Sci Educ2009; 31: 1205–1229.
55.
HodsonD. Nature of science in the science curriculum: origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In: MatthewsM (ed.) International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Michael, 2014, pp.911–970.
56.
Acevedo-DíazJAGarcia CarmonaAAragón MendezM. Enseñar y aprender sobre naturaleza de la ciencia mediante el análisis de controversias de historia de la ciencia. Resultados y conclusiones de un proyecto de investigación didáctica. Editorial. Madrid, 2017.
57.
WongSLHodsonD. From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Sci Educ2009; 93: 109–130.
58.
España RamosEPrieto RuzT. Problemas sociocientíficos y enseñanza-aprendizaje de las ciencias. Inv en la esc2010; 71: 17–24.
59.
TalaSVesterinenVM. Nature of science contextualized: studying nature of science with scientists. Sci Educ2015; 24: 435–457.
60.
Flener-LovittC. Using the socioscientific context of climate change to teach chemical content and the nature of science. J Chem Educ2014; 91: 1587−1593.
61.
GuillemotH. Connections between simulations and observation in climate computer modeling. Scientist’s practices and―bottom-up epistemology lessons. Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys2010; 41: 242–252.
62.
PetersenA. Simulating nature. A philosophical study of computer-simulation uncertainties and their role in climate science and policy advice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2nd ed.2012.
63.
GilbertJKJustiR. Modelling-based teaching in science education. Switzerland: Springer, 2016.
64.
OlivaJM. Distintas acepciones para la idea de modelización en la enseñanza de las ciencias. Ens las Cs2019; 37: 5–24.
65.
Adúriz-BravoA. A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Sci Educ2012; 22: 1593–1611.
66.
GregoricBHaglundJ. Conceptual blending as an interpretive lens for student engagement with technology: exploring celestial motion on an interactive whiteboard. Res Sci Educ2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9794-8.
67.
HestenesD. Modeling games in the Newtonian world. Am J Phys1992; 60: 732–748.
68.
WinsbergE. Simulated experiments: methodology for a virtual world. Philos Sci2003; 70: 105–125.
69.
Grüne-YanoffTWeirichP. The philosophy and epistemology of simulation: a review. Simul Gaming2010; 40: 20–50.
70.
HuppertJLazarowitzR. Computer simulations in the high school: students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. Int J Sci Educ2002; 24: 803–821.
71.
KaputJJ. Creating cyberetic and psychological ramps from the concrete to the abstract: Examples from multiplicate structure. In: PerkinsDNSchwartzJLWestMMWiskeMS (eds) Software goes to school: teaching for understanding with new technologies. London: Ox., 1995, pp.130–154.
72.
TaoPGunstoneR. The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer supported physics instruction. J Res Sci Teach1999; 36: 859–882.
73.
ZachariaZCAndersonOR. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulations prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiments on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. Am J Phys2003; 71: 618–629.
74.
GebanOAskarPOzkanI. Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on high school students. J Educ Res1992; 86: 5–10.
75.
KlahrDTrionaLWilliamsC. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. J Res Sci Teach2007; 44: 183–203.
76.
BaserM. Effects of conceptual change and traditional confirmatory simulations on pre service teachers’ understanding of direct current circuits. J Sci Educ Technol2006; 15: 367–381.
77.
HumphreysP. Extending ourselves. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
78.
ParkerWS. Does matter really matter? Computer simulations, experiments, and materiality. Synthese2009; 169: 483–496.
79.
GiéreR. Science without laws. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
80.
GualaF. The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge: Francesco Guala, 2005.
81.
MorganM. Experiments without material intervention: model experiments, virtual experiments and virtually experiments. In: RadderH (ed.) The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh, PA: Hans Radder, 2003, pp.216–235.
82.
KoponenIT. Models and modelling in physics education: a critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Sci Educ2007; 16: 751–773.
83.
SensevyGTiberghienASantiniJ, et al. An epistemological approach to modeling: cases studies and implications for science teaching. Sci Educ2008; 92: 424–446.
84.
FriggRReissJ. The philosophy of simulation: hot issues or same old stew?Synthese2009; 169: 593–613.
85.
HookerCA. Introduction to philosophy of complex systems. Part B. In: HookerCA (ed.) Philosophy of complex systems Vol 10 (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science). Oxford: Cliff Hooker, 2011, pp.841–909.
