Advances in PhET Interactive Simulations: Interoperable and Accessible

  • Emily B. MooreEmail author
  • Katherine K. Perkins


Over more than a decade, the PhET Interactive Simulations project has created a suite of interactive simulations (sims) that support learning of science and mathematics content through exploration and discovery. Here we describe the state of the art in interactive science simulations, historical innovations that enabled this state, and current initiatives to advance the field.

Recently, the PhET project has engaged in two initiatives, PhET-iO and accessible PhET sims. PhET-iO increases the interoperability of sims and supports increased customization such as selection of available controls and starting conditions of the sim. PhET-iO also supports expanded integration of sims into interactive e-textbooks and virtual lab notebooks. Access to backend data streams from PhET-iO allows for the development of rich performance tasks suitable for innovative assessments that measure the learning of science practices and allow for adaptive feedback. These capabilities create new ways to positively influence science pedagogy and create targeted and adaptive learning environments for students.

Accessible PhET sims are addressing the need to ensure that all students, including students with disabilities, are allowed equitable access to high-quality learning experiences. Creating accessible interactive learning tools requires the development of new infrastructure to support communication between the simulations and assistive devices. PhET’s efforts in accessibility include new features that enable sim use by students with mobility or vision impairments or learning disabilities. These features include keyboard navigation, auditory descriptions, and sonification. These features support students with disabilities and provide new opportunities for all students to engage with science content.


Interactive learning Engagement Representation Science classroom Configuration e-Textbook Assessment Disabilities Collaborative learning Multimodal HTML5 


  1. Adams, W. K., Alhadlaq, H., Malley, C. V., Perkins, K. K., Olson, J., Alshaya, F., Alabdulkareem, S., & Wieman, C. E. (2012). Making on-line science course materials easily translatable and accessible worldwide: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness (Vol. 5, pp. 88–98). Colorado Springs: BSCS.Google Scholar
  4. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: The go-lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hensberry, K. K. R., Paul, A., Moore, E. B., Podolefsky, N. S., & Perkins, K. K. (2013). PhET interactive simulations: New tools to achieve common core mathematics standards. In D. Polly (Ed.), Common core mathematics standards and implementing digital technologies (pp. 147–167). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Käser, T., Hallinen, N. R., & Schwartz, D.L. (2017). Modeling exploration strategies to predict student performance within a learning environment and beyond. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Kramer, G., Walker, B., Bonebright, T., Cook, P., Flowers, J. H., Miner, N., & Neuhoff, J. (2010). Sonification report: Status of the field and research agenda Accessed 4 June 2016.
  8. Massof, R. W. (2003). Auditory assistive devices for the blind. Proceedings of the 2003 International conference on Auditory Display (pp. 271–274).Google Scholar
  9. Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D. L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Findings from research and practice for middle grades through university education. Atlanta: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, E. B., Herzog, T. A., & Perkins, K. K. (2013). Interactive simulations as implicit support for guided-inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moore, E. B., Smith, T. L., & Randall, E. (2016). Exploring the relationship between implicit scaffolding and inclusive design in interactive science simulations. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 112–123). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Grade 8 national results. Accessed 6 Aug 2014.
  14. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15–311. Arlington. Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
  15. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. NVDA. (n.d.). NVDA. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
  17. Paul, A., Podolefsky, N.S., & Perkins, K.K. (2012). Guiding without feeling guided: Implicit scaffolding through interactive simulation design. Proceedings of the 2012 Physics Education Research Conference, 1513 (pp. 302–305).Google Scholar
  18. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., 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
  19. Perkins, K.K., Moore, E.B., & Chasteen, S.V. (2014). Examining the use of PhET interactive simulations in US college and high school classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 207–210). Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  20. Podolefsky, N.S., Moore, E.B., & Perkins, K.K. (2013). Implicit scaffolding in interactive simulations: Design strategies to support multiple educational goals. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.6544.Google Scholar
  21. Schreep, M., & Jani, R. (2005). Efficient keyboard support in web-pages. Assistive Technologies Research Series, 16, 504–508.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, T. L., Lewis, C., & Moore, E. B. (2016). A balloon, a sweater, and a wall: Developing design strategies for accessible user experiences with a science simulation. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 147–158). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stevens, J. J., Schulte, A. C., Elliott, S. N., Nese, J. F. T., & Tindal, G. (2015). Growth and gaps in mathematics achievement of students with and without disabilities on a statewide achievement test. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations