Advertisement

Using Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories Alone or Together―Which Works Better for Acquiring Knowledge and Skills?

  • Hasan Ozgur KapiciEmail author
  • Hakan Akcay
  • Ton de Jong
Article

Abstract

Although hands-on laboratory experiments are traditionally used in schools, virtual laboratories have entered today’s classrooms, due to their specific affordances. In this study, we compared the effect of using hands-on and virtual laboratories in isolation to two different combinations on middle school (7th grade) students’ acquisition of conceptual knowledge and inquiry skills. Our findings indicate that using hands-on and virtual laboratories sequentially instead of in isolation gives better results for students’ acquisition of knowledge and inquiry skills. This result, together with similar findings from other studies, suggests that virtual and hands-on laboratories may have complementary affordances. In the current study, no advantage was seen for either of the two different combinations used.

Keywords

Virtual laboratory Hands-on laboratory Conceptual knowledge Inquiry skills Science teaching 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and ministry of national education research committee.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aydoğdu, B. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde kullanılan farklı deney tekniklerinin öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine, bilimin doğasına yönelik görüşlerine, laboratuvara yönelik tutumlarına ve öğrenme yaklaşımlarına etkileri [The effects of different laboratory techniques used in science courses on students’ science process skills, views toward nature of science, attitudes toward laboratory and learning approaches in science and technology course; unpublished doctoral thesis]. Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.Google Scholar
  2. Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 8, 1–12.Google Scholar
  3. Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evaluation and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312(5773), 532–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, W. Schnotz, & J. Elen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Go-Lab Sharing and Authoring Platform. (2015). https://www.golabz.eu/ Accessed 6 April 2018.
  10. Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 67–77). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarthy-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and science curriculum (pp. 159–182). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hovardas, T., Xenofontos, N. A., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2017). Using virtual labs in an inquiry context: the effect of a hypothesis formulation tool and an experiment design tool on students’ learning. In I. Levin & D. Tsybulsky (Eds.), Optimizing STEM education with advanced ICTs and simulations (pp. 58–83). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hsu, Y. S., & Thomas, R. A. (2002). The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 955–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding about 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lazonder, A. W., & Ehrenhard, S. (2014). Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: how falling objects fall. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86, 681–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mustafa, M. I., & Trudel, L. (2013). The impact of cognitive tools on the development of the inquiry skills of high school students in physics. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M. A., Sormunen, K., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers’ challenges in the planning of the practical work. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olympiou, G., Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41(3), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., & Stal, D. (2008). Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks. CBE-Life Science Education, 7, 193–201.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, J. (1936). The origin of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Polman, J. L. (1999). Designing project-based science: connecting learners through guided inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sencar Tokgöz, S. (2007). The effect of peer instruction on sixth grade students’ science achievement and attitudes (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, G. W., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Examining the combination of physical and virtual experiments in an inquiry science classroom. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science, Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., & Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu [National report of PISA 2015]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.Google Scholar
  35. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Toth, E. E., Ludvico, L. R., & Morrow, B. L. (2014). Blended inquiry with hands-on and virtual laboratories: the role of perceptual features during knowledge construction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(5), 614–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toth, E. E., Morrow, B. L., & Ludvico, L. R. (2009). Designing blended inquiry learning in a laboratory context: a study of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi-experimental study. Computers in Education, 54(4), 1078–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yıldırım, A., Özgürlük, B., Parlak, B., Gönen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMMS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri ön raporu 4. ve 8.sınıflar [Pre-report of TIMMS 2015 national mathematics and science 4th and 8th grades]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.Google Scholar
  41. Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: a literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zacharia, Z. C., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Child Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zacharia, Z. C., & Michael, M. (2016). Using physical and virtual manipulatives to improve primary school students’ understanding of concepts of electric circuits. In M. Riopel & Z. Smyrnaiou (Eds.), New developments in science and technology education (pp. 125–140). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations