Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Different Simulations and Different Types of Feedback and Students’ Academic Performance in Physics

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of three different software simulations for studying Ohm’s law and connecting resistors on students’ academic performance. A total of 168 eighth-grade pupils were divided into three groups. The first group used the software containing the simulation with an already created electrical circuit, an electronic test and feedback. The second group used the software containing the simulation in which students create an electrical circuit, an electronic test and feedback. The third group used the software containing only a simulation in which students create an electrical circuit, but testing and feedback were provided in a traditional way (instructions and feedback from the teacher). Results showed that the simulation software used by the second group had a significantly better effect on students’ achievement than other simulation software. This result indicates that simulations allowing for construction of electrical circuits have a greater influence on students’ academic performance than simulations with an already created electrical circuit. Also, simulations with computer feedback have a greater influence on students’ academic performance than simulations in which feedback is provided by the teacher.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations part 1-engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attali, Y. (2015). Effects of multiple-try feedback and question type during mathematics problem solving on performance in similar problems. Computers and Education, 86, 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baadte, C., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Feedback effects on performance, motivation and mood: are they moderated by the learner’s self-concept? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(5), 570–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baas, D., Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., Martens, R., & Segers, M. (2015). The relation between assessment for learning and elementary students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Virtual laboratories in engineering education: the simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(1), 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayrak, B., Kanli, U., & Ingeç, S. K. (2007). To compare the effects of computer based learning and the laboratory based learning on students’ achievement regarding electric circuits. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers and Education, 54(3), 759–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. L., Bekki, J. M., Wilkins, K. G., & Harrison, C. J. (2016). Analysis of instructional support elements for an online, educational simulation on active listening for women graduate students in science and engineering. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 136–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1–2), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çepni, S., & Keleş, E. (2006). Turkish students’ conceptions about the simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 269–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers and  Education, 51(4), 1486–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2005). Multiple-try feedback and higher-order learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In J. Jacko, A. Sears, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, & R. Jacob (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 245–252). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Witte, K., Haelermans, C., & Rogge, N. (2015). The effectiveness of a computer-assisted math learning program. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 314–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Students’ conceptual change in electricity and magnetism using simulations: a comparison of cognitive perturbation and cognitive conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 677–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & von Rhöneck, C. (1997). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education, 1, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers and  Education, 67, 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, S. C., & Hsu, Y. S. (2017). Understanding science teachers’ enactments of a computer-based inquiry curriculum. Computers and Education, 112, 69–82.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golke, S., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2015). The impact of elaborated feedback on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction, 39, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govaerts, S., Cao, Y., Vozniuk, A., Holzer, A., Zutin, D. G., Ruiz, E. S. C., et al. (2013). Towards an online lab portal for inquiry-based stem learning at school. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web-based Learning (ICWL 2013) (pp. 244–253). Berlin: Springer Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(1), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckler, A. F., & Mikula, B. D. (2016). Factors affecting learning of vector math from computer-based practice: feedback complexity and prior knowledge. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopster-den Otter, D., Wools, S., Eggen, T. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2017). Formative use of test results: a user’s perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K., Chen, C. H., Wu, W. S., & Chen, W. Y. (2015). Interactivity of question prompts and feedback on secondary students’ science knowledge acquisition and cognitive load. Educational Technology and Society, 18(4), 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola, T., & Veermans, K. (2015). Effects of abstract and concrete simulation elements on science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 300–313.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagodziński, P., & Wolski, R. (2015). Assessment of application technology of natural user interfaces in the creation of a virtual chemical laboratory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kada, V., & Ravanis, K. (2016). Creating a simple electric circuit with children between the ages of five and six. South African Journal of Education, 36(2), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriek, J., & Stols, G. (2010). Teachers’ beliefs and their intention to use interactive simulations in their classrooms. South African Journal of Education, 30(3), 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küçüközer, H., & Kocakülah, S. (2007). Secondary school students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • LabVIEW (n.d.). National Instruments Corporation. http://www.ni.com/en-us/shop/labview.html/. Accessed 15 March 2017.

  • Lai, A., & Chen, D. (2010). Web-based two-tier diagnostic test and remedial learning experiment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8(1), 31–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, V., & Chen, C. H. (2016). Promoting science learning in game-based learning with question prompts and feedback. Computers and Education, 103, 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, S. Y., Wee, L. K., Yao, C. K., Abas, S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). Design, customization and implementation of energy simulation with 5E model in elementary classroom. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(3), 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U., Randler, C., & Wolf, N. (2016a). Effects of computer-based, formative tests with diverse feedback formats on student performance in science classes. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogik, 62(2), 241–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016b). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers and Education, 95, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, J. H., Venable, J. C., & Varier, D. (2013). Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: so much more is needed. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P. W., Meier, C., & Spielvogel, J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth-and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E. B., Chamberlain, J. M., Parson, R., & Perkins, K. K. (2014). PhET interactive simulations: transformative tools for teaching chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1191–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2016). Audio versus written feedback: exploring learners’ preference and the impact of feedback format on students’ academic performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2015). Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Munster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers and Education, 71, 56–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicaise, V., Cogérino, G., Bois, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes: gender effects. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(1), 36–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PhET Interactive Simulations (n.d.). University of Colorado Boulder. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/legacy/circuit-construction-kit-dc/. Accessed 20 July 2017.

  • Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: an iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando, C., Cravino, J. P., & Soares, A. A. (2014). Contribution of a computer simulation to students’ learning of the physics concepts of weight and mass. Procedia Technology, 13, 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sencar, S., & Eryilmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, I., Nawaz, K., & Ali Shah, A. (2014). The role of formative assessment in learning chemistry. Pakistan Journal of Education, 31(2), 123–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipstone, D. (1988). Pupils’ understanding of simple electrical circuits. Some implications for instruction. Physics Education, 23(2), 92–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Timmers, C. F., & Eggen, T. J. (2011). The effectiveness of methods for providing written feedback through a computer-based assessment for learning: a systematic review. Cadmo, 19, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in web-based learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 17(4–5), 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, M., Gibson, D., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2013). Challenges for information technology supporting educational assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgram, D. E. (1994). Creating multimedia presentations. Indianapolis: QUE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wongwatkit, C., Srisawasdi, N., Hwang, G. J., & Panjaburee, P. (2016). Influence of an integrated learning diagnosis and formative assessment-based personalized web learning approach on students learning performances and perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaman, M., Nerdel, C., & Bayrhuber, H. (2008). The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1784–1794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 120–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., et al. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: a literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zlatović, M., Balaban, I., & Kermek, D. (2015). Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals. Computers and Education, 91, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express great appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions, which led to the improvement of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Technical Sciences Čačak, Svetog Save 65, Čačak, 32102, Serbia

    Biljana Đorić & Željko Jovanović

  2. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Education, Podgorička 4, Sombor, 25000, Serbia

    Dragan Lambić

Authors
  1. Biljana Đorić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dragan Lambić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Željko Jovanović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biljana Đorić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendix. Post-test

Appendix. Post-test

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Đorić, B., Lambić, D. & Jovanović, Ž. The Use of Different Simulations and Different Types of Feedback and Students’ Academic Performance in Physics. Res Sci Educ 51, 1437–1457 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9858-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9858-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation