CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Science Education and PedagogyEducational Methods and OutcomesExperimental Learning in Engineering

A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits

Open access
Ekmekci, Adem, Gulacar, Ozcan·2015·EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
DOI 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background:Science education reform emphasizes innovative and constructivist views of science teaching and learning that promotes active learning environments, dynamic instructions, and authentic science experiments. Technology-based and hands-on instructional designs are among innovative science teaching and learning methods. Research shows that these two types of instructional methods designed with constructivist views of science are more beneficial for students in learning science concepts when compared to traditional science instruction.Materials and methods:However, the comparison of effectiveness of the two approaches as well as their affordances has not been clearly addressed. This paper presents a case study comparing the effectiveness of computer-based versus hands-on instructional activity on learning electric circuits.Results:The results show that both approaches significantly improved pre-service mathematics and science teachers’ learning of electric circuits. The two types of instructional activities did not significantly differ from each other in terms of learning gains. However, hands-on activity provided ample opportunities for group interaction as well as task-related discussions.Conclusions:This study shows that both computer-based and hands-on activities can be effective when utilized in the right classroom environment.

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 · 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Online laboratories effectively provide engineering students with real-world learning opportunities and practical equipment that increase their motivation.

    “Similar studies have indicated that online laboratories effectively provide engineering students with real-world learning opportunities and practical equipment that increase their motivation (Chu and Fang 2015;Ekmekci and Gulacar 2015).”

    From Incorporating Computational Thinking Into Virtual Laboratories to Enhance Learning Motivation, Engagement, and Higher‐Order Thinking Skills (2025) · cites this paper as Ekmekci and Gulacar 2015

    The Abstract reports that a computer-based activity improved pre-service mathematics and science teachers’ learning of electric circuits. It does not establish that online laboratories give engineering students access to real-world learning opportunities or practical equipment, or that they increase motivation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245-263.
  2. Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M., & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107-1134.
  3. Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59-84.
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  5. Brophy, S. P. (1998). Learning scientific principles through problem solving in computer supported and laboratory environments. Doctoral Dissertation. Vanderbilt University. Nashville, Tennessee.
  6. Bulunuz, M. (2012). Motivational qualities of hands-on science activities for Turkish preservice kindergarten teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2), 73-92.
  7. Calik, M. (2013). Effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry on senior science student teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 223-232.
  8. Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Comparing student learning in mechanics using simulations and hands-on activities. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289, 89. Retrieved from http://link.aip.org/link/?apcpcs/1289/89/1
  9. Cook, J. S., & Cook, L. L. (1998). How technology enhances the quality of student-centered learning. Quality Progress, 31(7), 59-63.
  10. Demir, S. (2011). Two inseparable facets of technology integration programs: Technology and theoretical framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 75-88.
  11. Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20204 · DOI
  12. Ekmekci, A. (2013). Models and modeling in mathematics education: Making learners' mathematical thinking, knowledge and skills visible. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1-2), 57-76.
  13. Ekmekci, A., & Ayar, M. C. (2012, September). Fen bilimleri ogretiminde ogrenci merkezli deneysel ve bilgisayar destekli etkinliklerin karsilastirilmasi [Student-centered teaching of science concepts: Affordances of experimental and computer-supported learning environments]. Paper presented at the 21. Ulusal Egitim Bilimleri Kongresi [21st National Conference on Educational Sciences], Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
  14. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., Gray, S., Demeter, M., Rugaber, S., … Goel, A. (2008). Focusing on function: Thinking below the surface of complex natural systems. Science Scope, 31(9), 27-35.
  15. 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, 44(1), 183-203.
  16. Kumka, A. (2014). The paperless classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(3), 226-229.
  17. Lightfoot, J. M. (2005). Integrating emerging technologies into traditional classrooms: A pedagogic approach. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 209-224.
  18. Liu, X. (2006). Effects of combined hands-on laboratory and computer modeling on student learning of gas laws: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89-100.
  19. Luangrath, P., & Pettersson, S. (2012). Problems and possibilities with centering physics teaching around student discussions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2), 189-200.
  20. Lunts, E. (2001). What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1(2), 59-75.
  21. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1-24.
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
  23. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  24. Moog, R., S., & Spencer, J., N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). 994, 1- 13. doi: 10.1021/bk-2008-0994.ch001 · DOI
  25. Morris, E. J., Joiner, R., & Scanlon, E. (2002). The contribution of computer-based activities to understanding statistics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 116-126.
  26. National Research Council (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  27. Oros, A. L. (2007). Let's debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking. Journal of Political Science Education, 3(3), 293-311.
  28. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.
  29. Rezaei, A. R., & Katz, L. (2002). Using computer assisted instruction to compare the inventive model and the radical constructivist approach to teaching physics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 367-380.
  30. Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacherstudent interactions: The case of interactive physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 329-347.
  31. Royuk, B., & Brooks, D. (2003). Cookbook procedures in MBL physics exercises. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 317-324.
  32. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99- 103.
  33. Stone, B. B. (2012). Flip your classroom to increase active learning and student engagement. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Distance Teaching & Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_lib rary/proceedings/56511_2012.pdf
  34. Tao, P.K. (2004). Developing understanding of image formation by lenses through collaborative learning mediated by multimedia computer-assisted learning programs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1171-1197.
  35. Valdez, M., Ferreira, C., & Barbosa, F. (2013). Teaching circuit theory using a desktop VR system. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 3(4), 5-9.
  36. Weaver, G. (2000). An examination of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS: 88) database to probe the correlation between computer use in school and improvement in test scores. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 121–133.
  37. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48, 225-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.3361987 · DOI
  38. Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O. (2015). A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  39. Ekmekci A, Gulacar O. A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2015;11(4):765-75. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  40. Ekmekci A, Gulacar O. A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2015;11(4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  41. Ekmekci, Adem, and Ozcan Gulacar. "A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2015 11 no. 4 (2015): 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  42. Ekmekci, A., and Gulacar, O. (2015). A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), pp. 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  43. Ekmekci, Adem et al. "A Case Study for Comparing the Effectiveness of a Computer Simulation and a Hands-On Activity on Learning Electric Circuits". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 4, 2015, pp. 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O.
Affiliations
  • Rice University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Ekmekci, Adem
ORCID
Venue
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Publisher
Modestum Publishing Ltd
Published
2015-07-13
Volume
11
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1305-8215 (ISSN-L)
  • 1305-8223
DOI
10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
OpenAlex
W2466430294
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Experimental Learning in Engineering
Keywords
electrical circuits, computer simulation, hands-on activities, pre-service teachers, constructivist learning, active learning, teaching effectiveness, group interaction

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