Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children

Open access
Klahr, David, Triona, Lara M., Williams, Cameron·2007·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

“Hands‐on” activities play an important, but controversial, role in early science education. In this study we attempt to clarify some of the issues surrounding the controversy by calling attention to distinctions between: (a) type of instruction (direct or discovery); (b) type of knowledge to be acquired (domain‐general or domain‐specific); and (c) type of materials that are used (physical or virtual). We then describe an empirical study that investigates the relative effectiveness of the physical–virtual dimension. In the present study, seventh and eighth grade students assembled and tested mousetrap cars with the goal of designing a car that would go the farthest. Children were assigned to four different conditions, depending on whether they manipulated physical or virtual materials, and whether they had a fixed number of cars they could construct or a fixed amount of time in which to construct them. All four conditions were equally effective in producing significant gains in learners' knowledge about causal factors, in their ability to design optimal cars, and in their confidence in their knowledge. Girls' performance, knowledge, and effort were equal to boys' in all conditions, but girls' confidence remained below boys' throughout. Given the fact that, on several different measures, children were able to learn as well with virtual as with physical materials, the inherent pragmatic advantages of virtual materials in science may make them the preferred instructional medium in many hands‐on contexts. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.20152

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-28
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
183-203
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
OpenAlex
W2132258527
Cited by
357
References
25
FWCI
33.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.20152
The paper
Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20152

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.