Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation‐laboratory contexts

Jaakkola, Tomi, Nurmi, Sami, Veermans, Koen·2011·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

The aim of this experimental study was to compare learning outcomes of students using a simulation alone (simulation environment) with outcomes of those using a simulation in parallel with real circuits (combination environment) in the domain of electricity, and to explore how learning outcomes in these environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction. Matched‐quartets were created based on the pre‐test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results demonstrated that the instructional support had an expected effect on students' understanding of electric circuits when they used the simulation alone; pure procedural guidance (SI) was insufficient to promote conceptual understanding, but when the students were given more guidance for the discovery process (SE) they were able to gain significant amount of subject knowledge. A surprising finding was that when the students used the simulation and the real circuits in parallel, the explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for their understanding of electric circuits compared to the implicit instruction (CI). Instead, the explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment (CE). Although the explicit instruction was able to improve students' conceptual understanding of electrical circuits considerably in the simulation environment, their understanding did not reach the level of the students in the combination environment. These results suggest that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 71–93, 2011

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.20386

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K.
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-22
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
71-93
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
OpenAlex
W1976287441
Cited by
225
References
5
FWCI
56.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.