Computer simulations and laboratory activities have been traditionally treated as substitute or competing methods in science teaching. The aim of this experimental study was to investigate if it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Based on their pre-test performances, 66 elementary school students were placed into three different learning environments: computer simulation, laboratory exercise and a simulation-laboratory combination. The results showed that the simulation-laboratory combination environment led to statistically greater learning gains than the use of either simulation or laboratory activities alone, and it also promoted students' conceptual understanding most efficiently. There were no statistical differences between simulation and laboratory environments. The results highlight the benefits of using simulation along with hands-on laboratory activities to promote students' understanding of electricity. A simulation can help students to first understand the theoretical principles of electricity; however, in order to promote conceptual change, it is necessary to challenge further students' intuitive conceptions by demonstrating through testing that the laws and principles that are discovered through a simulation also apply in reality.

The aim of this experimental study was to compare learning outcomes of students using a simulation alone (simulation environment) with outcomes of those using a simulation in parallel with real circuits (combination environment) in the domain of electricity, and to explore how learning outcomes in these environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction. Matched‐quartets were created based on the pre‐test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results demonstrated that the instructional support had an expected effect on students' understanding of electric circuits when they used the simulation alone; pure procedural guidance (SI) was insufficient to promote conceptual understanding, but when the students were given more guidance for the discovery process (SE) they were able to gain significant amount of subject knowledge. A surprising finding was that when the students used the simulation and the real circuits in parallel, the explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for their understanding of electric circuits compared to the implicit instruction (CI). Instead, the explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment (CE). Although the explicit instruction was able to improve students' conceptual understanding of electrical circuits considerably in the simulation environment, their understanding did not reach the level of the students in the combination environment. These results suggest that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 71–93, 2011

No abstract

No abstract

Learning objects (LOs), generally understood as digital learning resources shared through the Internet and reused in multiple learning contexts, have aroused worldwide enthusiasm in the field of educational technology during the last years. Although LOs and LO systems offer tremendous possibilities to improve educational practices, there are many theoretical problems and practical shortcomings which are usually neglected. In this article we introduce the promises of cost-effectiveness, reusability, modifiability and adaptability associated with LOs. Then we critically look at the problems underlying the LO approach, and provide our own alternative interpretation of LOs as useful elements of meaningful learning environments. Because of their flexible nature, LOs and LO systems can be used to support a variety of learning theories and instructional strategies-both sophisticated and reductionist ones (Parrish, 2004). LOs per se are not necessarily pedagogically functional or non-functional, but their pedagogical value is determined through their context of use. The implementation of LOs requires a sound pedagogical grounding, and we argue that only by using LOs according to the principles of contemporary learning theories can their promises be fulfilled.