Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching electric circuits using tangible and graphical user interfaces: A meta-analysis

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laboratories are considered to play a unique role in circuits teaching. Laboratories can be traditional, with physical components and desks, or virtual with graphical simulators. Applying these facilities in teaching, students can make experiments or measurements by exploring electric circuits’ features. However, an intriguing research question is whether physical components or graphical simulators are more appropriate to build knowledge, enhance skills and improve attitudes. Thus, the aim of this article is: 1) to perform a review in order to explore the characteristics of the studies that compare the tangible and graphical user interfaces and 2) to apply a meta-analysis for the effects of the interfaces under study. The meta-analysis included 88 studies with pre/post-tests designs with 2798 participants, which were emerged from: a) 4 databases, b) forward snowballing method. The review showed that the majority of researchers have focused on the knowledge gaining, while a few researchers have examined skills and attitudes. The meta-analysis showed that the combination of user interfaces (tangible/graphical) appears to be the most beneficial for students in the domain of electric circuits teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available upon reasonable request.

References

  • Akçayir, M., Akçayir, G., Pektaş, M., & Ocak, A. (2016). Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkhaldi, T., Pranata, I., & Athauda, R. I. (2016). A review of contemporary virtual and remote laboratory implementations: Observations and findings. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0068-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmeyer, K., Kapp, S., Thees, M., Malone, S., Kuhn, J., & Brünken, R. (2020). The use of augmented reality to foster conceptual knowledge acquisition in STEM laboratory courses—Theoretical background and empirical results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amida, A., Chang, I., & Yearwood, D. (2020). Designing a practical lab-based assessment: A case study. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(3), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-08-2019-0194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baran, B., Yecan, E., Kaptan, B., & Paşayiğit, O. (2020). Using augmented reality to teach fifth grade students about electrical circuits. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10001-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Başer, M., & Durmus, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of computer supported versus real laboratory inquiry learning environments on the understanding of direct. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M. (2020). Research Note: In a meta-analysis, the I2 index does not tell us how much the effect size varies across studies. Journal of Physiotherapy, 66(2), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2020.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. E., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2022). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. Biostat Inc. www.Meta-Analysis.com

  • Brenneman, K., Lange, A., & Nayfeld, I. (2019). Integrating STEM into preschool education; Designing a professional development model in diverse settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0912-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the Importance of Laboratory Courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00874

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A Comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation-based and microcomputer-based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21126

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (2015). Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1614813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelou, F., & Kotsis, K. (2019). Real vs virtual physics experiments: comparison of learning outcomes among fifth grade primary school students. A case on the concept of frictional force. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1549760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An Experiential Learning theoretical analysis. Computers and Education, 135(March), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2020). From simulations to real: Investigating young students’ learning and transfer from simulations to real tasks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 778–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faour, M. A., & Ayoubi, Z. (2018). The effect of using virtual laboratory on Grade 10 students’ conceptual understanding and their attitudes towards physics. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 4(1), 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrokhnia, M. R., & Esmailpour, A. (2010). A study on the impact of real, virtual and comprehensive experimenting on students’ conceptual understanding of DC electric circuits and their skills in undergraduate electricity laboratory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5474–5482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foronda, C. L., Fernandez-Burgos, M., Nadeau, C., Kelley, C. N., & Henry, M. N. (2020). Virtual simulation in nursing education: A systematic review spanning 1996 to 2018. Simulation in Healthcare, 15(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaigher, E. (2014). Questions about answers: Probing teachers’ awareness and planned remediation of learners’ misconceptions about electric circuits. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.925268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Rovers, M. M., & Goeman, J. J. (2016). Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 6(7), e010247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247

    Article  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

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & Cakir, H. (2022). Investigating the effects of different levels of guidance in inquiry-based hands-on and virtual science laboratories. International Journal of Science Education, 44(2), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2028926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2019). Using Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories Alone or Together-Which Works Better for Acquiring Knowledge and Skills? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2020). How do different laboratory environments influence students’ attitudes toward science courses and laboratories? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1750075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, S., Thees, M., Beil, F., Weatherby, T., Burde, J. P., Wilhelm, T., & Kuhn, J. (2020). The effects of augmented reality: A comparative study in an undergraduate physics laboratory course. CSEDU 2020 - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 2(January), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009793001970206

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. A. J. M. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. In Computer Science Review (Vol. 40). Elsevier Ireland Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100364

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, S. Y., Lo, C. C., & Syu, J. Y. (2022). Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2553–2575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09714-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H., & Alharbi, H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and E-learning: Challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09274-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manunure, K., Delserieys, A., & Castéra, J. (2020). The effects of combining simulations and laboratory experiments on Zimbabwean students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Research in Science and Technological Education, 38(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1629407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathur, M. B., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2020). Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analyses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 69(5), 1091–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12440

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moodley, K., & Gaigher, E. (2019). Teaching electric circuits: Teachers’ perceptions and learners’ misconceptions. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9615-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mourão, E., Pimentel, J. F., Murta, L., Kalinowski, M., Mendes, E., & Wohlin, C. (2020). On the performance of hybrid search strategies for systematic literature reviews in software engineering.Information and Software Technology, 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106294

  • Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa, S., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A., Parker, T. H., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Yang, Y., & O’Dea, R. E. (2022). Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. In Methods in Ecology and Evolution (Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 4–21). British Ecological Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13724

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2018). Examining Students’ Actions While Experimenting with a Blended Combination of Physical Manipulatives and Virtual Manipulatives in Physics. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education (pp. 257–278). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_16

  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

  • Pan, Z., Wang, Z., Yuan, Q., Meng, Q., Liu, J., Shou, K., & Sun, X. (2022). A spatial augmented reality based circuit experiment and comparative study with the conventional one. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 33(3–4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.2069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phanphech, P., Tanitteerapan, T., & Murphy, E. (2019). Explaining and enacting for conceptual understanding in secondary school physics. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 180–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers and Education, 95, 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., Gnesdilow, D., Dornfeld Tissenbaum, C., Narayanan, N. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2021). Supporting middle school students’ science talk: A comparison of physical and virtual labs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 392–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, S. M., & Crippen, K. J. (2021). Virtual laboratories in undergraduate science and engineering courses: A systematic review, 2009–2019. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09866-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K., Higgins, J. P. T., & Lumley, T. (2018). A re-evaluation of fixed effect(s) meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (statistics in Society), 181(1), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12275

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Salta, K., Paschalidou, K., Tsetseri, M., & Koulougliotis, D. (2022). Shift From a traditional to a distance learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic: University students’ engagement and interactions. Science and Education, 31(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00234-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapounidis, T., & Demetriadis, S. (2013). Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: Exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1775–1786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S., & Stamelos, I. (2015). Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(1), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0774-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapounidis, T., Stamelos, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Tangible user interfaces for programming and education: A new field for innovation and entrepreneurship. In Advances in Digital Education and Lifelong Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 271–295). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2051-229520160000002016

  • Sapounidis, T., Stamovlasis, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2019). Latent class modeling of children’s preference profiles on tangible and graphical robot programming. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2876363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapounidis, T., Tselegkaridis, S., & Stamovlasis, D. (2023). Educational robotics and STEM in primary education: a review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2160394

  • Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., Wade, C. A., & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers and Education, 72, 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S., Gnesdilow, D., Puntambekar, S., & Kim, J. S. (2017). Middle school students’ learning of mechanics concepts through engagement in different sequences of physical and virtual experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 39(12), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1341668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taramopoulos, A., Psillos, D., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2012). Teaching Electric Circuits by Guided Inquiry in Virtual and Real Laboratory Environments. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1083-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekbıyık, A., & Ercan, O. (2015). Effects of the physical laboratory versus the virtual laboratory in teaching simple electric circuits on conceptual achievement and attitudes towards the subject. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thees, M., Altmeyer, K., Kapp, S., Rexigel, E., Beil, F., Klein, P., Malone, S., Brünken, R., & Kuhn, J. (2022). Augmented Reality for Presenting Real-Time Data During Students’ Laboratory Work: Comparing a Head-Mounted Display With a Separate Display. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(March), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.804742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K–12 students’ achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2021). Simulators in educational robotics: A review. Education Sciences, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2022a). A Systematic Literature Review on STEM Research in Early Childhood. In STEM, Robotics, Mobile Apps in Early Childhood and Primary Education (pp. 117–134). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_7

  • Tselegkaridis, S., & Sapounidis, T. (2022b). Exploring the features of educational robotics and stem research in primary education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(5), 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsihouridis, C., Vavougios, D., & Ioannidis, G. S. (2013). The effectiveness of virtual laboratories as a contemporary teaching tool in the teaching of electric circuits in Upper High School as compared to that of real labs.International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), September, 816–820. 978–1–4799–0153–1/13

  • Tsihouridis, C., Vavougios, D., Ioannidis, G. S., Alexias, A., Argyropoulos, C., & Poulios, S. (2015). The effect of teaching electric circuits switching from real to virtual lab or vice versa - A case study with junior high-school learners.Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, ICL 2015, September, 643–649. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2015.7318102

  • Ültay, N., & Aktaş, B. (2020). An example implementation of STEM in preschool education: Carrying eggs without breaking. Science Activities, 57(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2020.1782312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unlu, Z. K., & Dokme, I. (2011a). The effect of combining analogy-based simulation and laboratory activities on Turkish elementary school students’ understanding of simple electric circuits. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 320–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unlu, Z. K., & Dokme, I. (2011b). The effect of three different teaching tools in science education on the students’ attitudes towards computer. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2652–2657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35(June 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434

  • Wang, T. L., & Tseng, Y. K. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wörner, S., Kuhn, J., & Scheiter, K. (2022). The best of two worlds: A systematic review on combining real and virtual experiments in science education. Review of Educational Research, XX(X), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221079417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic–online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. (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), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). 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. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2885059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., & 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z., & Michael, M. (2016). Using physical and virtual manipulatives to improve primary school students’ understanding of concepts of electric circuits. In New Developments in Science and Technology Education (pp. 125–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22933-1_12

  • Zacharia, Z., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Electronic Engineering, International Hellenic University (IHU), 57400, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Sokratis Tselegkaridis

  2. School of Philosophy and Education, Department of Education, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Theodosios Sapounidis & Dimitrios Stamovlasis

Authors
  1. Sokratis Tselegkaridis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodosios Sapounidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitrios Stamovlasis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sokratis Tselegkaridis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Future work and recommendations

Initially, it is very important in future work to frame the level of guidance in a very clear and specific way. If this is done in a systematic way, it will strengthen the findings and expand the research in this field. In addition, research should go beyond simple electric circuits and extend to the whole range of electric circuits. Furthermore, researchers should focus on studies of students’ skills and attitudes, as our grasp of this aspect seems to be very limited. Finally, it is important for the researchers to pay attention to the sample size and the duration of the intervention, so that there will be depth and quality in their findings.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tselegkaridis, S., Sapounidis, T. & Stamovlasis, D. Teaching electric circuits using tangible and graphical user interfaces: A meta-analysis. Educ Inf Technol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12164-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12164-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation