Incrementos anuales. Determinados según el número de

As with the immersive session, Aimee and Tina showed a high degree of collaborative engagement, some verbal and non-verbal flow of engagement and technical engagement while using the modelling environment (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9: The frequency of contributions by Aimee and Tina in the modelling environment session, as a group and individually (collaborative, flow and technical

categories)

Regarding cognitive contributions (Figure 4.10), their most frequent contributions were goal-based explanation, paraphrasing and principle-based explanation, which was similar to their contributions in the immersive intervention.

Figure 4.10: The frequency of cognitive contributions by Aimee and Tina in the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 both Aime e

Table 4.4: The sequence of the participants’ cognitive activities across time in the modelling session

Period The most frequent cognitive

activities

Frequency

of both Aimee Time Tina Time

P1 Goal-based explanation 17 13 0:44.0 4 0:10.0 Checking understanding 11 5 0:13.0 6 0:10.0 Monitoring-positive 11 9 0:10.0 2 0:02.0 Principle-based explanation 6 3 0:10.0 3 0:08.0 P2 Goal-based explanation 23 13 0:32.0 10 0:24.0 Paraphrasing 16 10 0:43.0 6 0:27.0 Principle-based explanation 13 7 0:26.0 6 0:17.0 Monitoring-positive 10 7 0:11.1 3 0.03.0 Checking understanding 9 7 0:20.0 2 0:05.0 P3 Goal-based explanation 35 20 0:46.0 15 0:51.0 Paraphrasing 35 20 1:43.0 15 1:21.0 Principle-based explanation 18 10 1:11.0 8 0:35.0 Monitoring-negative 12 8 0:44.0 4 0:07.0 Checking understanding 9 6 0:15.0 3 0:07.0 P4 Paraphrasing 3 2 0:12.0 1 0:06.0 Goal-based explanation 2 1 0:05.0 1 0:03.0 Principle-based explanation 2 1 0:05.0 1 0:06.0 Monitoring-positive 1 0 0:00.0 1 0:02.0

The sequence of activities they undertook, based on the activities and directions provided in the modelling guidebook, is shown in Table 4.4. In P1, participants read an introduction to computational experiments in the modelling environment and practised the procedures for running a simulation in such an environment. An outline of the steps required to perform experiments was provided in the guidebook. This period showed a similar pattern of checking understanding to that seen at the beginning of the immersive environment session. Other activities included principle-based explanation when both were consolidating their understanding and building new knowledge. Goal-based explanations were also revealed when they were planning and making decisions to achieve their goal (e.g. Aimee said, ‘let’s press go, leave it awhile and then press stop’ and Tina said, ‘we can look at the time, or we just stop every 250’). Monitoring/positive indications were

shown as well during this period. This was clear when they were confirming their understanding of the material (e.g. Aimee said, ‘ok, alright’).

In P2 participants read and practised how to move the sliders and switches in the Omosa NetLogo model, how to change parameters and perform experiments. They were then asked to perform an experiment (Study 1) using the model. During P2 participants continued their activities from P1 and began paraphrasing as they were relating the information and making meaning of relationships, modelling relationships and developing hypotheses using terms/words they learnt in the immersive intervention. They also learnt new concepts/thinking in addition to the terms they had learnt and used earlier. They demonstrated more scientific thinking through their use of these terms and concepts: for example, ‘umm, so we can say the higher the drought severity level’ (Tina); ‘the lower the population’ (Aimee); ‘so the more grass the more yernt’ (Tina).

In P3 participants had to choose and test one of two possibilities for the cause of the decline in the populations of animals using what they had done in Study 1 as a guide to assist them to answer the guidebook questions. During this stage they engaged in almost the same pattern of activities as in P2: goal-based explanation, paraphrasing, principle- based explanation and checking understanding. In addition, monitoring/negative was shown in this period. Both participants demonstrated efforts to understand the materials, as evidenced by one or both declaring a specific material was not clear and trying to understand it by discussing it with the other: ‘why are there more yernt?’, ‘that makes no sense’, ‘I don’t understand this’ (Aimee).

Finally, during P4 (reporting findings) Aimee and Tina used the data they had collected to answer the questions posed in the guidebook. In this period, they continued to

paraphrase the information, plan further actions (goal-based explanation), relate the ideas to ecological concepts (principle-based explanation) and confirm their understanding of the material (monitoring/positive).

4.6 Summary

In summary, this chapter presented the findings from the analysis of data from one dyad of preservice teachers (Aimee and Tina) to demonstrate how the data in this study were analysed in detail. Changes in Aimee and Tina’s knowledge and understanding was evident in different situations. Analysis of the recall question and concept maps in pre- test/post-test and the synthesis questions in the guidebooks provided evidence for improvement in Aimee and Tina’s knowledge and understanding. Development in Aimee’s and Tina’s confidence was evident in different situations. Analysing their individual responses to the self-rating confidence perception questions in the pre- test/post-test interviews and in the guidebooks provided evidence for an overall development in their confidence from the pre-test to the post-test period. This chapter confirmed that the immersive and modelling environments are engaging learning environments. Learning experiences by preservice teachers in such environments helped them improve their understanding and confidence. This was evidenced through the improvement in their understanding and confidence, as shown in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. This approach supports the use of the 5Es model for designing learning experiences, which also seemed to be successful in improving participants’ understanding and confidence.

The next chapter presents results from the analysis of data collected from different sources for the four dyads of preservice teachers who participated in the study.