Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Comparative Effectiveness of Physical, Virtual, and Virtual-Physical Manipulatives on Third-Grade Students’ Science Achievement and Conceptual Understanding of Evaporation and Condensation

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of experimenting with physical manipulatives alone, virtual manipulatives alone, and virtual preceding physical manipulatives (combination environment) on third-grade students’ science achievement and conceptual understanding in the domain of state changes of water, focusing on the concepts of evaporation and condensation. A pretest-posttest design was used that involved 208 third-grade students assigned to the three learning conditions. A science achievement test and a two-tier conceptual test were administered to students before and after a teaching intervention. The results revealed that using virtual preceding physical manipulatives and virtual manipulatives alone enhanced students’ knowledge gains about evaporation and condensation greater than the use of physical laboratory activities alone. It was also found that the combination environment promoted students’ knowledge gains about these concepts equally well as the use of virtual laboratory activities alone. On the other hand, the results showed that using virtual preceding physical manipulatives promoted students’ conceptual understanding most efficiently compared to the use of either physical or virtual manipulatives alone; in contrast, experimenting with physical manipulatives alone was least influential for students’ conceptual understanding compared to the other manipulatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). London, United Kingdom: Springer.

  • Bar, V. & Galili, I. (1994). Stages of children’s views about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar, V. & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K.L. (2002). A study of elementary school students’ conceptions about the changes of the state of water (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Pingtung University of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan.

  • Chini, J.J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N.S. & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010113-1-010113-12.

  • Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Coştu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M., Ünal, S. & Çalık, M. (2007). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of boiling concept. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(6), 524–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al(1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9–40). London, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science.

  • de Jong, T., Linn, M. C. & Zacharias, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

  • Flick, L. B. (1993). The meaning of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. & Swift, D. J. (1985). Towards a Lakatosian analysis of the Piagetian and alternative conceptions research programs. Science Education, 69(5), 681–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, H., Kleinschmidt, J., Case, J. & Musonge, P. (2004). An investigation of tertiary students’ understanding of evaporation, condensation and vapour pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1597–1620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S. & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang Hsuan Educational Publishing Group (2011). Science and technology textbook for grade 3. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.

  • Kleinman, R. W., Griffin, H. C. & Kerner, N. K. (1987). Images in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 766–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (2010). General guidelines of grade 1–9 curriculum of elementary and junior high school education of science and technology area. Taipei, Taiwan: MOE.

  • National Science Teachers Association (2007). NSTA position statement: The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/laboratory.aspx.

  • Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Olympiou, G. & Zacharias, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.

  • Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z. C. & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575–596.

  • Papageorgiou, G. & Johnson, P. (2005). Do particle ideas help or hinder pupils’ understanding of phenomena? International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1299–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou, G., Stamovlasis, D. & Johnston, P. M. (2010). Primary teachers’ particle ideas and explanations of physical phenomena: The effect of an in-service training course. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 629–652.

  • Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

  • Prain, V., Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representations in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (2008). Seeing through touch: The role of haptic information in visualization. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 73–84). London, United Kingdom: Springer.

  • Rohr, M. & Reimann, P. (1998). Reasoning with multiple representations when acquiring the particulate model of matter. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 41–66). New York, NY: Pergamon.

  • Rutherford, F. J. (1993). Hands-on: a means to an end. 2061 Today, 3(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R. & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E. E., Morrow, B. L. & Ludvico, L. R. (2009). Designing blended inquiry learning in a laboratory context: A study of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 333–344.

  • Tutwiler, M. S. & Grotzer, T. (2013). Why immersive, interactive simulation belongs in the pedagogical toolkit of “Next Generation” science: Facilitating student understanding of complex causal dynamics. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning (pp. 127–146). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  • Tytler, R., Peterson, S. & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science, 52(1), 12–17.

  • Tytler, R., Prain, V. & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban-Woldron, H. (2009). Interactive simulations for the effective learning of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K. & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682–683.

  • Wu, H. K., Lin, Y. F. & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students’ scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharias, 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.

  • Zacharias, Z. C. & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharias, Z. C. & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulatives: Rethinking physics experimentation. Learning and Instruction, 21, 317–331.

  • Zacharias, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Hsinchu University of Education, No. 521, Nanda Rd., Hsinchu City, 30014, Taiwan

    Tzu-Ling Wang

  2. Graduate Institute of Statistics, National Central University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan

    Yi-Kuan Tseng

Authors
  1. Tzu-Ling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Kuan Tseng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tzu-Ling Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, TL., Tseng, YK. The Comparative Effectiveness of Physical, Virtual, and Virtual-Physical Manipulatives on Third-Grade Students’ Science Achievement and Conceptual Understanding of Evaporation and Condensation. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 16, 203–219 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation