The Effectiveness of Computer
Supported Versus Real Laboratory
Inquiry Learning Environments on
the Understanding of Direct
Current Electricity among
Pre-Service Elementary School
Teachers

Mustafa Başer; Soner Durmuş

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75227

The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers

Full Text (PDF)

Mustafa Başer ¹ ^* , Soner Durmuş ²

More Detail

¹ University of Mustafa Kemal, Antakya, TURKIYE
² University of Abant Izzet Baysal, Bolu, TURKIYE
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the changes in conceptual understanding of Direct Current Electricity (DCE) in virtual (VLE) and real laboratory environment (RLE) among pre-service elementary school teachers. A pre- and post- test experimental design was used with two different groups. One of the groups was randomly assigned to VLE (n = 42) and the other to RLE (n = 38). Participants in the VLE group used computer simulations to perform the given tasks, whereas those in the RLE group used real laboratory apparatus. Before the treatment, all the students administered the Direct Electric Circuits Concepts Test (DIRECT). Pre-test analyses show that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of understanding DCE. After completing three week physics by inquiry based treatment, the DIRECT was readministered as a post-test. Results showed that both groups showed the same effects on acquisition of scientific concepts.

Keywords

CAL systems
virtual laboratory
inquiry learning
pre-service teachers

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2010 - Volume 6 Issue 1, pp. 47-61

Publication date: 21 Jun 2010

Article Views: 2188

Article Downloads: 1172

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

AAPT (1998). Goals of the Introductory Physics Laboratory. American Journal of Physics, 66(6), 483-485.
Aguirre, J. M. (1988). Student preconceptions about vector kinematics. The Physics Teacher, 26(4), 212-216.
Akcay, H., Durmaz, A., Tuysuz, C., & Feyzioglu, B. (2006). Effects of Computer Based Learning on Students’ Attitudes and Achievements towards Analytical Chemistry. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), Article 6.
Akpan, J. P. (2002). Which Comes First: Computer Simulation of Dissection or a Traditional Laboratory Practical Method of Dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4), Article 1.
Ates, S. (2005). The effectiveness of the learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to prospective female and male science teachers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 213-227.
Baser, M. (2003). Effect of instruction based on conceptual change activities on students' understanding of electrostatics concepts. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Baser, M., & Geban, Ö. (2007). Effectiveness of conceptual change instruction on understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 115-133.
Baser, M. (2006a). Promoting conceptual change through active learning using open source software for physics simulations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 336-354.
Baser, M. (2006b). Effects of Conceptual Change and Traditional Confirmatory Simulations on Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Direct Current Circuits. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5-6), 367- 381.
Bergquist W. and Heikkinen, H., (1990), Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 67, 1000-1003.
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Developments of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 169-177.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In Inquiring Into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (eds J. Minstrel& E.H. Van Zee), pp. 20–46. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),Wasington, DC.
Carlsen, D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 19, 105–109.
Cepni, S., & Keles, E. (2006). Turkish students’ conceptions about the simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 269–291.
Chang, C. Y. (2002). Does computer-assisted instruction + problem solving= improved science outcome? A pioneer study. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 143- 150.
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., and De Leeuw, N. (1994) From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27– 43.
Chin, T. Y., & Wong, A. F. L. (2001). Pupils’ Classroom Environment Perceptions, Attitudes and Achievement in Science at the Upper Primary Level. AARE 2001.
Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 429-464.
Choi, E., & Park, J. (2003). Conditions for the Effective Use of Simulation and Its Application to Middle-School Physics Inquiry Activities. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 42(3), 318-324.
Choi, K., & Chang, C. (2004). The Effects of Using the Electric Circuit Model in Science Education. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 44(6), 1341-1348.
Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of student’s concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407–412.
Dekkers, P.J.J.M., & Thijs, G.D. (1998). Making productive use of students’ initial conceptions in developing the concept of force. Science Education, 82(1), p.p. 31-52.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “Conceptual Ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 29–61).The Netherlands: Kluwer.
de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations: technological advances in inquiry learning. Science 312, 532–533.
Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990), Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for conceptual change - some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, p.p. 555-569.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
Dupin, J. J., & Johsua, S. (1987). Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9), 791–806.
Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying Conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615-652.
Elizabeth, L.L., & Galloway, D. (1996). Conceptual links between cognitive acceleration through science education and motivational style: A critique of Adey and Shayer. International Journal of Science Education, 18, p.p. 35-49.
Engelhardt, P., & Beichner, R. (2004). Students understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change Discussions on Students' Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, 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(1) p. 010103.
Fredette, N., & Lochhead, J. (1980). Student conceptions of simple circuits,’’ Physics. Teacher, 18(3), 194–198.
Gunn, C. (2003). Dominant or Different? Gender Issues in Computer Supported Learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 14-30.
Gunn, C., French, S., McLeod, H., McSporran, M., and Conole, G. (2002). Gender Issues in ComputerSupported Learning. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 10(1), 32-44.
Hakkarainena, K., and Palonen, T. (2003). Patterns of female and male students’ participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning. Computers and Education, 40, 327-342.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory, The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science, European Journal of Science Teaching, 31, 933–946.
Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2005). In quest of understanding electricity – Binding simulation and laboratory work together. Paper for AERA (American Educational Research Association) 2005 conference. Montreal, Canada, 11.-15.4.2005.
Kautz, C. H., Heron, P. R. L., Loverude, M. E., & McDermott, L.C. (2005). Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part I: A macroscopic perspective. American Journal of Physics, 73(11), 1055-163.
Kitsantas, A., Baylor, A. L., & Hu, H. (2001). The Constructivist Planning Self-Reflective Tool: Improving Constructivist Instructional Planning. Educational Technology, 41(6), 39-43.
Klahr, D., Lara, 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, vol. 44(1), 183-203.
Kucukozer, H. & Demirci, N. (2008). Pre-Service and InService Physics Teachers’ Ideas about Simple Electric Circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 303-311
Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149.
Lightburn, M. E., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom Environment and Student Outcomes among Students Using Anthropometry Activities in High-School Science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 53-166.
Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma T. L., & Hieggelke C. J. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, American Journal of Physics, 69, S12–S23 (Supplement).
Ma-Naim, C., Bar, V., & Zinn, B. (2002). Integrating microscopic, macroscopic and energetic descriptions for a conceptual change in thermodynamics, paper presented at the Third European Symposium on Conceptual Change, Turku, Finland, 26–28 June.
McDermott L., & Shaffer P. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: an example from introductory electricity, Part I: investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994–1002.
McDermott L.C., & The Physics Education Group. (1996). Physics by Inquiry.Wiley, NewYork.
Millar, R., & King, T. (1993). Students’ understanding of voltage in simple series electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 339–349.
Mayer-Smitha, J., Pedrettib, E., and Woodrowa, J. (2000) Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: a case study. Computers and Education, 35, 51-63.
Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). Effects of Investigative Laboratory Instruction on Content Knowledge and Science Process Skill Achievement Across Learning Styles. Journal of Agricultural Education Volume, 47(4), 52- 63.
Olde, C. V. (2004). Student-generated assignments about electrical circuits in a computer simulation. International Journal of Science Education, 26(7), 859-873.
Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’ s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technology Education 1(1), 73–82.
Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D., B. (2007). An Overview of Conceptual Change Theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351-361.
Periago, M. C. & Bohigas, X. (2005). A study of second-year engineering students’ alternative conceptions about electric potential, current intensity and Ohm’s law. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 71-80.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. (2006). PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18-23.
Peters, P. C. (1982). Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics. American Journal of Physics, 50(6), 501-508.
Pfister, H. (2004). Illustrating Electric Circuit Concepts with the Glitter Circuit. The Physics Teacher, 42, 359-363.
Planinic, M., Krsnik, R., Pecina, P. Susac, A. (2005). Overview and Comparison of Basic Teaching Techniques That Promote Conceptual Change in Students. A paper presented at the First European Physics Education Conference, Bad Honnef, July 4-7 ,2005, Germany.
Plumm, K. M. (2008). Technology in the classroom: Burning the bridges to the gaps in gender-biased education. Computers and Education, 50(3), 1052-1068.
Posner, G., J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation — a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14-26.
Ross, R., & Venugopal, P. (2005). Work in Progress -An Assessment of Inquiry-Based Activities in a Second Semester Introductory Physics Laboratory, paper presented at the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 19–22, 2005.
Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students' strategy use in inquiry-based computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21 (1), 39– 52.
Sherin, B. (2006). Common Sense Clarified: The Role of Intuitive Knowledge in Physics Problem Solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 535-555.
Shipstone, D. M., & Rhöneck, C. von and Jung, W. and Kärrqvist, C. and Dupin, J. J. and Joshua, S. and Licht, P. (1988) A study of students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10(3), 303 - 316.
Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’ s understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185–198.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L.C., Palmer, R.D., Brooks, D.V., Wilson, K., & Fowler, D. (2006). Reality versus Simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students understanding of human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91-101.
Taasoobshirazi, G., Zuiker, S. J., Anderson, K.T., & Hickey, D.T. (2006). Enhancing Inquiry, Understanding, and Achievement in an Astronomy Multimedia Learning Environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(5), 383-395.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (fourth edition), Allyn and Bacon: MA, USA
Thijs, G. D., & Bosch, G. M. (1998). Cognitive effects of science experiments focusing on student’s preconceptions of force: a comparison of demonstrations and small group practicals. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 526 - 527.
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2007). Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students’ Ability to Design Experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173.
Tsai, C. C., & Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 157-165.
Tsai, C. C. (2003). Using a conflict map as an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 307-327.
van Joolingen, W.R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 111– 119.
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction 11(4-5), 381–419.
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2007). The Impact of Technology on the Enactment of ‘‘Inquiry’’ in a Technology Enthusiast’s Sixth Grade Science Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), p154-182.
Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(2), 103-116.
Wecker C., Kohnle C., & Fischer F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: when geeks learn less. Journal Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 133-144.
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(2), 20-132.

How to cite this article

APA

Başer, M., & Durmuş, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

Vancouver

Başer M, Durmuş S. The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(1):47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

AMA

Başer M, Durmuş S. The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2010;6(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

Chicago

Başer, Mustafa, and Soner Durmuş. "The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2010 6 no. 1 (2010): 47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

Harvard

Başer, M., and Durmuş, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(1), pp. 47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227

MLA

Başer, Mustafa et al. "The Effectiveness of Computer Supported Versus Real Laboratory Inquiry Learning Environments on the Understanding of Direct Current Electricity among Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 6, no. 1, 2010, pp. 47-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75227