Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives
in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case
of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat
and temperature
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
Learning in Science Group, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537,
Nicosia 1678, Cyprus
共Received 7 September 2007; accepted 3 February 2008兲
We compare the effect of experimenting with physical or virtual manipulatives on undergraduate
students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. A pre–post comparison study design
was used to replicate all aspects of a guided inquiry classroom except the mode in which students
performed their experiments. This study is the first on physical and virtual manipulative
experimentation in physics in which the curriculum, method of instruction, and resource capabilities
were explicitly controlled. The participants were 68 undergraduates in an introductory course and
were randomly assigned to an experimental or a control group. Conceptual tests were administered
to both groups to assess students’ understanding before, during, and after instruction. The result
indicates that both modes of experimentation are equally effective in enhancing students’ conceptual
understanding. This result is discussed in the context of an ongoing debate on the relative
importance of virtual and real laboratory work in physics education. © 2008 American Association of
Physics Teachers.
关DOI: 10.1119/1.2885059兴
I. INTRODUCTION
The current literature on reform in science education has
reopened the debate on the role and practice of laboratory
experimentation in science teaching and learning.1–4 One
reason is the rapid growth of computer-based virtual
manipulatives5 and their implications for teaching, learning,
and research.6 During the past decade empirical studies have
revealed the potential of virtual manipulatives to enhance
attitudes,9
and
conceptual
students’
skills,7,8
10–12
In some of these studies the method of
understanding.
instruction, curriculum materials, and resources were not
completely controlled. For example, Finkelstein et al.13 describe results from a conceptual survey on simple electric
circuits that show that students who had used virtual manipulatives outperformed peers who had used physical manipulatives. However, the results could be attributed to the fact that
only the use of a computer simulation 共a virtual manipulative兲 allowed students to explicitly model electron flow. Nevertheless, such a result suggests that laboratory experimentation, as commonly experienced by the use of physical
manipulatives,14 can be redefined and restructured to include
virtual manipulatives.7,12,13
Some researchers argue that the use of virtual manipulatives deprives students of hands-on manipulation of physical
materials, which are essential for learning.15,16 According to
these researchers, virtual manipulatives should be used for
experimentation only when a real laboratory is unavailable,
too expensive, or too intricate, the experiment is dangerous,
the experimental techniques are too complex, or there are
severe time constraints. This perspective implies that experimenting with virtual manipulatives should be regarded at
best as a surrogate for experimenting with physical
manipulatives,17 and is counter to virtual manipulative proponents who claim that it is the process of manipulation,
rather than the physical or virtual nature of the manipulatives, that is the important aspect of instruction.7,12,18
425
Am. J. Phys. 76 共4&5兲, April/May 2008
Given this disagreement, there are several questions that
have important implications for physics education. Are the
two modes of experimentation equally conducive to conceptual understanding in physics? Is manipulation, rather than
physicality, the important contributor to learning?
II. THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the
two modes of experimentation are equally conducive to
physics learning, while controlling for the method of instruction, curricular materials, and the resource capabilities of the
two modes. We made an explicit effort to design a study that
controls for all variables that might affect learning outcomes,
which according to Ref. 18, is an important limitation of
prior studies. The manipulatives were selected so that both
could offer participants the same capabilities for experimentation.
We investigated how using physical or virtual manipulatives affected undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum.19 This study involved quantifying
students’ conceptual understanding into conceptual knowledge gains11 and the identification of students’ concepts
about temperature and changes in temperature. The aim of
the latter identification was to examine whether the type and
nature of student conceptions differed between experimentation with physical and virtual manipulatives.
The study was done in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum to compare the effect of two instructional
conditions that differ only in the medium of experimentation.
The guidance provided by the activity sequence of this curriculum enabled us to control for the manipulation aspects of
both physical and virtual experimentation.
We selected the Physics by Inquiry curriculum because it
appears to enhance undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding across physics subject domains,12,20–22 including
http://aapt.org/ajp
© 2008 American Association of Physics Teachers
425
heat and temperature.23 The success of this curriculum is
based on three components that facilitate conceptual understanding, namely, inquiry, socioconstructivism, and strategies
such as the predict-observe-explain cycle.24
III. METHODS
A. Sample
The participants of the study were 68 undergraduate students 共15 male, 53 female兲 in an introductory physics course
for preservice elementary school teachers. The course took
place at a university in Cyprus. The participants were randomly separated into a control group 共CG, 34 students兲 and
the experimental group 共EG, 34 students兲. None of the participants had taken college physics prior to the study.
The students in both groups were randomly assigned to
subgroups 共three per subgroup whenever possible兲. Such an
organizational structure, in association with the curriculum
materials, is consistent with a social constructivist
framework,25 which entails the construction of knowledge
within a community of learners in the classroom.26
Fig. 1. Layout of the THERMOLAB software. Students are provided with a
virtual workbench on which experiments can be performed, virtual objects
for the experimental setup, virtual materials whose thermal properties are to
be investigated, and virtual instruments and displays. Experiments are set up
by clicking on icons representing the objects or materials needed for each
experiment and moving them to the desired position on the workbench.
B. Curriculum materials
The first two sections of the module Heat and Temperature of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum were used27 for the
purposes of this study. The first section focuses on constructing an operational definition of temperature, and the second
section is on investigating temperature changes when
samples with varying amounts of hot and cold water are
mixed. The students are guided through the process of constructing a conceptual model for how temperature changes,
starting from direct hands-on experience. Students perform
experiments and draw inferences from their observations to
construct the basic concepts of room temperature, thermal
interaction, and thermal equilibrium. The ultimate goal is for
the students to synthesize their own conceptual frameworks,
which will enable them to predict and explain how temperatures change when objects interact thermally.
C. Manipulatives
The physical manipulatives involved the use of real instruments 共thermometers兲, objects 共beakers, styrofoam cups, and
heaters兲 and materials 共wood, aluminum, and water兲 in a
conventional physics laboratory. During the experiments
feedback is available to students through the behavior of the
actual system 共for example, water boils or not兲 and through
the instruments that are used to monitor the experimental
setup 共for example, thermometers兲.
The virtual manipulatives involved the use of the corresponding virtual instruments, objects, and materials. The virtual lab THERMOLAB28 was used for this purpose because of
its fidelity and the fact that it retains the features and interactions of Heat and Temperature as the physical manipulatives. In this open-ended environment students in the experimental group can design and conduct any experiment
discussed in the module of Heat and Temperature by employing the “same” material as the ones used by the control
group where real instruments were used.
In THERMOLAB, students are provided with a virtual workbench on which they can construct their own virtual experimental arrangements by simple and direct manipulation of
virtual objects, materials, and instruments 共see Fig. 1兲. The
426
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, Nos. 4 & 5, April/May 2008
experiments are set up by clicking on icons representing the
objects or materials needed for each experiment and moving
them to the desired position on a virtual workbench. 共For
example, to heat some water a beaker with water can be
placed on a heater on the workbench; to freeze water, a beaker with water is placed in a refrigerator.兲 The selection of an
object or material is indicated by a change of the mouse
pointer. For example, the mouse pointer turns into a “hand”
to indicate select and drag, and into a bottle or tap to indicate
“filling.” The conduct of any experiment requires clicking
the start button. The software offers feedback throughout the
experiment by presenting information 共for example, time,
temperature, and volume兲 through the displays 共data charts
and blackboard兲 and by animating the phenomenon 共for example, bubbles appear and steam comes out of the solution
when water is boiled兲. No feedback is provided by the software during the setup of the virtual experiment. The amount
of feedback is analogous to what is routinely available to
students experimenting with physical manipulatives.
D. Experimental design
A pre–post comparison study design was used. The two
control groups worked in the same laboratory environment,
which has both conventional equipment and a computer network at the periphery. The duration of the study was about
two months. Students met once a week for 90 minutes. The
time on task was the same for both groups. In particular, both
groups spent the same amount of time on a brief introduction
that familiarized the students before engaging in the study’s
conditions. We controlled for the time on task required for
students using both kinds of manipulatives. For example,
because the process of bringing a sample of water to a desired temperature takes more time with physical manipulatives than with virtual manipulatives, the control group was
provided with preset material 共for example, preheated
samples of water兲 to avoid any time spent on such routine
procedural tasks. In this way the participants of the experimental group did not have the convenience that the virtual
experiments would otherwise have provided. It has been
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
426
F. Data analysis
Fig. 2. The pre–post comparison experimental design of the study. The
participants were randomly assigned to one experimental group and one
control group. Participants in the control group used physical manipulatives
to conduct the experiments, and participants in the experimental group used
virtual manipulatives.
found that the time on task is one of the variables that influences the learning process and outcomes of a learning activity in favor of virtual manipulatives, because a virtual manipulative activity can be experienced by students more
times in a given time period than a physical manipulative
activity.24,29 All other important variables 共for example, instructors, method of instruction, curriculum materials, and
procedures兲 were identical for the two student groups.
E. Data collection
Conceptual tests were administered to assess the students’
understanding of concepts related to temperature and
changes in temperature. A temperature and change in temperature 共T&CT兲 test was administered before and after instruction. In addition, before and after completing each section two more tests were administered: a temperature test
共test 1兲 and a changes in temperature test 共test 2兲. An example is given in Fig. 2. The questions on the tests were
developed and used in previous research studies by the Physics Education Group of the University of Washington.23
Tests 1 and 2 contained four open-ended conceptual questions that require explanations of reasoning 共see the Appendix for a sample of questions of test 2兲. The T&CT test
included eight open-ended questions assessing both sections
of the study’s curriculum; tests 1 and 2 were used for the
assessment of sections 1 and 2, respectively. There were no
identical questions on the T&CT test and tests 1 and 2. Each
question of each test was scored separately; a total correct
score was derived from each test and used in the analysis. All
tests were scored and coded blind to the group in which the
student was placed. A table was used that specified different
criteria for the responses to each question. Each response
was scored on each criterion. The total maximum score for
all criteria of all items on each test was 100.
The data analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The quantitative analysis involved pairedsamples t-tests for the comparison of the pretest to the posttest scores on the three tests for each group separately, and
one-way ANCOVA for the comparison of the posttest scores
of the two groups on each test. For the latter procedure, the
students’ scores in the corresponding pretests were used as
the covariate. The aim of the first procedure was to investigate whether the use of physical and virtual manipulatives
within the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum improved students’ conceptual understanding, both after introducing each section of the study’s curriculum and after the
completion of the study. The aim of the second procedure
was to investigate whether physical and virtual manipulatives had a different effect on the students’ overall conceptual
understanding of the whole of the study’s curriculum and of
each section of the study’s curriculum separately.
The qualitative data analysis focused on identifying and
classifying students’ scientifically accepted and nonscientifically accepted conceptions. For the purposes of this paper,
only the analysis of the conceptions of changes in temperature is included. The analysis followed the procedures of
phenomenography,30,31 which is used to identify students’
qualitatively different, hierarchically related conceptions of
learning.24 In this case the purpose of the phenomenographic
analysis was to reveal the categories of the qualitatively different perspectives in which conceptions concerning changes
in temperature were conceptualized by the students of each
group. In addition, the prevalence of each one of the resulting categories for each test 共T&CT pre and posttests, and pre
and posttests 2兲 was calculated. The purpose of the latter was
to examine whether the prevalence of each category of the
students’ conceptions differed prior to and after the study.
To ensure objective assessment, the tests were coded and
scored anonymously. Internal reliability data were also collected for both research questions. Two independent coders
reviewed about 25% of the data. The reliability measures
共Cohen’s kappa兲 for scoring of the T&CT test 共pre and post兲
and tests 1 and 2 共pre and post兲, were 0.89, 0.88, and 0.9,
respectively. The reliability measure 共proportion of agreement兲 for the qualitative analysis calculated as the agreement
coefficient for the categories of students’ conceptions was
0.88. Disagreements were discussed after the reliability
analysis and were resolved by consensus.
IV. RESULTS
The paired-samples t-test procedure indicated that the
mean scores for both groups on each of the posttests 共see
Table I兲 were statistically higher, at the p ⬍ 0.001 level, than
Table I. Control group 共CG兲 and experimental group 共EG兲 mean scores and standard deviations in each of the
tests.
427
Test
CG pretest
mean scores
共SD兲
CG posttest
mean scores
共SD兲
EG pretest
mean scores
共SD兲
EG posttest
mean scores
共SD兲
T&CT test
Test 1
Test 2
35.2 共4.7兲
33.2 共4.4兲
29.3 共5.2兲
60.7 共6.4兲
64.7 共6.9兲
59 共7.1兲
34 共4.1兲
31.1 共3.9兲
29.7 共3.7兲
61.1 共6.0兲
62.3 共7.1兲
60.4 共6.2兲
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, Nos. 4 & 5, April/May 2008
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
427
the corresponding mean scores on the pretests
关tEG,T&CT共33兲 = 32, tEG,test1共33兲 = 40.2, tEG,test2共33兲 = 35.2,
tCG,T&CT共33兲 = 37.9, tCG,test1共33兲 = 38.9, tCG,test2共33兲 = 31.5兴.
These scores show that both conditions improved undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of temperature
and changes in temperature.
The one way ANCOVA procedure did not reveal any significant differences between the posttest scores of the two
groups for the tests of the study 关F共1 , 65兲EGvsCG,T&CTposttest
= 1.94, p = 0.17, F共1 , 65兲EGvsCG,posttest1 = 0.98, p = 0.32,
F共1 , 65兲EGvsCG,posttest2 = 0.68, p = 0.41兴. This finding suggests
that the use of physical and virtual manipulatives were
equally effective in promoting the students’ understanding of
concepts concerning temperature and changes in temperature.
The phenomenographic analysis revealed that the two
groups shared mostly the same conceptions concerning
changes in temperature, either scientifically accepted or not,
both before and after the teaching intervention 共see Table II兲.
Additionally, most of the participants of both groups
shifted from nonscientifically accepted to scientifically accepted conceptions after the study. Both groups were found
to have the highest prevalence for scientifically accepted and
lower prevalence for nonscientifically accepted, with similar
shifts in their frequency. Moreover, the two groups shared
the same most prevalent nonscientifically accepted conceptions. These findings indicate that the use of physical and
virtual manipulatives had the same effect on the students’
understanding of concepts concerning changes in temperature, namely, on the transition from nonscientifically accepted to scientifically accepted as well as on the nature of
conceptions concerning changes in temperature after the
study.
V. DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to investigate the relative value
of physical and virtual manipulatives on changes in students’
conceptual understanding. The findings indicate that the use
of physical and virtual manipulatives, when used in the
framework of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum and when
controlling as completely as possible the range of variables
that influence the learning process and outcomes, can provide equally interactive experiences that enhance students
understanding of concepts related to temperature and
changes in temperature. Both the quantitative and qualitative
analysis showed that the nature of learning and the learning
outcomes do not change substantially when physical manipulatives are substituted by virtual manipulatives, which has
been disputed as a viable means for experimentation.7 The
qualitative analysis revealed that the vast majority of the
students in both groups appeared to share similar distributions of nonscientifically accepted conceptions both before
and after instruction.
These findings challenge the assumption that the physicality of manipulation is an essential aspect of effective laboratory experiments. The more significant influences on teaching and learning outcomes derive from the design of the
activity sequences and the extent to which students are intellectually engaged with the process of developing meaning.
According to Triona and Klahr,7 the assumption that only the
use of physical manipulatives enhances learning is not well
grounded in either constructivist or cognitive learning theory.
428
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, Nos. 4 & 5, April/May 2008
Constructivist theory emphasizes the importance of learners
taking an active role in their own learning, but it does not
specifically require physical manipulation.7,32 Cognitive
theory focuses on the need for learners to actively process
information and practice the target skill. Neither a theoretical
nor an empirical justification exists that portrays physical
manipulation of materials as a requirement for active processing and practice, unless the target skill is
perceptual-motor.18
This study leaves open the question about the conditions
under which the use of physical or virtual manipulatives in
science experimentation may be preferable. Findings of recent empirical studies that involved comparisons between
virtual and physical manipulatives, although limited, have
revealed instances where the use of virtual manipulatives
would appear to be more beneficial to physics learning than
the use of physical manipulatives13 and vice versa.33 If the
use of one type of manipulative brings expanded or improved opportunities for student learning in the course of
conducting experiments, that manipulative should be preferred over the other. For example, only the “messy” interactions with physical manipulatives teach students about the
underlying complexity of collecting scientific evidence 共for
example, measurement errors兲 and give them a more
grounded perspective on the limitations of specific virtual
environments.8 In contrast, virtual manipulative interactions
are the only ones that provide students with opportunities to
manipulate conceptual objects 共objects that have no perceptual fidelity兲 or depict and study phenomena of very large or
very small temporal and physical dimensions 共for example,
astronomy and molecular dynamics兲.34 Clements35 has argued that virtual manipulatives can provide representations
that are just as meaningful to students as physical manipulatives and may even be more “manageable, ‘clean,’ flexible,
and extensible than their physical counterparts.” Much promise lies in efforts to combine physical and virtual manipulatives so as to optimize the effectiveness of individual activities in a sequence.
VI. CONCLUSION
We have described a pre–post study in which the objective
was to replicate all aspects of a guided inquiry classroom
except the manner in which students performed the experiments. This study revealed that both virtual and physical
manipulatives can be effective in developing conceptual understanding. This finding challenges commonly held assumptions about laboratory work in the physics classroom and
calls for a redefinition and restructuring of experimentation
to include both physical and virtual manipulatives. This call
for change creates the need for understanding how both
modes of experimentation should be integrated in activity
sequences for physics teaching and learning. It is essential to
expand the empirical base through similar research to test
further these perspectives as well as to ground theoretical
conjectures regarding a framework for integrating physical
and virtual manipulatives within physics learning environments.
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
428
Table II. Students’ conceptions about changes in temperature as they emerged from the phenomenographic analysis.
Control group
共N = 34兲
Categories
Conceptions
Thermal
interaction and
equilibrium
Thermal
interaction:
Quantifying
changes in
temperature
When hot and cold water are mixed, both the hot and cold
water change temperature 共because heat, not temperature, is
transferred from the hot water to the cold water兲.a The
temperature of the hot water decreases and the temperature of
the cold water increases until they both reach the same
intermediate temperature 共scientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, both the hot and cold
water change temperature because temperature is “provided”
from the hot water to the cold water: The temperature of the hot
water decreases and the temperature of the cold water increases
until they both reach the same intermediate temperature
共nonscientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, both the hot and cold
water change temperature because temperature is “provided”
from the hot water to the cold water: The temperature of the hot
water decreases and the temperature of the cold water increases
without reaching the same intermediate temperature
共nonscientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, their temperature does not
necessarily change 共nonscientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, the product of the mass
and the temperature change of the hot water is equal to the
product of the mass and the temperature change of the cold
water; in other words, the change in temperature of the hot
water depends upon the masses of both the cold and hot water
as well as the change in temperature of the cold water and vice
versa, or the change in temperature is larger for the sample of
water, cold or hot, that has the lower mass 共scientifically
accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, the mass of either the hot
or the cold water does not affect the change in temperature of
both the hot and cold water 共nonscientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, the change in temperature
is always the same for both the hot and the cold water
regardless of their mass 共nonscientifically accepted兲.
When hot and cold water are mixed, the initial temperature of
either the hot or the cold water does not affect the change in
temperature of both the hot and cold water 共nonscientifically
accepted兲.
When two samples of water of the same temperature are mixed,
the temperature of both samples changes according to their
mass. The higher the mass the less the temperature change
共nonscientifically accepted兲.
Experimental group
共N = 34兲
Pretests
% 共n兲
Posttests
% 共n兲
Pretests
% 共n兲
Post tests
% 共n兲
8.8 共3兲b
73.5 共25兲
11.7 共4兲
79.4 共27兲
61.7 共21兲
26.4 共9兲
73.5 共25兲
20.6 共7兲
23.5 共8兲
0 共0兲
14.7 共5兲
0% 共0兲
20.6 共7兲
0 共0兲
11.8 共4兲
0 共0兲
0 共0兲
100 共34兲
0 共0兲
100 共34兲
64.7 共22兲
0 共0兲
52.9 共18兲
0 共0兲
26.4 共9兲
0 共0兲
35.3 共12兲
0 共0兲
23.5 共8兲
0 共0兲
14.7 共5兲
0 共0兲
29.4 共10兲
0 共0兲
20.8 共7兲
0 共0兲
Students were not required to refer to the concept of heat because the concepts of heat and heat transfer 共Sec. III of the Heat and Temperature module of the
Physics by Inquiry curriculum兲 are introduced right after the section on Changes in Temperature 共Sec. II of the Heat and Temperature module of the Physics
by Inquiry curriculum兲. Despite the fact that it was not a prerequisite to explain why the temperature of cold and hot water changed, students did provide such
explanations in their attempt to explain their reasoning while answering the questions of pre and posttest 2.
b
The percentage and number 共included in the parenthesis兲 refer to students who explicitly mentioned the particular conception referred to, which does not
mean that other students might not also share these conceptions. In other words, it is very possible that certain conceptions are more widespread than the
numbers suggest. In addition, the response of one individual student may appear in more than one category, depending on the conceptions that were evident
in the response.
a
APPENDIX: SAMPLE OF QUESTIONS OF TEST 2
Test 2: Problem 1 共adapted from Ref. 19兲
A. Suppose that 500 g of hot water at 60 ° C is mixed with
500 g of cold water at 40 ° C.
共1兲 The temperature of the hot water increases, decreases, or
429
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, Nos. 4 & 5, April/May 2008
remains the same? Explain your reasoning.
共2兲 The temperature of the cold water increases, decreases,
or remains the same? Explain your reasoning.
共3兲 The temperature of the mixture will be higher than
50 ° C, lower than 50 ° C, or exactly at 50 ° C?
B. Suppose that 250 g of hot water at 60 ° C is mixed with
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
429
500 g of cold water at 40 ° C.
共1兲 The temperature of the hot water increases, decreases, or
remains the same? Explain your reasoning.
共2兲 The temperature of the cold water increases, decreases,
or remains the same? Explain your reasoning.
共3兲 The temperature of the mixture will be higher than
50 ° C, lower than 50 ° C, or exactly at 50 ° C? Explain
your reasoning.
1
R. Bybee, “Teaching Science as Inquiry,” in Inquiring into Inquiry
Learning and Teaching in Science, edited by J. Minstrel and E. H. Van
Zee 共American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington
DC, 2000兲, pp. 20–46.
2
J. Krajcik, R. Mamlok, and B. Hug, “Modern Content and the Enterprise
of Science: Science Education in the Twentieth Century,” in Education
Across a Century: The Centennial Volume, edited by L. Corno 共University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001兲, pp. 205–238.
3
National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards 共National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2000兲.
4
P. R. L. Heron and D. E. Meltzer, “The future of physics education
research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns,” Am. J. Phys.
73, 390–394 共2005兲.
5
Experimenting with virtual manipulatives is defined as the use of a simulation environment that includes virtual apparatus and material to conduct
an experiment on a computer. Virtual manipulative activities are defined
as learning experiences that involve a process in which students interact
with materials or models to observe and understand the natural or material or world, and which lead to asking questions, making discoveries,
and rigorously testing those discoveries in the search for new understanding.
6
A. Hofstein and V. Lunetta, “The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the 21st century,” Sci. Educ. 88, 28–54 共2004兲.
7
L. Triona and D. Klahr, “Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the
influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary
school students’ ability to design experiments,” Cogn. Instruct. 21, 149–
173 共2003兲.
8
M. Windschilt, “Supporting the development of science inquiry skills
with special classes of software,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 81–95
共2000兲.
9
Z. Zacharia, “Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 792–823 共2003兲.
10
J. Y. Dori and J. Belcher, “How does technology-enabled active learning
affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts?,” J. Learn. Sci. 14, 243–279 共2005兲.
11
Z. C. Zacharia and O. R. Anderson, “The effects of an interactive
computer-based simulations prior to performing a laboratory inquirybased experiments on students’ conceptual understanding of physics,”
Am. J. Phys. 71, 618–629 共2003兲.
12
Z. Zacharia, “Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation:
An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits,” J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 23, 120–132 共2007兲.
13
N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins,
N. S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster, “When learning about the
real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 1–8
共2005兲.
14
Experimenting with physical manipulatives is defined as the use of real
apparatus and material to conduct an experiment in a laboratory. Physical
430
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, Nos. 4 & 5, April/May 2008
manipulative activities are defined in the same way as virtual manipulative activities 共Ref. 5兲.
15
National Science Teachers Association, “Position statement on laboratory
science,” 具www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psidO16典.
16
V. N. Lunetta and A. Hofstein, “Simulations and Laboratory Practical
Activity,” in Practical Science, edited by B. E. Woolnough 共Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1991兲, pp. 125–137.
17
P. Kirschner and W. Huisman, “Dry laboratories in science education:
Computer-based practical work,” Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 665–682 共1998兲.
18
D. Klahr, L. M. Triona, and C. Williams, “Hands on what? The relative
effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design
project by middle school children,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 183–203
共2007兲.
19
L. C. McDermott and The Physics Education Group, Physics by Inquiry
共Wiley, New York, 1996兲.
20
J. A. Marshall and J. T. Dorward, “Inquiry experiences as a lecture
supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students,” Am. J. Phys. 68, S27–S36 共2000兲.
21
L. C. McDermott and P. Shaffer, “Research as a guide for curriculum
development: An example from introductory electricity, Part I: Investigation of student understanding,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 994–1002 共1992兲.
22
E. F. Redish and R. N. Steinberg, “Teaching physics: Figuring out what
works,” Phys. Today 52共1兲, 24–30 共1999兲.
23
M. Rosenquist, B. Popp, and L. C. McDermott, “Helping Students Overcome Conceptual Difficulties with Heat and Temperature,” paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers,
Ashland, Oregon 共1982兲.
24
For more details see Z. Zacharia, G. Olympiou, and M. Papaevripidou,
“Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on
students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature,” J. Res. Sci.
Teach. 共in press兲.
25
G. Wells, Dialogic Inquiry Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory
of Education 共Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1999兲.
26
W. M. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, “The development of science process
skills in authentic contexts,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 127–152 共1993兲.
27
The wording of the curriculum used by the experimental group was
slightly modified to refer to the features of the virtual manipulatives.
28
E. Hatzikraniotis, J. Lefkos, G. Bisdikian, D. Psillos, J. Refanidis, and J.
Vlahavas, “An Open Learning Environment for Thermal Phenomena,” in
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Based
Learning in Science, edited by G. Chapman 共Brno, Czech Republic,
2001兲, pp. 1–11 具cblis.utc.sk/cblis-cd-old/2001/text/pdf/ad3.pdf典.
29
T. Murray, L. Winship, N. Stillings, E. Shartar, A. Galton, R. Moore, and
R. Bellin, “An inquiry-based simulation learning environment for the
ecology of forest growth,” final report for NSF Grant No. DUE-9972486,
CCLI Program, 2003.
30
F. Marton, “Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the world
around us,” Instr. Sci. 10, 177–200 共1981兲.
31
F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness 共Lawrence Erlbaum,
Maywah, NJ, 1997兲.
32
J. Piaget, The Child’ss Conception of Physical Causality 共Littlefield, Adams, NJ, 1960兲.
33
J. A. Marshall and E. S. Young, “Preservice teachers’ theory development
in physical and simulated environments,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 907–937
共2006兲.
34
V. Teodoro, “A Model to Design Computer Exploratory Software for
Science and Mathematics,” in Simulation-based Experiential Learning,
edited by D. Towne, T. de Jong, and H. Spada 共Springer–Verlag, Berlin,
1993兲, pp. 177–190.
35
D. Clements, “Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas,” Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood 1, 45–60 共1999兲.
Zacharias C. Zacharia and Constantinos P. Constantinou
430