0 Jaakkola - Et - Al-2011-Journal - of - Research - in - Science - Teaching (Reading Imp)

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 48, NO. 1, PP.
71–93 (2011)
A Comparison of Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in

Simulation Only and Simulation-Laboratory Contexts
Tomi Jaakkola, Sami Nurmi, Koen Veermans
Centre for Learning Research, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland
Received 11 July 2008; Accepted 11 March 2010
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. ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 71–93, 2011
Keywords: physics; conceptual change; laboratory science; technology education/software; elementary
Our everyday life is filled with electricity. We have electric lights, electric clocks, and computers. We
know that cars, trains, and planes require electricity to function. Therefore, it is not surprising that students
enter science classrooms with a wide range of ideas and beliefs about electricity that they have inferred from
their everyday experiences (e.g. Glauert, 2009; Shipstone, 1984; Solomonidou & Kakana, 2000). Students
use these internal representations also known as mental models (cf. Chi, 2008; Gentner & Gentner, 1983;
Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992) to predict the behavior of electricity and to explain electric circuits.
Unfortunately, many of student’s intuitive ideas that constitute their mental models are incomplete and
conflict with scientific explanations of electrical circuits (e.g. Chiu & Lin, 2005; Lee & Law, 2001; Sencar &
Eryılmaz, 2004).
Previous research has established that teaching students to understand the functioning of electric circuits
on a qualitative level is a difficult pedagogical challenge (e.g., Hart, 2008; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992;
Reiner, Slotta, Chi, & Resnick, 2000). Firstly, the central concepts, such as voltage, current, and resistance,
are very abstract by nature and refer to processes that are dynamic and often intangible in natural systems.
Consequently, it is not easy to provide the students with accurate information about electric circuits in an
easily comprehendible format. For example, the development of a theoretical understanding of electric
Contract grant sponsor: Academy of Finland; Contract grant number: 116393.

Correspondence to: T. Jaakkola; E-mail: tomi.jaakkola@utu.fi
DOI 10.1002/tea.20386
Published online 27 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

72 JAAKKOLA, NURMI, AND VEERMANS
circuits through practical manipulation with real circuits can be problematic; in many cases students can only
see what is happening on the surface level of the circuit, while being unable to grasp the underlying processes
and mechanisms that are important for theoretical understanding (e.g., current flow) (Finkelstein et al., 2005;
Hennessy, Deaney, & Ruthven, 2006). Too often, the model of electric circuits is provided to students only
as an algebraic equation (Frederiksen, White, & Gutwill, 1999; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992). Here, the
students are not shown how the quantitative circuit theory is related conceptually to a causal model of what
is happening in the circuit. They are left with the idea that electric circuits can be understood only through
mathematical equations, and that these equations cannot be understood in terms of any underlying physical or
qualitative mechanism (Frederiksen et al., 1999; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992). Sometimes, the model of
electric circuits is based on an analogy (e.g., Chiu & Lin, 2005; Gentner & Gentner, 1983; Lee & Law, 2001).
While the analogical models can be helpful (they can concretize abstract concepts and processes that are not
naturally transparent), they can also easily lead into further misconceptions. The problem is that the students
do not seem to understand that an analogy has only a limited number of identical properties with the target
domain and, at some point, the analogy between the two systems ends (Chi, 2008; Gentner & Gentner, 1983).
To demonstrate, Slotta, Chi, and Joram (1995), who used the analogy of water in the pipes to teach the basics
of electricity, found out that some of the students reasoned that if a copper wire connected between battery
terminals was cut off, the current would leak out just like water from a broken pipe.
Secondly, in order to bring about conceptual change, it is equally important to promote students’
awareness of the limitations of their current model, as it is to provide them with accurate information.
Previous research has shown how deeply rooted misconceptions can become obstacles to the learning of
accurate information (e.g., Chi, 2008). Unfortunately, many of the misconceptions in students’ mental
models seem to be exceptionally tenacious and resistant to teaching efforts (e.g., Chiu & Lin, 2005; Lee &
Law, 2001; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992). This stems from the fact that, although students’ initial models are
flawed, they are often coherent enough for the students to feel that they have arrived at a consistent (albeit
incorrect) and satisfactory explanation (Chi & Roscoe, 2002; Vosniadou, 2002). Consequently, students may
not feel any particular need for a model revision; they may have a stronger inclination to search for evidence
that supports their initial ideas (e.g., Dunbar, 1993), ignoring conflicting information (Chinn & Brewer,
1993). Alternatively, they may attempt to assimilate the new information into their existing mental model
(Vosniadou, 2002). This means that students may not experience the specific conflict between their prior
knowledge and new information. As a result, they may not become aware of the limitations of their existing
model (Merenluoto & Lehtinen, 2004). Such conflict and self-awareness are often considered to be necessary
(e.g., Strike & Posner, 1982) but not sufficient (Limon, 2001) to conceptual change. However, although a
teaching method could increase students’ awareness of the limitations of their models, this may not be enough
to elicit conceptual change if the new model to be acquired is too distant or difficult for the students to
understand (see the above section).
An interactive computer-simulation that models electric circuits has the potential to help students
overcome their misconceptions and learn the scientic model of electric circuits (e.g., Carlsen & Andre, 1992;
Frederiksen et al., 1999; Finkelstein et al., 2005; Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008; Zacharia, 2007). In a simulation
environment, students are engaged in active inquiry instead of merely witnessing something being presented
(de Jong, 2006; Wieman, Adams, & Perkins, 2008; see also Minner, Levy, & Century, in press); the students
can set up different virtual circuits, change circuit variables (e.g., voltage and resistance) one at a time and
observe the outcomes of their actions and reasoning (e.g., change in bulb brightness) (de Jong, 2006). This
allows the students to become better aware of the limitations of their initial reasoning (the output of the
simulation may be in conflict with their expectations) and discover the properties of the scientific model
embedded in the simulation (e.g., the electric circuit is a closed system in which all components interact;
Ohm’s law; total resistance in parallel and series circuits) (de Jong, 2006; Lehtinen & Rui, 1996; Wieman
et al., 2008). A distinctive feature of computer-simulations is that the embedded model(s) often highlights the
elements that are important for theoretical understanding (e.g., interdependence between current, voltage,
and resistance) and excludes (or hides) the elements that are ‘‘irrelevant’’ or potentially misleading (e.g., poor
connections, worn batteries, tangled wires, color of wires, or even broken wires or bulbs) (e.g., Finkelstein
et al., 2005; Goldstone & Son, 2005). On the other hand, in comparison with real circuits, a simulation can
make the functioning of electric circuits more transparent; it can model circuits on various levels of
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
SIMULATION VS. SIMULATION-LABORATORY COMBINATION 73
abstraction (e.g., a circuit in schematic format vs. the mimicking of real bulbs and wires) and visualize
processes that are invisible in natural systems (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Goldstone & Son, 2005; Hennessy
et al., 2006). As an example of a naturally ‘‘hidden’’ process, the existence of current cannot be observed in
real circuits (you can, of course, measure it), but an electricity simulation can easily show whether or not there
is a flow inside a circuit, the path of that flow, and possibly even its magnitude. Such lack of adequate
information plays a role in many misconceptions about electric circuits (e.g., a bulb will still light up when
only one wire is attached; or, as a bulb consumes current, there is no/less current after the bulb than before)
(e.g., McDermott & Shaffer, 1992; Reiner et al., 2000) and makes it more difficult to learn the scientific
model. Finkelstein et al. (2005), for instance, examined the effects of substituting a computer-simulation for
real circuits to learn the basics of DC circuits in a university physics course. They found that the students using
the simulation outperformed the students using the real circuits both on a conceptual knowledge test and in the
coordinated tasks of assembling a real circuit and describing how it worked. Both of these experimental
groups outperformed a control group that consisted of students who participated in a calculus-based physics
course. The control group attended lectures on basic DC circuits and completed homework, but did not use the
simulation or real circuits. Additional classroom observations further revealed that the students using real
equipment sometimes had difficulties in constructing closed circuits and were misled by the surface features
of the circuits. Such problems did not occur in the simulation environment.
Computer simulations and hands-on laboratory activities have been treated traditionally as substitute or
competing methods in science education. The Finkelstein et al. (2005) study described above is an example
(see also e.g., Klahr, Triona, & Williams, 2007; Triona & Klahr, 2003). Proponents of hands-on laboratory
activities have emphasized typically the importance of authentic experiences (e.g. NSTA, 2007). Their
argument against the use of computer-based interactive simulations has been that they deprive students from
hands-on manipulation of real materials and distort reality (Scheckler, 2003). Meanwhile, the proponents of
computer simulations have argued that it is the active manipulation, rather than the physicality as such, that is
the most important element of instruction (Triona & Klahr, 2003). Only recently, some researchers have
started to investigate the potential benefits of combining rather than contrasting the two. The idea is that if
both camps have strong proponents, both are likely partly correct, and there might be added value in
combining the two approaches. This view is for instance, supported by Zacharia and coworkers, who found
that the combination of simulation and laboratory activities promoted students’ conceptual understanding
more effectively than the laboratory activities alone in the domain of electricity (Zacharia, 2007; see also
Ronen & Eliahu, 2000) and heat and temperature (Zacharia, Olympiou, & Papaevridipou, 2008). In a study by
Jaakkola and Nurmi (2008), fourth and fifth grade students solved circuit assignments in three different
learning conditions—a computer simulation (only simulation), a hands-on laboratory exercise (only real
circuits) and a simulation-laboratory combination (simulation and real circuits in parallel). The results
showed that the development of conceptual knowledge was most notable in the combined condition. Students
in the simulation condition also made clear progress during the intervention, but their understanding did not
reach the level of the combined condition in the post-test. The progress was most modest in the laboratory
condition where the students’ conceptual understanding remained at an elementary level after the
intervention.
There are several reasons that could explain why it was beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory
activities in these cases. The reasons fall into following three areas that all originate from the basic idea that
both environments have unique strengths and weaknesses:
(i) Combining and linking the use of virtual and real circuits can bridge the gap between theory and
reality (e.g., Ronen & Eliahu, 2000). Even a carefully designed simulation environment may not be
sufficient to promote conceptual change. Tao and Gunstone (1999), for instance, were able to alter
students’ conceptions of mechanics to some extent during the intervention by using a set of
simulations, but a delayed post-test revealed that most of the students had regressed to their initial
conception. It seems that the instruction was unable to activate fully students’ prior conceptions: the
learning took place in a simulation environment and the origins of the prior conceptions were on
everyday experiences. Adding the real equipment could provide a solution to the above problem
because the students could explore to what extent the laws and principles they learned in a simulation
environment do (and do not) apply in reality (Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008). Respectively, simulations

can help the students to overcome difficulties in constructing and understanding real circuits
(e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2005; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992); for instance, a simulation can be used as
a point of reference when constructing and interpreting real circuits (Jaakkola, Nurmi, & Lehtinen,
in press).
(ii) Two different representations can highlight different aspects of the content (Ainsworth, 2006). For
instance, as explained above, a simulation potentially makes it easier for students to learn the basic
principles of electric circuits because the embedded model is more transparent (e.g., visible current
flow) and slightly simplified (e.g., ideal batteries). The real circuits can introduce more details, and
thus deepen students’ understanding. They can learn, for instance, that superficially different circuits
can be functionally identical or vice versa; it is the configuration that matters (cf. Finkelstein et al.,
2005; McDermott & Shaffer, 1992). Since both representations highlight different aspects of the
content, students can benefit from strengths of each in a combination environment (Tabachnek-
Schijf, Leonardo, & Simon, 1997), or at least take advantage of their preferred representation
(Tabachnek-Schijf & Simon, 1998).
(iii) Making comparisons between two complementary representations can improve conceptual
understanding, because comparisons help students focus on the common principles shared by the
representations (e.g. Gentner, Loewenstein, & Thompson, 2003). In Jaakkola and Nurmi (2008;
see also Jaakkola et al., in press), students first constructed an electric circuit with a simulation and
re-constructed that same circuit with real equipment immediately afterwards. Thus, students had a
good opportunity to build cognitive links over the representations because both were available at all
times (cf. Ainsworth, 2006). The simulation provided students with an ideal model of electric
circuits, which meant, among many other things, that the batteries were always fresh and the wires
had zero resistance. Real batteries are almost never fresh and the wires in real circuits have some
resistance. Consequently, this resulted in some discrepancies in the results of electrical measurement
between the virtual circuits and the real circuits. In order to solve the situation, the students had to
first discover the rules governing each representation based on the data (e.g., voltmeter readings) and
then infer a further abstraction from these rules that would apply to both representations (e.g., the
potential difference across each branch is equal to the battery voltage).
Rationale for the Study

The aim of the present article is 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)1 in the domain of electricity, and to explore how learning outcomes in these
environments are mediated by instruction. Students will be assigned to four different conditions, depending
on whether they use a simulation alone or a simulation and real circuits together, and whether their inquiry
process is supported by implicit (only procedural guidance) or explicit (more structure and guidance for the
inquiry process) instruction in these environments.
Previous research has shown that instructional support often has a considerable effect on learning
outcomes in inquiry learning context (e.g., Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Mayer, 2004). Support seems to play an
especially important role in the case of computer simulations. For instance, de Jong and van Joolingen (1998;
see also de Jong, 2006; Veermans, de Jong, & van Joolingen, 2006), who conducted a comprehensive
evaluation on the effectiveness of computer simulations of conceptual domains, found that the type of
instructional support was the single most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a computer
simulation environment. They explain that a structured environment generally leads to more effective
learning than an unstructured environment because structuring the tasks constrains the operating space and
informs the learner about crucial elements in the task, making the inquiry process more feasible.
In the context of the present study, this means that we can expect that explicit instruction will improve the
learning outcomes for students who use only the simulation (in comparison to their implicit instruction
counterparts). In addition to the procedural guidance, the explicit instruction advises the students to focus on
the aspects of the circuits that are important for a theoretical understanding of electric circuits. It is expected
that these additional tasks will induce deeper cognitive processing of information than the implicit
instruction, and also add to students’ conceptual understanding of electrical circuits. Further, it is especially
interesting to see whether explicit instruction can improve students’ understanding in the simulation
environment to the extent that they catch up with students that use the simulation and the real circuits in
parallel and receive implicit instruction. Such findings would have important practical implications: it would
mean that the combination is not always a better option, and science teachers could then choose between two
equally effective teaching methods. Finally, to our knowledge, the effects of instructional support on learning
outcomes have not yet been investigated in a situation where simulation and hands-on laboratory activities are
combined. As the general findings suggest, instructional support often plays a significant part in inquiry
learning, and a structured environment typically results in better learning than a less structured environment
(e.g., Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Mayer, 2004). Consequently, we can expect that explicit instruction will improve
learning also in the combination environment.
Given that the emphasis in the present study is on differences in learning outcomes, students will
construct a fixed number of circuits in all conditions. The time they can spend on circuits is not controlled;
they can spend as much time studying the circuits as they feel is necessary. This ensures that students in each
condition have an equal coverage of the content and allows us to investigate how the different instructional
arrangements affect what they learn from the circuits. However, because it is expected that the coverage of the
material will take more time in certain conditions than in others, learning will be analyzed not only in terms of
learning outcome, but also in terms of learning efficiency; that is, the gain in subject knowledge per learning
time (cf. Rasch & Schnotz, 2009). When we analyze learning outcomes, the underlying question is whether
certain instructional conditions will stimulate more elaborate cognitive processing and, therefore, result in
better learning outcomes. When we analyze learning efficiency, we ask how well the effort and the processing
stimulated by each instructional condition translates to learning outcomes. For instance, it is expected that
using the simulation and the real circuits in combination will stimulate more elaborate cognitive processing
than using the simulation alone, thus resulting in a better understanding of electrical circuits. However, it is
also expected that the combination will be more time-consuming (i.e. requires more effort than using the
simulation alone). From the point of view of learning efficiency, the question is, do the additional learning
outcomes compensate the additional effort? For instance, if the combination only takes slightly more time
than the simulation, but it yields considerably better learning outcomes, then the combination should be
preferred. Instead, if the learning outcomes are only slightly better in the combination but take considerably
more time than the simulation alone, one might opt the latter because of higher efficiency.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1
Does Adding Real Circuits Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in
Simulation Environment with Implicit Instruction?
The condition, where students use the simulation alone and receive implicit instruction is considered as a
baseline in the present study: students have only one representation of electrical circuits available and receive
least support for the inquiry process. In research question 1, we are interested if adding real circuits can
improve students’ learning outcomes. Therefore we compare the learning outcomes of those students who use
the simulation alone and receive implicit instruction to the outcomes of those who use the simulation and the
real circuits in parallel and receive implicit instruction. Hypothesis 1a: It is expected that the students will
learn more about the functioning of electric circuits when they use the simulation and the real circuits in
parallel than if they use only the simulation circuits.
While it is expected that it will take a longer time to cover the content when the students use the
simulation and the real circuits in parallel than when they use the simulation alone, it is expected that this
additional effort will pay off well in terms of learning outcomes. In Jaakkola and Nurmi (2008) students in the
simulation condition covered more content than the students using the simulation and the real circuits in
parallel because time to investigate the circuits was constrained. Yet, the students in the latter condition were
still able to acquire more knowledge. Therefore, Hypothesis 1b: It is expected that the learning efficiency will
be higher when the students use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they use only the
simulation circuits.
RQ2
Does Explicit Instruction Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in
Simulation Environment?
RQ2a
Can explicit instruction improve students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in the
simulation environment to the extent that they outperform the students that receive implicit instruction in the
simulation environment? We know from previous research that adding more guidance in a simulation
environment tends to lead to better learning outcomes. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a: The students will learn
more about the functioning of electric circuits when they use the simulation and receive explicit instruction
than when they use the simulation and receive implicit instruction. It is expected that the explicit instruction
will increase the time the students need in order to cover the whole content. However, since we do not know
exactly how much more time they need or how much explicit instruction can improve their conceptual
understanding, no hypothesis regarding learning efficiency between these two conditions is set up for
research question 2a.
RQ2b
Can explicit instruction improve students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in the
simulation environment to the extent that they can catch up with the students who use the simulation and the
real circuits in parallel and receive implicit instruction? No hypothesis regarding learning outcomes and
learning efficiency is set up for research question 2b; we do not know exactly how much the explicit
instruction can improve students’ understanding of electric circuits when they use the simulation, and we are
expecting that both explicit instruction and the real circuits will increase learning time compared to the
baseline condition.
RQ3
Does Explicit Instruction Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in
Simulation-Laboratory Combination Environment?
Because we expect the learning mechanisms regarding the instruction to be the same in the simulation-
laboratory combination and the simulation environments, this leads to Hypothesis 3a: Students using the
simulation and the real circuits in parallel will learn more about the functioning of electric circuits when they
receive explicit instruction than when they receive implicit instruction. Because it is expected that the explicit
instruction will also increase the learning time in the combination environment and we do not know exactly
how much it can improve students’ understanding of electric circuits, in this case, no hypothesis regarding the
learning efficiency is set up for research question 3.
Methods
Design
The study had a 2 (environment: simulation vs. combination) 2 (instruction: implicit vs. explicit) 2
(test phase: pre-test vs. post-test) factorial design, with a within-subject test phase. The students constructed
various circuits (exactly the same circuits in all conditions) in four different learning conditions between
pre-test and post-test:
(i) In the simulation implicit condition (SI) the students used a simulation to construct electric circuits
and they received implicit instruction. Implicit instruction means that the students were provided
only with procedural guidance, that is, they were told what kind of circuit to construct, how to
construct it, and what kind of electrical measurements to conduct.
(ii) In the simulation explicit condition (SE) the students used the simulation and received explicit
instruction. Explicit instruction means that in addition to the implicit instruction students were given
support and a structure for their inquiry process, that is, when they constructed the circuits they were
guided to pay attention to aspects that are important for a theoretical understanding and asked to
make comparisons between different circuits (for more details about the instruction in general, and
on the differences between implicit and explicit instruction in particular, see Worksheets and
Procedure sections).
(iii) In the combination implicit condition (CI) the students used the simulation and the real circuits in
parallel and received implicit instruction. Parallel use means that the students constructed every

circuit twice in a row: first using the simulation and then, immediately after succeeding with the
simulation, they re-constructed that (same) circuit with the real equipment (circuits) that were placed
next to the computer. This means that they had two different representations of electrical circuits
available at all times. The decision to ask the students to construct each circuit first with the
simulation was based on the assumption that constructing virtual circuits is easier than real circuits
(cf. Finkelstein et al., 2005), and that the virtual circuit could then serve as a point of reference when
the students re-construct the circuit with the real equipment (cf. Ronen & Eliahu, 2000).
(iv) In the combination explicit condition (CE) the students used the simulation and the real circuits in
parallel and received explicit instruction.
Participants
The participants were 50 fifth and sixth grade students (11–12 years old; 31 girls and 19 boys) from three
different classrooms of one urban Finnish elementary school. They had no previous formal education in
electricity. Student allocation into the four conditions was based on matching (cf. Wallen & Fraenkel, 2001, p.
284); sets of four students were matched on pre-test scores, and from each set one student was allocated
randomly to one of the four learning conditions. This was to ensure that the conditions would have the nearest
to equal spread of subject knowledge at the baseline. After the students were matched into the conditions,
pairs were formed randomly within each condition (each pair worked in the same condition).2 Working in
pairs is a natural procedure in science classrooms in Finland and previous studies have shown that working in
pairs can be especially effective when the work involves computers (Lou, Abrami, & d’Apollonia, 2001) or
includes complex problem-solving (e.g., Schwartz, 1995). The same teacher taught the students in all
conditions, in order to control for a possible teacher effect.
Since this study was the student’s first formal introduction to the subject of electricity, the learning goal
was to establish an understanding of the relationships between the observable variables, that is, the number of
bulbs, the circuit configuration, and the variations in bulb brightness. The students should learn that for a bulb
to be part of a complete (or closed) circuit, its two terminals must be connected to different terminals of the
battery (need for a closed circuit); current circulates around the circuit in a given direction; and the brightness
of a bulb in a circuit depends not only on the number of other bulbs in a circuit, but also on the configuration of
the circuit.
Materials
Simulation. The simulation used was the ‘‘Electricity Exploration Tool’’ (2003; EET; Figure 1). This is
a lightweight (only 55 kb) Adobe Flash1 application that can be used online or offline with a Web browser or
any corresponding application supporting the Flash content. The representation level of the EET is semi-
realistic; it displays circuits schematically, but includes light bulbs with dynamically changing brightness [as
the amount of current through the bulb increases the yellow area inside (and around) the bulb becomes larger
and the color tone of that yellow changes as well] and realistic measuring devices. The simulated model is
authentic with some exceptions: unlike real circuits the wires have no resistance; the battery is always ideal
(i.e. there is no change in the potential difference with time); connections are always proper; measurements
always ideal. With the EET, students are able to construct various virtual DC circuits by using the mouse to
drag wires, bulbs and resistors to the desired location in the circuits. After constructing the circuit or putting
the circuit into a particular configuration, students can observe the effects of their actions and get instant
feedback. They can, for instance, see how the current flows within the circuit (the path of current flow is
displayed by arrows; this is something that cannot be observed in real circuits) and whether and how brightly
the bulbs are lit. They can also conduct electrical measurements with a multimeter by dragging its probes to
the required testing points (in the present study the students were required to measure the voltages across the
bulbs in various circuits).
Real Circuits. The laboratory equipment kit (LEK) consists of real batteries, wires, bulbs, and a
voltmeter. It allows the students to construct various real DC circuits and conduct electrical measurements. In
the LEK, each circuit component is attached to a base that displays the diagrammatic symbol of that
component (see Figure 2). Inclusion of the diagrammatic symbols is believed to make it easier for the students
Figure 1. The electricity exploration tool is an easy-to-use simulation for constructing simple DC circuits, observing
circuit functionalities, and conducting electrical measurement. Every operation is conducted by dragging or clicking with
the mouse.
to relate the real circuits (LEK) and the virtual circuits (EET) and make translations from one representation
to the other (cf. Ainsworth, 2006). The LEK was used only in the combination conditions and it was placed
right next to the computer.
Worksheets. In all conditions the assignments and instructions were given in the form of worksheets that
asked and guided the students to construct various circuits and conduct various electrical measurements with
Figure 2. Example of a parallel circuit constructed with the Laboratory Equipment Kit.

the simulation (EET) and the real circuits (LEK; combination condition only). In the implicit
instruction condition (SI; CI) the worksheets told students what kind of circuit to construct, how to construct
it, and what kind of electrical measurements to conduct. In the explicit instruction condition (SE; CE) the
worksheets included additional tasks that guided the students to make comparisons between different circuits
and pay attention on those aspects that are important for the conceptual understanding of electric circuits.
In total there were 12 worksheets and they became gradually more difficult; in the beginning the circuits that
the students were asked to construct contained only a single bulb and later multiple bulbs with mixed
configuration (about model progression, see Frederiksen et al., 1999). Each worksheet focused on one topic.
The circuits and circuitry in the worksheets were always presented as a simulation view and as a realistic
picture.
The worksheets were designed to promote conceptual change; the students were asked to construct
circuits that would (A) confront common misconceptions of electric circuits (see Table 1) that have been
identified in previous studies and (B) introduce an alternative (correct) explanation that is based on the
scientific model of electric circuits. As a general guideline, while constructing the circuits or making changes
in circuit configurations, the students were asked to monitor the changes in bulb brightness. They were also
asked to measure the bulb voltage under the assumption that observing the voltages (or potential difference)
across the bulbs in different configurations could help them to understand the variations in bulb brightness
better. The students were required to write down their answers on the worksheet. The first worksheet
(Appendix A), for instance, first asked the students to construct a circuit with one battery, wires, and a bulb
(closed circuit). They were instructed to observe if the bulb would light. The next step was designed to
confront the sink misconception (Table 1), as the students were asked to remove one wire and observe what
happens to the bulb (the bulb will not light and there’s no current flow). In the third step the students were
instructed to put the loose wire back. This was in order to ensure that they would become better aware about
the consequences the configuration changes had on the bulb and importance of having the two bulb terminals
connected to different terminals of the battery. In the explicit instruction condition (SE; CE), the first
worksheet included an additional task that asked the students to pay special attention to the way the current
travels inside the circuit (confrontation of the clashing current misconception; see Table 1) and infer under
what condition(s) does the bulb light.
Subject Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire. The students completed a subject knowledge
assessment questionnaire before and after they constructed circuits (see Appendix B). The questionnaire
was used to measure changes in student’s knowledge about the features that affect the lightning and the
brightness of the bulb(s) in simple DC circuits. It consisted of five questions that included multiple items (total
of 15 items). The first question measured students’ understanding of the concept of a closed circuit. For the
first question, the students were asked to evaluate different circuit configurations and decide whether the bulb
would light or not. In order to be successful, they needed to understand that there are two polarities associated
Table 1
Students’ conceptual models of simple electrical circuits
Sink model (NSAM): Only one wire between the bulb and battery suffices to light the bulb. The second wire is
unnecessary and it has no active role in the circuit
Clashing current model (NSAM): For a bulb to be part of a complete (or closed) circuit, its two terminals must be
connected to different terminals of the battery. Positive current travels from the positive end of the battery to the
positive end of the bulb, and the negative current travels from the battery’s negative end to the bulb’s negative end.
When these two different currents clash, they produce electricity or energy that light the bulb
Current consumption model (NSAM): Current circulates around the circuit, but while it travels, it encounters obstacles
(resistors) that gradually consume the current and slow it down. Hence, within a series or a parallel circuit the
brightness of the bulbs is unequal
Constant current model (NSAM): Current is conserved, but the battery is a source of constant current. Consequently the
current is always shared equally among the circuit components, regardless how the circuit has been configured; two
bulbs are equally bright, no matter if they are connected in series or parallel
Ohm model (SAM): The amount of current depends on the circuit configuration and this also determines the bulb
brightness. Students favoring this (accurate) model are able to distinguish between series and parallel circuits
SAM, scientifically accepted model; NSAM, non-scientifically accepted model.

with the electrical force supplied by a battery, and that, for this electrical force to be applied to a resistor
(bulb), both polarities must be connected, one to each of the ports of the device. In the second question, the
students were asked to indicate how they thought current flows through the circuit. Here they needed to know
that, once a circuit is closed, the current circulates in a given direction, and that the current flow between the
voltage source and the devices connected to the circuit is uniform and continual. The remaining three
questions measured students’ understanding of how different circuit configurations affect bulb brightness.
The third question asked students to rank five identical bulbs according to their relative brightness. Regardless
of whether a battery is perceived as ideal or real, the relative brightness remains the same. To solve
this question, no calculations were required. It was sufficient to think in terms of a simple qualitative model in
which the circuit configuration determines the magnitude of the voltage across circuit components. This
assignment was originally used by McDermott and Shaffer (1992), and has been found to be very effective in
discriminating between students who understand the principles behind the DC circuits and those that do not.
In the fourth question, the students were asked to calculate the voltages of each of the bulbs in question 3. The
task required only the most elementary mathematical skills, since a 2-V battery was chosen to make
calculations easy. In the fifth question, the students were asked to alter bulb brightness by reconfiguring the
circuits. Although this question was primarily designed to measure students’ understanding of series and
parallel circuits, it also provided further information on their conception of closed circuits (e.g., if they drew
only one wire from either of the battery terminals to the bulb, this would tell us that the student believed this to
be sufficient to light the bulb).
Procedure
Pre-Test. One week before the intervention, all the students were tested simultaneously in a quiet room
in their school, where they completed the subject knowledge assessment questionnaire individually.
Intervention. The actual intervention, when the pairs constructed various circuits in the four
different learning conditions, lasted one session (completion of 12 worksheets without time limit) and
took place in the second week in the schools’ computer suite. During the intervention the pairs were working
one at the time in the school’s computer suite (this was because each pair was videotaped, but this data goes
beyond the scope of the paper). At the beginning of the intervention, each pair received a 5-minute
introduction that included a general introduction to electricity and guidance on the use of the materials
(see Materials Section). They were told explicitly that they should monitor the changes in bulb brightness
while constructing the circuits. The introduction was identical in all four learning conditions, except that the
use of the laboratory equipment kit was only taught in the combination condition. After the introduction, each
pair could take as long as they wanted to solve all the circuit assignments of the 12 worksheets by either using
only the simulation (SI, SE) or the simulation in parallel with real circuits (CI, CE). The content coverage was
the same in all conditions; that is, the circuits the students were asked to construct were identical in all
conditions. In the simulation environment (SI; SE) the students constructed each circuit once. In the
combination environment (CI; CE), the students constructed each circuit twice; first with the simulation and
immediately after with the real circuits (it would not make much sense to ask the students to construct every
circuit twice in the simulation conditions). The students receiving implicit instruction (SI; CI) constructed
exactly the same circuits as the students receiving explicit instruction (SE; CE), but in the latter condition
worksheets included additional tasks (see worksheets section). The students received one worksheet at a time
and were required to write down their answers on the worksheet. Their progression through the worksheets
was controlled; they could proceed onto the next worksheet only when they had completed the previous
worksheet correctly.
Post-Test. In order to measure and compare the effectiveness of the different learning conditions,
the subject knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered to students one day after the intervention.
The students were tested individually in a quiet room in their school. After completing the questionnaire, each
student was asked to explain and justify her/his answers in the stimulated recall interview. This was in order
to increase the validity of our interpretations of students’ responses to the questionnaire. In the interview,
while explaining their reasoning, the students were allowed to modify their answers.
Data Analysis
Subject Knowledge. Subject knowledge was analyzed on two levels:
(i) Quantitative level: Students’ answers to all 15 items in the subject knowledge assessment
questionnaire were scored against the model answer template; 1 point was given for a correct answer
and 0 for an incorrect answer; thus, maximum total score was 15 points. Reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha) of the questionnaire was good: pretest a ¼ 0.667; posttest a ¼ 0.822. The lower alpha level in
the pre-test was expected because this was the student’s first formal introduction to the subject of
electricity and prior to the intervention the students’ knowledge on electricity was less accurate and
systematic than after the intervention.
(ii) Conceptual level: In order to obtain deeper insight into students’ conceptual understanding of simple
DC circuits in different learning conditions, students’ answers to the subject knowledge assessment
questionnaire were also analyzed on a qualitative level, and were then classified into five conceptual
categories that characterized the qualitatively different mental models with which students
understood simple DC circuits (see Table 1; the ideas in the lower level models are less sophisticated,
the sink model is considered to be the most naive). Data from the stimulated recall interviews served
as validity confirmation for the qualitative analysis. Extensive research conducted by Kärrqvist
(1985), McDermott (McDermott & Shaffer, 1992), Osborne (1983), and Shipstone (1984) on
students’ mental models of electricity served as a starting point for our qualitative categorization
(see also e.g., Borges & Gilbert, 1999; Reiner et al., 2000; Sencar & Eryılmaz, 2004, for reviews on
students’ mental models about electricity). Two independent raters conducted the qualitative
analysis with an inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) of 0.91. Disagreements between the raters
tended to arise from the fact that some of the weaker students in particular, constantly changed their
reasoning pattern to suit the question in hand; thus their reasoning did not consistently follow any
single principle (see also McDermott & Shaffer, 1992; Planinic, Boone, Krsnik, & Beilfuss, 2006;
Shepardson & Moje, 1999). The disagreements were discussed and the discrepant answers
systematically coded into the lowest model category that included characteristics of student’s
reasoning.
Learning Time. Learning time was determined (recorded) for each participant through the time in
minutes he/she spent on the circuits and worksheets during the intervention.
Learning Efficiency. Learning efficiency was determined for each participant through his/her gain in
subject knowledge from the pre-test to the post-test divided by the time in minutes he/she spent on the circuits
and worksheets during the intervention.
Results
We will start this results section by investigating the baseline level of subject knowledge across the four
conditions. Because we want to establish a learning effect we examine the gain in subject knowledge from
pre- to posttest in each condition separately. This is followed by the planned contrasts where we investigate
the relative effectiveness of each learning condition on students’ learning outcomes and seek the answers to
our research questions. In the end of the results section we focus on students’ qualitative understanding of
electric circuits: how they perceived the functioning of electric circuits before the intervention and how
effectively each learning condition was able to foster their conceptual understanding during the intervention.
All the means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2.
Baseline Knowledge
ANOVA on pre-test scores showed that the four conditions did not differ significantly in subject
knowledge as assessed by the pre-test, F(3, 46) ¼ 0.07, p ¼ 0.97. There was a significant correlation between
pre-test and post-test scores (r ¼ 0.59, p < 0.001) and these slopes were homogenous across the four learning
conditions, pre-test conditions F ¼ 0.61, p ¼ 0.854. Consequently, the pre-test score variable will be used
as a covariate in planned contrasts.
Table 2
Means of students’ pre-test and post-test subject knowledge test scores, learning time and learning efficiency in each
learning condition
Simulation Simulation Combination Combination
Implicit (SI) Explicit (SE) Implicit (CI) Explicit (CE)
(N ¼ 12), (N ¼ 14), (N ¼ 12), (N ¼ 12),
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Subject knowledge (max 15)
Pre-test 8.75 (2.92) 9.14 (2.93) 8.67 (2.84) 9.00 (2.63)
Post-test 9.25 (3.22) 11.29 (2.52) 12.67 (2.39) 12.33 (2.71)
Learning time (minutes) 66.17 (16.66) 79.14 (11.53) 73.00 (13.27) 90.33 (17.05)
Learning efficiency (per hour) 0.572 (1.840) 1.700 (2.101) 3.554 (2.39) 2.232 (1.597)
Effects of Learning Conditions on Post-Test Subject Knowledge

Overall Gains in Knowledge. A within-subjects repeated measures ANOVA of pre-test and post-test
was run independently for each condition in order to establish learning effects. It showed that the students
gained a significant amount of subject knowledge during the intervention in all but the simulation implicit
condition (SI). We can see from the Table 2 that in the SI there is only a small difference between the pre-test
and post-test means, d ¼ 0.22, F(1, 11) ¼ 1.11, p ¼ 0.314 [d is Cohen’s (1988, p. 48) standardized mean
difference effect size for one sample paired observations, that is, pre- and post-test mean difference expressed
in standard deviation units]. Thus, this condition was not very effective in promoting students’ understanding
of electric circuits. Those students that received explicit instruction in the simulation environment (SE) were
able to gain more knowledge during the intervention, d ¼ 0.78, F(1, 13) ¼ 8.38, p ¼ 0.013. Students that
worked in the combination environment and received implicit instruction (CI) had the highest gain in
knowledge during the intervention, d ¼ 1.51, F(1, 11) ¼ 36.41, p < 0.001. Gain of the students that worked
in the combination environment with explicit instruction (CE) was only marginally lower compared to
the former, d ¼ 1.24, F(1, 11) ¼ 40.00, p < 0.001. The average gain in both CI and CE was more than one
standard deviation. So it is fair to say that the students gained substantial amount of knowledge on the
functioning of electric circuits during the intervention in these two conditions.
Effects of Adding Real Circuits to Simulation Environment. To test the hypothesis 1a and 1b, the
learning outcomes and efficiency of the students using the simulation with implicit instruction (SI) and
the outcomes of those using both simulation and real circuits in parallel with implicit instruction (CI) were
compared by planned contrasts. In accordance with the hypothesis 1a, the students in the CI outperformed the
students in the SI in subject knowledge in the post-test, F(1, 45) ¼ 16.96, p < 0.001, g ¼ 1.62 (95% CI: 0.70–
2.52) [g is Hedges’ (1981) bias corrected standardized mean difference effect size for two independent
samples; 95% CI is a confidence interval for g (Smithson, 2003)]. The post-test mean difference between the
CI and the SI is 1.62 standard deviations, meaning that 95% of the students in the former condition had more
items correct in the post-test than an average student in the latter. In accordance with hypothesis 1b, the
learning efficiency was also considerable higher in the CI compared to the SI, F(1, 46) ¼ 13.20, p < 0.001,
g ¼ 1.43 (95% CI: 0.54–2.30). In the former condition the students spent on average only 7 min more time on
constructing and studying the circuits during the intervention than in the latter condition but they gained
significantly more knowledge. The effect size of 1.43 standard deviations shows that after compensating for
the time, the difference between the CI and the SI remained sizable. Thus, when the students received implicit
instruction, adding real circuits to the simulation environment paid off very well compared to the use of the
simulation alone.
Effects of Adding Explicit Instruction to Simulation Environment. To test the hypothesis 2a and answer
the research question 2a, the learning outcomes and efficiency of the students using the simulation with
explicit instruction (SE) and the outcomes of those using the simulation with implicit instruction (SI) were
compared by planned contrasts. In accordance to the hypothesis 2a, the students gained more subject
knowledge in the SE than in the SI, F(1, 45) ¼ 4.83, p ¼ 0.03, g ¼ 0.84 (95% CI: 0.05–1.61). However, there
was no difference in learning efficiency between the SE and the SI because the students in the former
condition spent on average 13 minutes more time on studying the circuits during the intervention compared to
the latter, F(1, 46) ¼ 2.03, p ¼ 0.16, g ¼ 0.54 (95% CI: 0.22 to 1.30). This statistically non-significant result
indicates that it cannot be ruled out that had the students in the SI spent extra 13 minutes on studying the
circuits, there might not been differences in learning outcomes between the SE and the SI in the post-test.
However, it should be remembered that the students in both conditions constructed identical circuits and they
were given a freedom to use as much time on studying the circuits during the intervention as they felt was
necessary. Thus, it was the students’ own decision not to spend more time on studying the circuits in the SI.
In research question 2b we asked if the explicit instruction could improve students’ learning outcomes in
the simulation environment (SE) to the extent that they could catch up with the students using the simulation
and the real circuits in parallel and receiving implicit instruction (CI). The answer to the research question 2b
is no. While working in the CI the students were able to gain significantly more subject knowledge than in the
SE, F(1, 45) ¼ 4.28, p ¼ .04, g ¼ 0.79 (95% CI: 0.002–1.56). Moreover, the learning efficiency was also
significantly higher in the CI compared to the SE because in the former condition the students spent on
average 6 minutes less time on constructing and studying the circuits during the intervention than in the latter
and were still able to gain more subject knowledge, F(1, 46) ¼ 5.50, p ¼ 0.02, g ¼ 89 (95% CI: 0.09–1.67).
We can see from Table 2 that the average learning efficiency was about twice as high in the CI compared to the
SE. This suggests that it is more effective to add the real circuits to the simulation environment that is
supported by the implicit instruction than it is to replace the implicit instruction with the explicit instruction.
Effects of Adding Explicit Instruction to Combination Environment. To test the hypothesis 3a and
answer research question 3, the learning outcomes and efficiency of the students using both simulation and
real circuits in parallel with explicit instruction (CE) and the outcomes of those using both simulation and real
circuits in parallel with implicit instruction (CI) were compared by planned contrasts. In conflict with the
hypothesis 3a, the results showed no statistical differences in learning outcomes between the two conditions,
F(1, 45) ¼ 0.41, p ¼ 0.52, g ¼ 0.25 (95% CI: 1.03 to 0.54). There were no statistical differences in
learning efficiency either, F(1, 46) ¼ 2.22, p ¼ 0.14; g ¼ 0.59 (95% CI: 1.37 to 0.21). This surprising
finding suggests that adding explicit instruction to combination environment does not add to students’
understanding of electric circuits like it did in the simulation environment. However, what the explicit
instruction did in the combination environment, it increased the learning time considerably and thus
decreased the learning efficiency. If we look at the gains in subject knowledge from the pre-test to the post-
test, we can see that in the CI the students gain even more knowledge than in the CE (see Table 2; this is also
why the reported effect sizes are negative). This surprising finding will be discussed in more detail in the
Discussion and Conclusions section.
Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits

Pre-Test. Qualitative inspection of students’ pre-test answers showed that their understanding of
electric circuits was at an elementary level across all the conditions. There were only two students, both in the
simulation environment (one in SI and the other in SE), who perceived circuits according to the scientifically
accepted ‘‘Ohm model.’’ The rest of the students’ conceptions, independent of the condition they were in, fell
into one of the four intuitive model categories, the sink, clashing, and consumption model categories being
the most popular.
Post-Test. Overall, the intervention was effective: of the total of 50 students, 80% had experienced
conceptual change during the intervention, as they perceived electrical circuits through qualitatively different
model in the post-test as compared to their initial model in the pre-test; 46% of the students held the correct
‘‘Ohm’’ model in the post-test. Of those 48 students who perceived electrical circuits through one of the four
intuitive models in the pre-test (two already held the correct model prior the intervention) the initial model of
10 remained intact, even after the intervention. No model regression was detected.
Although the intervention seemed to be effective in respect to overall changes in students’ conceptions,
there were notable differences in conceptual change between the four learning conditions. These differences
are in line with the overall gains in post-test scores that were presented above. As shown in Table 3, conceptual
Table 3
Students’ conceptual models of simple electrical circuits in pre-test and post-test and their conceptual model progression
between the tests in each learning condition
Note: The total frequencies of students’ pre-test models are displayed vertically on the leftmost number column and the total frequencies of
the post-test models are displayed horizontally on the top rows for each of the four conditions. The amounts of scientifically accepted pre-test
and post-test Ohm models for each learning condition are highlighted with squares. The percentages in the end of each top row represent the
total proportion of scientifically accepted post-test models in each condition. The frequencies inside the table (inside the dotted square)
represent conceptual change between pre-test and post-test in each condition. The frequencies above the diagonal represent those students
whose conceptual model progressed between pre-test and post-test. The frequencies on the diagonal imply no progression in model accuracy
between pre-test and post-test (no conceptual change; model remained at the initial level). No model regressions were detected (thus, no
frequencies below the diagonal).
development of the students that worked in the simulation environment with the implicit instruction (SI) was
modest; only two students (17%) had the correct Ohm model in the post-test, one of which already held this
model in the pre-test; the models of the 10 other students remained still at very unsophisticated level (sink,
clashing and consumption). In this condition only half of the students had a different model in the post-test,
and among these six students that improved only one was able to learn the correct model during the
intervention. Furthermore, there were five students whose model remained at the initial level after the
intervention (no conceptual change; the same misconception in pre-test and post-test).
Conceptual change was evident in the remaining three conditions; there was a clear shift from the less
advanced models in the pre-test towards the correct and more advanced models in the post-test. Furthermore
the two most naı̈ve misconceptions (sink and clashing) were practically non-existent in the post-test models
in these three conditions; only one student in the CE held the sink misconception in the post-test. Some
qualitative differences can be detected between the three conditions despite the similarities. The proportion of
correct Ohm models in the post-test was the highest in the CE (67%). Also, more than half of the students in
the CI (58%) were able to learn the correct model during the intervention. The proportion of correct models in
the SE (43%) was less than 50%; it should be also noted that one student in this condition held the correct
model already in the pre-test. One unique characteristic in the CE is that there is only one student who held the
consumption misconception in the post-test. A notable characteristic in the CI is that once the students were
able to overcome the consumption misconception, they were constantly able to learn the correct model; thus,
they were able to distinguish between the series and parallel circuits and learn that the bulb brightness is not
dependent only on the number of bulbs (this is the characteristic misconception in the constant current
category), but especially on the circuit configuration. A common denominator among the CE and the CI is that
in both only one student was unable to improve the initial model; in the SE, there were three students whose
model remained immutable after the intervention.
Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of implicit and explicit instruction on students’
learning outcomes when they use either the simulation on its own or in parallel with real circuits to learn
the basic principles behind the functioning of electric circuits. According to the results, the instructional
support had an expected effect on students’ understanding of electric circuits when they used the simulation
alone (cf. de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998; de Jong, 2006). Pure procedural guidance was insufficient to
promote conceptual understanding; the students showed only marginal gain in subject knowledge after the
intervention when they received the implicit instruction in the simulation environment (SI). These students
also spent the least amount of time on constructing and studying the circuits during the intervention, although
they were allowed to use any amount of time. Thus, it seems that the implicit instruction failed to stimulate
thoughtful processing in the simulation environment. Instead, when the students were explicitly instructed to
make comparisons between different circuits in the simulation environment and pay attention to the aspects
that are important for the conceptual understanding of electric circuits (SE), they were able to gain a
significant amount of subject knowledge during the intervention.
Although the explicit instruction succeeded in improving students’ conceptual understanding of
electrical circuits considerably in the simulation environment (SE), their understanding did not reach the level
of that achieved by the students who used the simulation and the real circuits in parallel (CI). This finding
suggests that when learning electricity, the use of virtual and concrete representations simultaneously is more
effective compared to using only the virtual representation (see also Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008), even when the
use of the virtual representation is supported with explicit instruction. The combination implicit condition
(CI), where the students used the simulation and the real circuits in parallel and received implicit instruction,
was the most effective and efficient learning condition; the students showed the highest gain in subject
knowledge after the intervention, but they spent the second least amount of time constructing and studying the
circuits during the intervention (7 minutes more than the students in the simulation implicit condition and
6 minutes less than the students in the simulation explicit condition). Consequently, the learning efficiency
was nearly two times as high in the combination implicit condition compared to any other learning condition.
The most surprising finding of the study was that when the students used the simulation and the real
circuits in parallel (the combination environment), the explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much
additional gain for their understanding of electric circuits; on the one hand, more students were able to learn
the correct conceptual model when they received explicit instruction (CE); on the other hand, the overall gain
from pre- to post-test was higher when the students received implicit instruction (CI). It was evident that
explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment; the
students spent 17 minutes more on studying the circuits during the intervention when they received explicit
instruction compared to when they received implicit instruction. We could conclude that the explicit
instruction was not beneficial or harmful for the learning outcomes in the combination environment, but it
reduced learning efficiency considerably.
These results have important implications for practice and they also contribute some new information
to science teaching literature. First and foremost, the 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 explicit instruction. When using the simulation and the real
circuits in parallel, the students seem to learn more efficiently when they are given more freedom to discover
the material (CI) than when the process is more structured (CE). In the case where only a simulation is
available, teachers should pay careful attention to the design of the instructional support. Pure procedural
support (SI) is not enough; the students should also be guided in terms of what they should focus on (SE) (cf.
de Jong, 2006; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998). Previous research further suggests that if a teacher needs to
make a choice between a simulation and real circuits and his/her aim is to improve students’ conceptual
understanding of electric circuits, he/she should choose the simulation because the students have fewer
difficulties in constructing and understanding virtual circuits than real circuits (Finkelstein et al., 2005;
Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008) and virtual environments offer also many practical advantages (cf. Klahr et al.,
2007).
The fact that the explicit instruction did not improve students’ understanding of electric circuits in the
combination environment (CE), calls for further research. Could it be, for instance, that as the explicit
instruction directed the students’ attention to the specific aspect in the circuits, it also distracted students’
natural inquiry process and comparisons between the two representations, and consequently led to a
shallower processing of information? Or, could it be that the explicit instruction disconnected the use of the
two representations in parallel because the students had to spend additional time on studying the virtual
circuits before they could move to the real circuits? In other words, in the presence of explicit instruction, the
use of the simulation and the real circuits might have become less synchronous compared to when the students
received implicit instruction.
A future study could also investigate how different ways of combining simulation and laboratory
activities affect the learning process and outcomes. In this paper we have emphasized the importance of using
the simulation and the real circuits in parallel. We have argued that when both representations are
simultaneously available it is easier for the students to build cognitive links over the representations.
However, Zacharia (2007; Zacharia et al., 2008) has reported similar results—that is, results that
favor combining simulation and laboratory activities with a sequential combination; laboratory activities
in the first part of the intervention (no simulation) and simulation activities in the second part
(no laboratory). This means that students benefitted from the use of two different representations
even without having the representations available at the same time. It still seems plausible that it would
be easier to relate two synchronously available representations (parallel combination) than two
asynchronously available representations (sequential combination) (cf. Ainsworth, 2006), but it could be
that the parallel use is more important among younger children; the present study was conducted in the
elementary school context whereas Zacharia’s studies were conducted in the university level. Another issue
worth exploring is the order of representations in the parallel combination. Our decision to ask the students to
construct each circuit first with the simulation was based on the assumption that constructing virtual circuits is
easier than real circuits (cf. Finkelstein et al., 2005), and that the virtual circuit could then serve as a point of
reference when the students re-construct the circuit with the real equipment (cf. Ronen & Eliahu, 2000).
However, assuming that the students could cope with the challenges that are related to learning with and from
the real circuits (cf. McDermott & Shaffer), reversing this order could make it even easier for the students to
relate the real and the virtual circuits; for instance, the students could adjust the battery in the simulation to
correspond with the voltage of the real battery. These issues could be clarified in studies comparing various
parallel and sequential combinations of simulation and laboratory activities in different school levels and
domains.
A main limitation of the present study is that the sample size was relatively small (12 students per
condition). Consequently, the power of the study to detect effects at the statistically significant level was not
optimal. For instance, the difference in learning efficiency between the CI and the CE was more than half
standard deviation units (in favor of the former), which, according to Cohen (1988, p. 26) can be considered
as a medium effect size. Yet, this difference fell short of being statistically significant. Further, we can
see from the results section that the confidence intervals for the effect sizes are relatively large (also due to
small samples) which means that the reported mean differences may not be very precise estimates.
Consequently, the reported mean differences between the conditions (i.e., effect sizes) should be interpreted
with some caution, and more powerful studies (i.e., bigger sample) that replicate the present design are
recommended.
To conclude, this study has shown that combining computer simulation learning with laboratory
activities can enhance students’ conceptual understanding of simple electricity more effectively than the use
of computer simulation alone (see also Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008). A computer simulation is designed to
simulate an abstract model of a particular system. The model behind the simulation is often simplified and
does not include all of the nuances and anomalies of the real world, nor should it, since the main aim of the
simulation is to reveal and clarify the core principles of the system being modeled. Real materials can
highlight different aspects of the content and add more detail to students’ understanding. When used together,
these two external representations can bridge the gap between theory and reality. The results also confirm that
a more structured environment (explicit instruction) leads to better learning outcomes than a less structured
environment (implicit instruction) when using simulation only, suggesting explicit instruction in those cases.
However, in cases when the simulation and laboratory activities are combined, these dynamics seem to be
different; we observed that a less structured environment produced equally good learning outcomes than a
structured environment, and in the less structured environment learning required less time from students. This
suggests that the relationship between the instruction and the learning environment is more complex when
simulation and laboratory activities are combined than when a simulation is used alone.
Notes
1
A condition where the students would use the real circuits alone was left out of the design of the present study
because it has been clearly the least effective and the most troublesome learning condition in previous studies
(Finkelstein et al., 2005; Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008).
2
Since fifty is not divisible by four, prior to matching, two randomly selected students were paired and allocated
randomly to one of the four learning conditions (SE).
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations.
Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Borges, A.T., & Gilbert, J.K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1),
95–117.
Carlsen, D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student
misconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 105–109.
Chi, M.T.H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical
shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M.T.H., & Roscoe, R.D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limon & L. Mason
(Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework
and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Chiu, M.H., & Lin, J.W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders’ conceptual change of their understanding of electric
current via multiple analogies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 429–464.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) NJ: Erlbaum.
Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.
Electricity Exploration Tool. Adobe1 Flash application. (2003). Brighton, UK: digitalbrain plc.
Finkelstein, N.D., Adams, W.K., Keller, C.J., Kohl, P.B., Perkins, K.K., Podolefsky, N.S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R.
(2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for
laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 1, 010103.

Frederiksen, J.R., White, B.Y., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of
constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 806–836.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D.R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner
& A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.
Glauert, E.B. (2009). How young children understand electric circuits: Prediction, explanation and exploration.
International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1025–1047.
Goldstone, R.L., & Son, J.Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69–110.
Hart, C. (2008). Models in physics, models for physics learning, and why the distinction may matter in the case of
electric circuits. Research in Science Education, 30, 529–544.
Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect sizes and related estimators. Journal of
Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into
secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701–732.
Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by
combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271–283.
Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Lehtinen, E. (in press). Conceptual change in learning electricity: Using virtual and
concrete external representations simultaneously. In L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, T. de Jong, & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of
external representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement. (Advances in Learning and
Instruction Series). Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis.
de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations: Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532–533.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual
domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct
instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.
Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical vs. virtual
materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183–
203.
Kärrqvist, C. (1985). The development of concepts by means of dialogues centred on experiments. In R. Duit,
W. Jung, & C. von Rhöneck (Eds.). Aspects of understanding electricity (pp. 215–226). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological
category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111–149.
Lehtinen, E., & Rui, E. (1996). Computer supported complex learning: An environment for learning experimental
methods and statistical inference. Machine Mediated Learning, 5(3&4), 149–175.
Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal.
Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1),
14–19.
McDermott, L.C., & Shaffer, P.S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from
introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–
1013.
Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: Towards a systemic model of the
processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 519–534.
Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter?
Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2007). NSTA position statement: The integral role of laboratory
investigations in science instruction. National Science Teachers Association.
Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technology
Education, 1(1), 73–82.
Planinic, M., Boone, W.J., Krsnik, R., & Beilfuss, M. (2006). Exploring alternative conceptions from Newtonian
dynamics and simple DC circuits: Links between item difficulty and item confidence. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43(2), 150–171.

Rasch, T., & Schnotz, W. (2009). Interactive and non-interactive pictures in multimedia learning environments:
Effects on learning outcomes and learning efciency. Learning and Instruction, 19, 411–422.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J.D., Chi, M.T.H., & Resnick, L.B. (2000). Naı̈ve physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-
based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34.
Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14–26.
Scheckler, R.K. (2003). Virtual labs: A substitute for traditiona labs? International Journal of Developmental Biology,
47, 231–236.
Schwartz, D. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.
Sencar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’
misconceptions concerning electric circuits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 603–616.
Shepardson, D.P., & Moje, E.B. (1999). The role of anomalous data in restructuring fourth graders’ frameworks for
understanding electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 77–94.
Shipstone, D.M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of
Science Education, 6, 185–198.
Smithson, M.J. (2003). Confidence intervals. ‘Quantitative applications in the social sciences series, No. 140’.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slotta, J.D., Chi, M.T.H., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An
ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 373–400.
Solomonidou, C., & Kakana, D.-M. (2000). Preschool children’s conceptions about the electric current and the
functioning of electric appliances. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 95–111.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science
Education, 4(3), 231–240.
Tabachnek-Schijf, H.J.M., Leonardo, A.M., & Simon, H.A. (1997). CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple
representations. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 305–350.
Tabachnek-Schijf, H.J.M., & Simon, H.A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: An analyses of a simple,
realistic multiple representation learning task. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.),
Learning with multiple representations (pp. 197–236). Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported
physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882.
Triona, L.M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual
instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149–
173.
Veermans, K., de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W.R. (2006). Using heuristics to facilitate discovery learning in a
simulation learning environment for a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 341–361.
Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naive physics. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual
change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61–76). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood.
Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
Wallen, N.E., & Fraenkel, J.R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the process (2nd ed.) NJ: Erlbaum.
Wieman, C.E., Adams, W.K., & Perkins, K.K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322,
682–683.
Zacharia, Z.C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’
conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.
Zacharia, Z.C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual
manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45(9), 1021–1035.

Appendix A
Compacted example of a worksheet used in both the implicit and explicit instruction conditions
(translated). Tasks from a to c were identical in both instructional conditions. Task d was available only in the
explicit instruction condition.

Appendix B
Compacted subject knowledge assessment questionnaire (translated).



0 Jaakkola - Et - Al-2011-Journal - of - Research - in - Science - Teaching (Reading Imp)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0 Jaakkola - Et - Al-2011-Journal - of - Research - in - Science - Teaching (Reading Imp)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 48, NO. 1, PP.

A Comparison of Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits in

Received 11 July 2008; Accepted 11 March 2010

Contract grant sponsor: Academy of Finland; Contract grant number: 116393.

ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Rationale for the Study

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

SAM, scientiﬁcally accepted model; NSAM, non-scientiﬁcally accepted model.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Subject Knowledge. Subject knowledge was analyzed on two levels:

Effects of Learning Conditions on Post-Test Subject Knowledge

Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like