Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: How falling objects fall

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 110-120

  Lazonder, A W ^a   Ehrenhard, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Conceptual change; Hands on science; Inquiry learning; Simulations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897632340     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12024     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Virtual laboratories in engineering education: The simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17, 108-118. doi:10.1002/cae.20186
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
3. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Wiley.
4. Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486-1498. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.01.007
5. Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8, 1-12. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113
6. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623:AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
7. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 327-343. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.327
8. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21-29.
9. Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Mac, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57, 2054-2067. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009
10. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 121-130. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x
11. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., ... LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1, 010103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
12. Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4, 1-8.
13. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
14. Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 121-131. doi:10.1002/tea.3660260204
15. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4
16. Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57, 2281-2290. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.012
17. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106
18. Howe, C., Taylor Tavares, J., & Devine, A. (2012). Everyday conceptions of object fall: Explicit and tacit understanding during middle childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 351-366. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.09.003
19. Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 271-283. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x
20. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 71-93. doi:10.1002/tea.20386
21. Jones, M. G., Minogue, J., Tretter, T. R., Negishi, A., & Taylor, R. (2005). Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education, 90, 111-123. doi:10.1002/sce.20086
22. Ketelhut, D. J., & Nelson, B. C. (2010). Designing for real-world scientific inquiry in virtual environments. Educational Research, 52, 151-167. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.482741
23. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183-203.
24. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.
25. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7-19.
26. Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Van Lieburg, E. (2009). Unraveling the influence of domain knowledge during simulation-based inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 37, 437-451. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9055-8
27. Marshall, P. (2005). Tangibles in the balance: A comparison of physical and screen versions of the balance beam task. Proceedings of the 8th Human-Centered Technology Postgraduate Workshop. Cognitive Science Research Paper 576, University of Sussex.
28. Mason, L. (2001). Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change. Learning and Instruction, 11, 453-483. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00042-6
29. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127.
30. Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76, 317-348.
31. Olympiou, G., Zacharia, Z., & De Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students' conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575-596. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2
32. Piaget, J. (1960). The child's conception of physical causality. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
33. Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23, 10-23. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.006
34. Riley, J. P. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers' acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 373-384. doi:10.1002/tea.3660160502
35. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142.
36. Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer, R. D., Brooks, D. W., Wilson, K., & Fowler, D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 137-141.
37. Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of Physics, 68, S37-S41.
38. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary schools students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149-173.
39. Wason, P. C., & Shapiro, D. A. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63-71.
40. Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y.-L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 25-42. doi:10.1002/tea.20097
41. Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 307-316. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x
42. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x
43. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 447-457. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004
44. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317-331. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
45. Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on student's conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 1021-1035.