Cloud-based STEM learning: Using an online simulation to teach renewable resources management in a remote learning classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
Cloud-based STEM learning: Using an online simulation to teach renewable resources management in a remote learning classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic
During the abrupt and unplanned transition to remote online learning formats due to the COVID-19 outbreak, educators have had to adopt new teaching methods. For instance, online simulations tailored to specific curriculum topics emerged, allowing students to apply their knowledge creatively, with potentially positive effects on engagement and learning efficacy. Here, we examine the implementation of the “Save the World” simulation, created by Wonderville.org, in a high school Advanced Placement Environmental Science classroom in a remote online learning setting. In this module, students determine the most viable renewable energy generation option for given environments. Based on student and teacher feedback, the simulation effectively delivers educational material and promotes student engagement, demonstrating that online simulations can serve as a viable tool to enhance environmental science education and remote learning.
AinleyMHidiSBerndorffD (2002) Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology94(3): 545–561.
2.
AndrewACattanSCosta-DiasM, et al. (2020) Learning during the lockdown: real-time data on children’s experiences during home learning. London, UK: Institute for Fiscal Studies, Vol. 18 May. Report.
3.
AstutikSPrahaniBK (2018) The practicality and effectiveness of collaborative creativity learning (CCL) model by using PhET simulation to increase students' scientific creativity. International Journal of Instruction11(4): 409–424.
4.
BarbourMArchambaultLDiPietroM (2013) K–12 online distance education: issues and frameworks. American Journal of Distance Education27(1): 1–3.
5.
BeebeTJReyEZiegenfussJY, et al. (2010) Shortening a survey and using alternative forms of prenotification: impact on response rate and quality. BMC Medical Research Methodology10(1): 50.
6.
BlasimanRNLarabeeDFabryD (2018) Distracted students: a comparison of multiple types of distractions on learning in online lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology4(4): 222–230.
7.
BoseJ (2001) Nonresponse bias analyses at the national center for education statistics. In: Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium, Hull, Quebec. Ottowa: Statistics Canda, pp.1–8.
8.
BowersNBrandonMHillCD (2005) The use of a knowledge survey as an indicator of student learning in an introductory biology course. Cell Biology Education4(4): 311–322.
9.
ÇakıroğluÜGülerM (2021) Enhancing statistical literacy skills through real life activities enriched with gamification elements: an experimental study. E-Learning and Digital Media18(5): 441–459.
10.
CamargoCPTempskiPZBusnardoFF, et al. (2020) Online learning and COVID-19: a meta-synthesis analysis. Clinics75(e2286): e2286.
11.
CarrM (2014) The online university classroom: one perspective for effective student engagement and teaching in an online environment. Journal of Effective Teaching14(1): 99–110.
12.
ChaiyoYNokhamR (2017) The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student's perception in the classrooms response system. In: 2017 international conference on digital arts, media and technology (ICDAMT), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1–4 March 2017, pp. 178–182.
13.
ChelbergDPerryJAnnettaL, et al. (2008) Enriching STEM education through games and simulations. In: Proceedings of SITE 2008--society for information technology & teacher education international conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2008, pp. 4343–5359.
14.
ClaussJMGeedeyCK (2010) Knowledge surveys: students ability to self-assess. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning10(2): 14–24.
CondermanGHedinL (2012) Classroom assessments that inform instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record48(4): 162–168.
17.
DhawanS (2020) Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems49(1): 5–22.
18.
GaleoteDFHamariJ (2021) Game-based climate change engagement: analyzing the potential of entertainment and serious games. Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction5(226): 1–21.
19.
GellesLALordSMHoopleGD, et al. (2020) Compassionate flexibility and self-discipline: student adaptation to emergency remote teaching in an integrated engineering energy course during COVID-19. Education Sciences10(11): 304.
20.
GhebreyesusTA (2020) Media Briefing on COVID-19. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Director-General's opening remarks, 11 March.
21.
GrewenigELergetporerPWernerK, et al. (2021) COVID-19 and educational inequality: how school closures affect low- and high-achieving students. European Economic Review140(103920): 103920.
22.
GriecoEDeitzSBurkeA, et al. (2023) Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Special Report NSF 23-315, 30 January. Alexandria: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).
23.
HammersteinSKönigCDreisörnerT, et al. (2021) Effects of COVID-19-related school closures on student achievement-A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology12(746289): 746289.
24.
HanleyPDwyerLLLandG, et al. (2020) San Mateo Union High School District Special Board Meeting. San Mateo, CA: San Mateo Union High School.
25.
HawrilenkoMKroshusETandonP, et al. (2021) The association between school closures and child mental health during COVID-19. JAMA Network Open4(9): e2124092.
26.
HoxJde LeeuwESnijkersG (2003) Nonresponse in surveys: determining the research agenda for the future. BMS: Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique79(1): 47–59.
27.
JihadTKlementowiczEGryczkaP, et al. (2018) Perspectives on blended learning through the online platform, LabLessons, for Chemistry. Journal of Technology and Science Education8(1): 34–44.
28.
JohnsonCCWaltonJBStricklerL, et al. (2023) Online teaching in K-12 education in the United States: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research93(3): 353–411.
29.
JonesSMKatyalPXieX, et al. (2019) A ‘KAHOOT!’ Approach: the effectiveness of game-based learning for an advanced placement biology class. Simulation & Gaming50(6): 832–847.
30.
KhoiriyahKKairotyNAljasysyarinAV (2022) The use of Google Jamboard for synchronous collaborative reading strategies: the students’ acceptance. Voices of English Language Education Society6(1): 52–66.
31.
KimHChackoPZhaoJ, et al. (2014) Using touch-screen technology, apps, and blogs to engage and sustain high school students’ interest in chemistry topics. Journal of Chemical Education91(11): 1818–1822.
32.
KlimoskiRHuX (2011) Chapter 5: improving self-awareness and self-insight. In: LondonM (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning. New York: Oxford University Press, 52–69.
33.
KolluriS (2018) Advanced placement: the dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Review of Educational Research88(5): 671–711.
34.
LathamAHillNS (2014) Preference for anonymous classroom participation:linking student characteristics and reactions to electronic response systems. Journal of Management Education38(2): 192–215.
35.
LewisMSZhaoJMontclareJK (2012) Development and implementation of high school chemistry modules using touch-screen technologies. Journal of Chemical Education89(8): 1012–1018.
36.
LorenziniRGLewisMSMontclareJK (2011) College-mentored polymer/materials science modules for middle and high school students. Journal of Chemical Education88: 1105–1108.
37.
MacCounRPerlmutterS (2015) Blind analysis: hide results to seek the truth. Nature526(7572): 187–189.
38.
MacheJTanNShoemakerG, et al. (2017) Pear deck: an interactive classroom response system to encourage student engagement. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges33(1): 156–158.
39.
MazorKMClauserBEFieldT, et al. (2002) A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Health Services Research37(5): 1403–1417.
40.
McCarthyC (2022) Use Zoom's poll, chat features to improve online assessment. Recruiting & Retaining Adult Learners24(6): 6–7.
41.
MiddletonKV (2020) The longer-term impact of COVID-19 on K–12 student learning and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice39(3): 41–44.
42.
MonkovicJMJonesSMNicolasM, et al. (2022) From concept to reality: the use and impact of 3D prints as academic tools for high school biology education. Journal of Biological Education56(5): 528–539.
43.
NambiarD (2020) The impact of online learning during COVID-19: students’ and teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Indian Psychology8(2): 783–793.
44.
NguyenHStehrEMEisenreichH, et al. (2018) Using Google forms to inform teaching practices. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching and Learning Conference2(10): 74–79.
45.
PolatNMancillaRMahalingappaL (2013) Anonymity and motivation in asynchronous discussions and L2 vocabulary learning. Language, Learning and Technology17(2): 57–74.
46.
PontonMKEdmisterJHUkeileyLS, et al. (2001) Understanding the role of self-efficacy in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education90(2): 247–251.
47.
RothkrantzL (2017) Dropout rates of regular courses and MOOCs. In: CostagliolaGUhomoibhiJZvacekS, (eds) Computers Supported Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 25–46.
48.
SanchezGRVargasED (2016) Language bias and self-rated health status among the Latino population: evidence of the influence of translation in a wording experiment. Quality of Life Research25(5): 1131–1136.
49.
SchinskeJTannerK (2014) Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE-Life Sciences Education13(2): 159–166.
50.
SchunkDHDiBenedettoMK (2016) Chapter 3: self-efficacy theory in education. Handbook of Motivation at School. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 34–54.
51.
SummersJJWaigandtAWhittakerTA (2005) A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education29(3): 233–250.
VelasquezAGrahamCRWestRE (2013) An investigation of practices and tools that enabled technology-mediated caring in an online high school. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning14(5): 277–299.
54.
WatsonJMurinAVashawL, et al. (2013) K-12 online & blended learning: an annual review of policy and practice. In: Keeping Pace Report. 10 Year Anniversary Issue. Durango: Evergreen Education Group July.
WiemanCEAdamsWKPerkinsKK (2008) PHYSICS. PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science322(5902): 682–683.
59.
WillmsJDFriesenSMiltonP (2009) What Did You Do in School Today? Transforming Classrooms through Social, Academic, and Intellectual Engagement. Toronto: Canadian Education Association (CEA). First National Report.
60.
WinterECostelloAO’BrienM, et al. (2021) Teachers’ use of technology and the impact of Covid-19. Irish Educational Studies40(2): 235–246.
61.
XieYFangMShaumanK (2015) STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology41: 331–357.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
