SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Akpan, J. P., & Andre, T. (2000). Using a computer simulation before dissection to help students learn anatomy. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19, 297313.
  • Balamuralithara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Virtual laboratories in engineering education: The simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17, 108118.
  • Bara, F., Gentaz, E., Pascale, C., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2004). The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children's understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development, 19, 433449.
  • Campbell, J. O., Bourne, J. R., Mosterman, P. J., & Brodersen, A. J. (2002). The effectiveness of learning simulations for electronic laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 91, 8187.
  • Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carlsen, D., & Andre, T. (1992). Use of a microcomputer simulation and conceptual change text to overcome student preconceptions about electric circuits. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 105109.
  • Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55, 11231130.
  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & deLeeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 2743.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • deJong, T. (2006). Computer simulations: Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532533.
  • deJong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulation: Learning processes involved. In E. de Corte, M.C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411427). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  • deJong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179202.
  • diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird's-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3560). New York: Routledge.
  • Doerr, H. (1997). Experiment, simulation and analysis: An integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 265282.
  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 451498.
  • Faryniarz, J. V., & Lockwood, L. G. (1992). Effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in stimulating environmental problem solving by community college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 453470.
  • Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 121130.
  • Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532538.
  • Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., et al. (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, 18.
  • Gire, E., Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Rouinfar, A., Rebello, S., Smith, G., et al. (2010). The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning about pulleys. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2010) (Vol. 1, pp. 937944). Chicago: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  • Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87, 574587.
  • Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: Case studies of three fourth graders. Elementary School Journal, 102, 199224.
  • Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69110.
  • Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117155.
  • Hatzikraniotis, E., Bisdikian, G., Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (2007). Optilab: Design and development of an integrated virtual laboratory for teaching optics. In C. P. Constantinou, Z. C. Zacharia, & M. Papaevripidou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Based Learning in Science Crete, Greece: Technological Educational Institute of Crete.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 2854.
  • Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 6570.
  • Hsu, Y.-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of students' conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 320344.
  • Hsu, Y.-S., & Thomas, R.A. (2002). The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 955979.
  • Huppert, J., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 803821.
  • 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), 271283.
  • Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2010). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 7193.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Integrating constructivism and learning technologies. In J. M. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183203.
  • Klatzky, R. L., & Lederman, S. J. (2002). Touch. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental psychology (pp. 147176). New York: Wiley.
  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91, 10101030.
  • Limon, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 3968). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Loomis, J. M., & Lederman, S. J. (1986). Tactual perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performances, Vol. 2, Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 31/1–31/41), New York: Wiley.
  • Maisch, C., Ney, M., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2009). Inconsistent reasoning about measurement by undergraduate physics students. Paper presented at the ESERA International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Istanbul (Turkey).
  • Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers' theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 907937.
  • Martínez-Jiménez, P., Pones-Pedrajas, A., Climent-Bellido, M. S., & Polo, J. J. (2003). Learning in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 346352.
  • Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 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, 9941003.
  • McDermott, L. C., & The Physics Education Group. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.
  • Mosterman, P. J., Dorlandt, M. A. M., Campbell, J. O., Burow, C., Bouw, R., Brodersen, A. J., & Bourne, J. R. (1994). Virtual engineering laboratories: Design and experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 83, 279285.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211227.
  • Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 2430.
  • Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation a bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 1426.
  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 29.
  • Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393429.
  • 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, 859882.
  • Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 423459.
  • 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), 333344.
  • Triona, L., & 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, 149173.
  • Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 334). New York: Routledge.
  • Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 8195.
  • Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y.-L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 2542.
  • Wosilait, K., Heron, R. L. P., Shaffer, S. P., & McDermott, L. C. (1998). Development and assessment of a research-based tutorial on light and shadow. American Journal of Physics, 66(10), 906913.
  • Wu, H.- K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821842.
  • Yueh, H. P., & Sheen, H. J. (2009). Developing experiential learning with a cohort-blended laboratory training in nano-bio engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 712722.
  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers' explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 17411767.
  • 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, 120132.
  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulations prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiments on students' conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71, 618629.
  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students' conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76, 425430.
  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning & Instruction, 21, 317331.
  • 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, 10211035.
  • Zollman, D. A., Rebello, N. S., & Hogg, K. (2002). Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology. American Journal of Physics, 70, 252.