Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the changes in conceptual understanding of Direct Current Electricity (DCE) in virtual (VLE) and real laboratory environment (RLE) among pre-service elementary school teachers. A pre- and post- test experimental design was used with two different groups. One of the groups was randomly assigned to VLE (n = 42) and the other to RLE (n = 38). Participants in the VLE group used computer simulations to perform the given tasks, whereas those in the RLE group used real laboratory apparatus. Before the treatment, all the students administered the Direct Electric Circuits Concepts Test (DIRECT). Pre-test analyses show that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of understanding DCE. After completing three week physics by inquiry based treatment, the DIRECT was readministered as a post-test. Results showed that both groups showed the same effects on acquisition of scientific concepts.
Highlights
Many researchers in science education indicated that students from different age groups and levels have difficulties in acquiring the concepts in physics (e.g., Baser, 2006a; Engelhardt & Beichner, 2004; Peters, 1982)
In order to investigate the effectiveness of the treatments on dependent variable, and to control the students' previous learning in direct current electricity concepts, their science process skills, and attitude toward physics before the treatment, three pre-tests (DIRECT, Science Process Skill Test (SPST), Physics Attitude Scale (PAS)) were administered to all of the participants
The results revealed that the post-test mean scores of the virtual laboratory environment (VLE) group and real laboratory environment (RLE) groups with respect to the achievement related to direct current electricity concepts were not significantly different ( X VLE 15.38, X RLE 15.45 )
Summary
Many researchers in science education indicated that students from different age groups and levels have difficulties in acquiring the concepts in physics (e.g., Baser, 2006a; Engelhardt & Beichner, 2004; Peters, 1982). These difficulties arise from the fact that students (Vosniadou et al, 2001). Researchers use different names for these scientifically inconsistent ideas, namely preconceptions, misconceptions, alternative conceptions, intuitive conceptions, and so on.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
