Using instructive simulations to teach young students simple science concepts: Evidence from electricity content

References

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Anđić, B., Ulbrich, E., Dana Picard, T. N., Cvjetićanin, S., Petrović, F., Lavicza, Z., & Maričić, M. (2022). A phenomenography study of STEM teachers’ conceptions of using 3D modelling and printing in teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10005-0
   Google Scholar
• Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çetin, A. (2018). Effects of simulation based cooperative learning on physics achievement, science process skills, attitudes towards physics and usage of ınteractive whiteboards. Kastamonu Educational Journal, 26(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375173
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. K., Haselhuhn, C., Andre, T., Mayberry, C., Wellington, S., Krafka, A., Volmer, J., & Berger, J. (1994). The acquisition of a scientific understanding of electricity: Hands-on versus computer simulation experience; conceptual change versus didactic text [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association 1994, New Orleans, LA. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77044-2
   Google Scholar
• Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. R. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharias, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science (New York, N.Y.), 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park: SRI International, 5(23), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., Maneggia, D., & Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göksün, D. O., & Gürsoy, G. (2019). Comparing success and engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz. Computers & Education, 135, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janković, A., Maričić, M., & Cvjetićanin, S. (2023). Comparing science success of primary school students in the gamified learning environment via Kahoot and Quizizz. Journal of Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00266-y
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandić, A., Subakov Simić, G., Vasić, Ž., Matejić, I., & Petrović, I. (2021). Priroda i društvo 4 – Radna sveska za četvrti razred osnovne škole [Nature and society 4 – A workbook for the fort grade of primary school]. Novi Logos.
   Google Scholar
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory – exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.550952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1), 183–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolloffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20022
   Google Scholar
• Koparan, T. (2022). How does simulation contribute to prospective mathematics teachers learning experiences and results?. Education Sciences, 12(9), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090624
   Google Scholar
• Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., Van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1428777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to write essays in English literature. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazonder, A. W., & Egberink, A. (2013). Children’s acquisition and use of the control-of-variables strategy: Effects of explicit and implicit instructional guidance. Instructional Science, 42(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9284-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazonder, A., & Ehrenhard, S. (2014). Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: How falling objects fall. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likourezos, V., & Kalyuga, S. (2016). Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: Alternative pathways to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science, 45(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9399-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C., Bano, M., Zowghi, D., & Kearney, M. (2021). Analysing user reviews of inquiry-based learning apps in science education. Computers & Education, 164, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104119
   Google Scholar
• Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: A key model for instructional technology. Journal of Educational Research Technology and Development, 53(4), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Adamov, J., Olić Ninković, S., & Anđić, B. (2022). How do direct and indirect hands-on instructions strengthened by the self-explanation effect promote learning? Evidence from motion content. Research in Science Education, 53, 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10054-w
   Google Scholar
• Maričić, M., Cvjetićanin, S., Andevski, M., & Anđić, B. (2022). Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulation on students’ learning of magnetism-related science content. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2066648
   Google Scholar
• Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing?. Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon, J. A., & Brockway, D. (2019). Facilitating learning in an interactive science simulation: The effects of task segmentation guidance on adults’ inquiry-based learning and cognitive load. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olympiou, G., Zacharias, 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(3), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9245-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plass, J., Homer, B., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61.
   Google Scholar
• Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744
   Google Scholar
• Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2010). Evidence for improved conclusion accuracy after reading about rather than conducting a belief-inconsistent simple physics experiment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 792–811. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Ven, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanina, A., Kutergina, E., & Balashov, A. (2020). The co-creative approach to digital simulation games in social science education. Computers & Education, 149, 103813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šikl Erski, A., & Munitlak, M. (2020). Priroda i društvo 3 – Radna sveska za treći razred osnovne škole [Nature and society 3 – A workbook for the third grade of primary school]. Novi Logos.
   Google Scholar
• Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, C., & Schmidt, E. (2004). Smart tests: Teacher-made tests that help students learn. Pembroke Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – a literature review. Computers & Education, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
   Google Scholar
• Wang, T., & Tseng, Y. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of physical, virtual, and virtual-physical manipulatives on third-grade students’ science achievement and conceptual understanding of evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen, C.-T.,Liu, C.-C.,Chang, H.-Y.,Chang, C.-J.,Chang, M.-H.,Fan Chiang, S.-H.,Yang, C.-W., &Hwang, F.-K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 103830.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science (New York, N.Y.), 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacharias, Z., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Zacharia, Z. C., & De Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.887083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, M. (2014). Who are interested in online science simulations? Tracking a trend of digital divide in Internet use. Computers & Education, 76, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. (2019). “Hands-on” plus “inquiry”? Effects of withholding answers coupled with physical manipulations on students’ learning of energy-related science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 60, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar