• Adams, W., Dubson, M., Perkins, K., Reid, S., & Wieman, C. (2011). Circuit construction kit (DC only), virtual lab (Version 3.20) [software]. University of Colorado Boulder. Available from http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/circuitconstruction-kit-dc-virtual-lab
• Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245-263.
• Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107-1134.
• Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59-84.
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Brophy, S. P. (1998). Learning scientific principles through problem solving in computer supported and laboratory environments. Doctoral Dissertation. Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tennessee.
• Brophy, S. (2011). Frameworks for designing effective learning environments. NEESacademy Instructional Design. Retrieved from https://nees.org/resources/3553
• Bulunuz, M. (2012). Motivational qualities of hands-on science activities for Turkish preservice kindergarten teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2), 73-92.
• Calik, M. (2013). Effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry on senior science student teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 223-232.
• Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Comparing student learning in mechanics using simulations and hands-on activities. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289, 89. Retrieved from http://link.aip.org/link/?apcpcs/1289/89/1
• Cook, J. S., & Cook, L. L. (1998). How technology enhances the quality of student-centered learning. Quality Progress, 31(7), 59-63.
• Demir, S. (2011). Two inseparable facets of technology integration programs: Technology and theoretical framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 75-88.
• Design Simulation Technologies. (2005-2013). Interactive Physics [software]. Available from http://www.designsimulation.com/IP/index.php
• Dominguez, A., & Ekmekci, A. (2007, July). Pre-service teachers work on electric circuits Concepts: Hands-on and computer-based approach. Paper presented at 2007 American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) Summer Meeting, Greensboro, NC.
• Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20204
• Ekmekci, A. (2013). Models and modeling in mathematics education: Making learners' mathematical thinking, knowledge and skills visible. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1-2), 57-76.
• Ekmekci, A., & Ayar, M. C. (2012, September). Fen bilimleri ogretiminde ogrenci merkezli deneysel ve bilgisayar destekli etkinliklerin karsilastirilmasi [Student-centered teaching of science concepts: Affordances of experimental and computer-supported learning environments]. Paper presented at the 21. Ulusal Egitim Bilimleri Kongresi [21st National Conference on Educational Sciences], Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., Gray, S., Demeter, M., Rugaber, S., … Goel, A. (2008). Focusing on function: Thinking below the surface of complex natural systems. Science Scope, 31(9), 27-35.
• 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.
• Kumka, A. (2014). The paperless classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(3), 226-229.
• Lightfoot, J. M. (2005). Integrating emerging technologies into traditional classrooms: A pedagogic approach. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 209-224.
• Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89-100.
• Luangrath, P., & Pettersson, S. (2012). Problems and possibilities with centering physics teaching around student discussions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2), 189-200.
• Lunts, E. (2001). What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1(2), 59-75.
• Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24.
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Moog, R., S., & Spencer, J., N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). 994, 1- 13. doi: 10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch001
• Morris, E. J., Joiner, R., & Scanlon, E. (2002). The contribution of computer-based activities to understanding statistics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 116-126.
• National Research Council (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311.
• Ozel, S., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Capraro, R. M. (2008), Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 80–85.
• PhET Interactive Simulations (2013). [software] University of Colorado. Available from http://phet.colorado.edu
• Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
• Rezaei, A. R., & Katz, L. (2002). Using computer assisted instruction to compare the inventive model and the radical constructivist approach to teaching physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 367-380.
• Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacherstudent interactions: The case of interactive physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329-347.
• Royuk, B., & Brooks, D. (2003). Cookbook procedures in MBL physics exercises. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 317-324.
• Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99- 103.
• Stone, B. B. (2012). Flip your classroom to increase active learning and student engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_lib rary/proceedings/56511_2012.pdf
• Tao, P.K. (2004). Developing understanding of image formation by lenses through collaborative learning mediated by multimedia computer-assisted learning programs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1171-1197.
• Valdez, M., Ferreira, C., & Barbosa, F. (2013). Teaching circuit theory using a desktop VR system. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 3(4), 5-9.
• Weaver, G. (2000). An examination of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88) database to probe the correlation between computer use in school and improvement in test scores. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 121–133.
• Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48, 225-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.3361987

APA

Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O. (2015). A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

Vancouver

Ekmekci A, Gulacar O. A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2015;11(4):765-75. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

AMA

Ekmekci A, Gulacar O. A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2015;11(4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

Chicago

Ekmekci, Adem, and Ozcan Gulacar. "A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2015 11 no. 4 (2015): 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

Harvard

Ekmekci, A., and Gulacar, O. (2015). A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), pp. 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

MLA

Ekmekci, Adem et al. "A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 4, 2015, pp. 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a