Adapting Pedagogy in Times of Crisis

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused sudden changes in everyone daily routines which changed peoples’ lives completely and turn the world community upside down [1]. Take something as basic as our spatial experiences: our mobility has been seriously limited-restricted to jogging or walking within a few kilometres near our residential places. The quarantine has also affected the way of learning or teaching forcing educational institution to provide remote teaching for their students. The sudden changes to online learning/teaching have shaken up the traditional education disciplines around the globe. [2] This unexpected alteration to remote or virtual pedagogy as a result of COVID-19 has exposed some of the differences and challenges in the current pedagogy methods used by educators. [3] As a future research work, the idea for this paper is to identify and uncover learning outcomes that are hard to gain with the current setup of the virtual laboratories and are highly needed for the students to be job ready after finishing their studies.

Virtual laboratories are widely embraced in teaching and learning physics [4]. The learning of topics that have relationships with theoretical concepts in physics requires simulations which plays an instrumental role in supporting the understanding of learners [5]. It is for this reason that there is wide use of virtual laboratories in learning physics. There are different research projects that have been carried aimed at developing perfect virtual laboratories that could possibly be used for physics practical teaching in education. This research has however, majorly been carried out in higher learning, and there has not been a lot of research on the use of virtual laboratories in teaching physics to Grade 11 students. Therefore, the focus of the present study is on the effectiveness of using virtual laboratories in teaching physics to Grade 11 students.

Background of the study

STEM is a curriculum based idea of educating students in the four disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, in an approach that is applied and interdisciplinary. The results of various research studies point to STEM subjects being more difficult than the other subjects [6,7,8]. Research also points out that young people are not as interested in learning STEM subjects. These are factors that make it necessary to come up with ways through which students could be motivated to take STEM subjects [9]. In line with this, curriculum for STEM subjects is developed with the idea of providing learners the opportunities of being actively involved in the knowledge acquisition process, and acquiring technology literacy and scientific skills [10]. The curriculum is also aimed at developing increasingly dynamic and viable communities in line with the latest scientific information and also technologies. The development of STEM curriculum is therefore done with emphasis on knowledge acquisition and mastering process skills, which is achieved through the use of practical learning approaches. Through practical activities, learners are helped to develop skills and their creative thinking is also promoted. In addition, their attitudes towards STEM subjects are also improved and their interest towards the subjects is generally improved. In addition, practical activities improve the student’s problem-solving methods. Bonner and Reinders [11] report that through practical activities, students are presented with the opportunities of directly interacting with the material world through the use of tools, techniques for collecting data, and science models and theories.

The practical work can also be done virtually through virtual laboratories. Virtual laboratories are computer-based activities through which students get to interact with various experimental apparatus through a computer interface [12]. The focus of the present study is on determining the effectiveness of virtual laboratories in teaching and learning physics, one of the STEM subjects, specifically to grade 11 students. Virtual laboratories have benefits for learners and teachers as well. These laboratories present a relatively cost-efficient way for organizing laboratory work within STEM [13]. The laboratories are also generally flexible and provide students the variability of experiments and could be independently carried out by many different students at the same time. Other benefits include damage resistance and possible and easy configuration. It is, however, worth noting that these virtual laboratories also have their drawbacks when they are compared with real labs. With virtual labs, students often tend to show lack of responsibility, seriousness and carefulness. Also, traditional labs provide students the opportunities of touching and experiencing real physical devices, systems and resources through the experiments [14]. Even with these drawbacks, the potential of virtual laboratories for STEM education is quite high and they have to be continuously studied.

It is possible to implement virtual local labs in two main ways, through web-based applications and also desktop applications [15]. When compared to web-based applications, desktop applications are not as portable and neither are they as secure as admin rights are required for installation. Also, a laptop, desktop computer, tablet, smart TV or smartphone is required. On the other hand, it is possible to present the web-based application through multiple platforms, even though a web browser is required to run them. It is recommended that virtual labs should be integrated with some learning management systems as they are used within the learning process.

There are currently different virtual labs that have been oriented to different STEM domains including engineering, robotics, physics, automatic control statistics, networking, and probability among others. Majority of these labs are based on 3D graphic models and interfaces for purposes of improving student’s interactivity and understanding. A proper example is the web-based 3D virtual fabrication lab VirtualCVD Reactor [16]. In addition, there are virtual labs that are oriented towards rapidly developing robotics which provide student`s the opportunities of learning programming, controlling and using robotics, knowledge that comes in handy in dangerous workplaces, medicine and industry.

Contribution to Knowledge and Statement of Significance

There is need to extensively investigate substantial changes to learning environments before they are adopted widely. That becomes particularly important in those settings that have the potential of influencing large numbers of students at early points of their careers where there is an integral role played by motivation in sustenance of engagement with the subject matter.

In addition to obtaining a diploma, graduate students need to gain skills that can prepare them for maturity and the workforce. Soft skills – or personal characteristics, personality qualities, innate social cues, and communication ability needed for job performance – are among the most valuable skills learned during university years. There are the abilities that cannot always be quantified or benchmarked but are present in all.

The present studies practical implications include providing virtual laboratory platform developers the necessary information on the level of effectiveness of their platforms, and identification of areas for improvement. Teachers of STEM subjects stand to benefit from a better understanding of student`s experiences with virtual labs, and the effects these labs have on student`s performance.

Research Questions

The research questions for this study are:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages on the current pedagogy with virtual laboratories for Grade 11 learners?

2. How COVID-19 changed the pedagogy methods while forcing the teachers to do remotely teaching?

3. What are the factors affecting the use of virtual labs?

4. How can virtual laboratories be improved to ensure that Grade 11 learners get the most from their practical lessons?

Literature Review

Over the years, the laboratory has been a central component of science education. According to Hofstein [17], science laboratories provide students with opportunities of making meaningful connections with the science content that they learn in their classes, in addition to encouraging scientific habits of mind. The prominent roles that are played by science laboratory exercises and the various activities in science education benchmark, make this quite evident [18]. It is however, worth noting that there are educators who hold the view that engagement in laboratory activities by students in science courses is really not necessary (19; 20).

Over time, there have been technological advances in the area of science laboratory instruction, which have made worth contributions to the landscape of possible laboratory environments. With the advent of home science kits, science laboratories moved into the distance education realm, which involved students being sent mails or being required to purchase simple laboratory materials for purposes of completing activities in their homes [21]. More advances have made it possible for computer simulations and virtual laboratories to become regular components of the science laboratories landscape [22]. Previous research on the adoption of virtual laboratories in science education show that quantitative surveys have been quite prevalent in the research on virtual laboratories with most of these surveys having been created by researchers specifically for their research. In Cobb et al. [23], a survey with various scales ranging from satisfaction with virtual laboratories, ease of use of virtual laboratories, and aptitude and technology competence was created. An attitudinal assessment with scales of attitude towards science and school, attitude towards dissection, and attitude towards computers was used in Akpan and Strayer [24]. Pyatt and Sims [25] created the Virtual and Physical Experimentation Questionnaire whose scales included; usefulness of computers, usability of equipment, open-endedness, anxiety towards computers, and lab usefulness. In Swan and O`Donnell [26], a post-survey containing scales of positive attitudes towards virtual laboratories, preference for traditional form of laboratory instruction, and motivation and effort.

Chini [27] adopted a mixed method research design utilizing virtual and physical manipulatives within face-to face laboratory environments and investigated three main questions: 1) What was learned by students, 2) how did students learn, 3) what students thought about their learning. Student performance data. Interview data and survey data was used for purposes of addressing these questions. Through the combination of quantitative research methods and the phenomenographic approach, evidence was provided that students valued data from virtual laboratories. Additionally, those students who were first in completing the virtual activities subsequently developed a better understanding of the concepts of physics, when they were compared to those who first completed the physical activities. Therefore, an enhanced understanding of students learning during laboratory exercises was provided by the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Bell and Trundle [28] carried utilized a mixed methods research approach in a study of pre-service teachers for purposes of discovering how they conceptualized moon phases before and after instruction on observing the moon virtually. The collected data included structured interviews, and drawings. In addition, analysis of a lunar shaped card was also done through the use of the constant comparative method.

There are different studies that have been carried out for purposes of analyzing the different ways through which virtual labs influence the motivation of students to learn and the level of effectiveness of the acquisition of knowledge. 56 papers were analysed in Brinson [29], and these were oriented towards comparing results that had been achieved from virtual and traditional labs. From 62.5% of these papers, it was shown that with virtual labs, higher learning outcomes were achieved, the same levels of learning outcomes were presented for both types of labs in 21.4% of the papers, and traditional labs were only reported to teach learners more than virtual labs in 8.5% of the papers. A meta-analyses of 69 different studies carried out by Merchant et al. [30] covered the deployment of virtual reality instructions, virtual worlds, simulations and games in higher education. From the results of this meta-analysis, it was shown that virtual reality based learning had multiple advantages and further provided ways of improving learning outcomes.

There are also studies that have been carried out analyzing the benefits held by virtual laboratories in allowing students to make networking experiments. In Wannous et al. [31], a test was carried out on a sample of 15 learners in relation to the use of NVLab and the lab was observed to achieve positive feedback from learners and also contributed to positive knowledge gain. The V-Lab study, 250 students were involved in testing. From the study`s questionnaire results, it was revealed that the students satisfactory feedback was quite positive. The study determined that the lab helped students with understanding and additionally practicing networking problems.

Oser and Fraser [32], suggest that virtual labs are an effective way of alleviating the problem of laboratory capacity by providing students the opportunities of practicing critical networking skills within virtual environments which do not have real physical equipment. Tsihouridis and Vavougios [33] report on the usefulness of virtual laboratories in distant and computer assisted instructions, in those disciplines that require students to learn practical skills and additionally acquire theoretical knowledge. There are different reasons that have been advanced on the usefulness of virtual labs. These include; remotely assessing distant education, reliability, low cost, flexibility, security and convenience to students. There are however researchers who have raised doubts about the pedagogical effectiveness of virtual labs [34]. Their argument is that laboratories are ultimately meant to provide students real world experiences that are transferrable to work environments. This is a continuous debate that continues even to date. Kapici et al. [35] argue that the benefits of virtual laboratories outweigh their drawbacks.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework

A quantitative experimental versus post-test control-group design is adopted in this study and this involves randomly assigning students into the experimental and the control group. Pre-testing was done on the two pre-test and post-test control groups using the depended variables and this was before the implementation of the study and they were subsequently post-tested after administration of the treatment. The experiment is to be carried out throughout physics classes, and the choice of physics as a science was informed by the knowledge of the high interactive nature of the subject and the numerous experiments that the subject has. David, Resnick and Walker define physics as the science of experimental evidence, rational discussion and criticism in which knowledge and understanding of its different concepts is dependent on physical phenomena perceptions [36].

Variables

The independent variable in this study was the teaching method (virtual lab versus demonstrations using real lab equipment that were interactive). The student’s conceptual understanding of different STEM topics and their understanding towards the same topics was the dependent variable. STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering and mathematics [37]. It is further worth noting that STEM requirements tend to vary slightly across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The study involved a sample of 34 grade 11 students from a public secondary school at St Paul`s School, a selective school located by River Thames. All the participants in the study were male as St Paul`s is an all-boys school. The assigning of the sample was carried out randomly through the use of the random number generator from SPSS statistical software, into experimental group 1 and control group 2, each with 17 students.

Data collection instruments

The research used various instruments for the collection of data including an electricity conceptual understanding test and the STEM thinking skills test.

Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuits Concepts Test

Paula Vetter Engelhardt developed this diagnostic test which is used for purposes of assessing the conceptual understanding of students and comparing the efficiency of virtual lab and interactive demonstrations through the use of real lab equipment [38]. The test is based on 9 objectives (See the objectives of the used DIRECT test in the appendix). There is Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuits Concepts Test set of instructional objectives that was constructed after extensively examining high school textbooks and laboratory manuals in addition to informal discussions through the use of those materials [38].

The Physic Attitude Scale (PAS)

An attitude scale was also used for purposes of measuring the attitudes of the students. The adopted scale was adapted from the modified Fennema-Sherman attitude scale. In this study, PAS was used for evaluation of the attitudes held by the students about physics. The students will be required to answer a set of statements on a 5-point Likert scale. In the original test, there will be three subscales, including a confidence scale, a usefulness scale, and a teacher perception scale [39]. For the current study, there will be a total of 36 questions and three subscales with each subscale having 12 questions. The items in every scale will be divided equally between statements which will be measuring positive and negative attitude. Learning self-confidence and the self-confidence to achieve well on physical tasks will be measured by the confidence scale [40]. Beliefs about physics’ usefulness and the relationship the subject has with the future education of students will be measured using the usefulness scale. Finally, the teacher perception scale will measure the perceptions of students of the attitudes held by their teachers towards them, learners [41]. The items of these three scales will be randomly arranged throughout the scale. On each subscale, the maximum possible score will be 60. Therefore, the maximum total score that can be possibly be achieved on the PAS is 180. There are numerous researchers who have established the reliability and validity of the physics attitude scale. For purposes of this current research, the researcher will still endeavor to recalculate the reliability (Alpha coefficient) of the 36 items of PAS.

Procedures

For purposes of achieving the goals of the research, random assignment of the sample was done and the sample was divided into two equal groups each with 17 students. The first group was the experimental group while the second group was the control group. The two groups were taught the same content over a period of 12 weeks with each class going for a period of 40 minutes. Both classes were videotaped and a randomly selected sample of the videotapes was observed for purposes of insuring that the treatment had been authentic. At the beginning of the academic term, all the involved students in the two groups were required to complete the two aforementioned tests as pre-tests, for purposes of investigating how they conceptually understood things and the attitudes they had towards STEM subjects before the onset of the research. For all the students in the experimental group, a computer training session was carried out during one of the periods in 40 minutes in which the students were introduced to the PhET simulation software. The basis of PhET simulations is on extensive education research and engage students through game-like and intuitive environments, whereby, learning for the students happens through discovery and exploration [42]. On the basis of the different features of PhET simulations, the researcher used the simulations for purposes of performing experiments within a virtual laboratory [43]. CCK was specifically used in the study for purposes of performing virtual experiments.

Structured inquiry activities were used for both the experimental and control groups and both problem matters and procedures were presented [44]. In the experimental group, each two students performed in a virtual laboratory environment where PhET simulations were utilized together with other experimental activities that had compatibility with the objectives of the curriculum and the objectives of the DIRECT test [45]. On the basis of the taught chapter’s objectives, there were four experiments that were carried out in the third chapter, two in the fourth chapter and three in the fifth chapter. On the other hand, for Group 2, the control group, interactive demonstrations of the same experiments were carried out by the teacher in traditional laboratory settings where real equipment’s were used. For purposes of carrying out the required experiment in the control group, some of the equipment`s that were not available and that were required, were provided by the researcher. The post-tests were finally realized at the end of the academic term, and the same DIRECT test was used over a period of 40 minutes. In addition, the students also filled again, for a second time, the PAS questionnaire.

Theoretical Framework

The desires of implementing virtual labs are born out of a combination of experiential learning and the theory of social constructivist learning [46]. Constructivism points out that the development of knowledge among human beings happens through engagement in situated tasks, that is endogenous constructivism and social negotiation, which is dialectical constructivism [47]. According to constructivists, the use of tasks and tools that are authentic can be utilized for avoidance of misconceptions as a result of simplifications that are otherwise not appropriate [48]. The mental models of students are challenged by students in ways that are demanding and motivating. Students are able to develop self-confidence and hold perceptions of progress in construction of collective knowledge [46]. It could be concluded that virtual labs are adequate tools for supporting constructivist learning in the event, they are authentic, they make research tools to share complexity with ease, visualize data that is complex for promotion of insight collaboration and offer support to computer-medicated communication [49]. The choice of the constructivist theoretical framework is informed by the knowledge that the theory is in line with the purpose who which virtual labs have been used in teaching students – making personal interpretations during the labs and even after. Constructivism refers to the abilities of individuals to construct their own knowledge on the basis of their beliefs and mental structures for interpretation of individual constructs [50]. The mind plays an instrumental role in the interpretation of events, perspectives, and objects on a personal and individualistic base. In constructivism, the main idea is that learning is an activity which provides individuals with choice in relation to whether or not they should take up information, even though the comprehension of concepts comes from the desires to learn of learners [51].

The experiential learning theory comes about from the constructivist school of thought. The benefits of experiential learning were highlighted by John Dewey in 1938 and he explained that there existed an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of education and actual experience. Therefore, the theory of experiential learning propagates learning by experience and also through experience. In line with the theory, learning is understood as being an iterative process whereby, the creation of knowledge happens through the transformation of experiences [52]. Dewey considered learning as a tool that could make learners full participates in democratic processes because he believed that educators had to have an understanding of nature of experiences that their learners came with, from which they would initiate education processes [53].

Ethics Approval

The researcher will give consideration to different ethical issues when carrying out the experiment, including, informed consent of the students to be involved in the experimental and control groups, their confidentiality, and the consequences for them will also be taken into account and shared with them. Additionally, the students will be informed about the experiments purpose and an outline of the procedures that would be followed was also provided to them. Each of the students was required to fill a consent form, under the guidance of their parents. Ethics committee approval will be required for this research and will have to be obtained.

Researcher Development

My priority development areas of researcher development are writing skills, critical thinking capabilities, and clarity of goals and a good research plan. Over time, I have been identifying the training that I require in these three areas to enhance my capabilities as a researcher. That has always involved carrying out a training needs analysis which is always supported by the different meetings I will hold with my tutors from time to time. I also take stock of my capabilities using the Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF) after which I`m always able to come up with an action plan on how to improve. The skills development has been quite effective and quite effective and my writing skills and critical thinking capabilities have improved immensely.

Occupational Health & Safety Risks

Given the critical nature and the occupational health and safety risk concerns relating to the conduction of Physics experiments, it is critical to undertake the necessary measures that would promote the health and safety of participants. Key among these is checking the layout of the laboratory and work station to ensure that all the equipment are appropriately set up, in their proper place and in the right working conditions. For example, given the inherent dangers associated with the study of electricity in the laboratory, the necessary safeguards and safety procedures should be put in place for both the teachers and students. In working with electricity, it is important to know the location of the electricity’s master switch in the laboratory in case of an emergency, as well educate students on the right use of electricity and the dangers relating to its misuse. Batteries should also be inspected first for cracks and leaks, and those with such defects should be appropriately discarded. Teachers and students should also ensure that they remove all metallic or conductive jewellery before they work with electricity, and wires and cords should be properly placed away from areas where people walk to prevent trips and falls. Additionally, the table and bench tops in the laboratory should be made of non-porous, chemical resistant material, all working surfaces covered with absorbent paper, and eating or drinking should be prohibited especially in laboratories that deal with radioactive materials. With regard to this, along with the other OSHA laboratory safety standards, the researcher conducted an analysis of the likely hazards related to the research, and after critically assessing the risk levels, put in place the necessary safety measures as outlined by OSHA.

Continue your exploration of Active learning, Deweys Ideal education with our related content.

Conclusion

There is need to continuously look out for ways through which to enhance the motivation of students and their engagement in science instruction. Overtime, virtual laboratories have been used as tools for offering wide range alternatives including learning environments that have the potential of attracting the interests of students and incentivising them. The present study seeks to make a knowledge contribution on the potential for use of these virtual laboratories for grade 11 students in teaching physics to test the effects this would have.

References

Gul, T., Amir, L., Abbasi, S., Bilal, H. and Gul, S., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown Measures on Mental Health. The International Journal of Frontier Sciences, 5(2).

S. Wagdy, "COVID-19 drives development of online laboratories," July 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200715130543961.

T. D. Oyedotun, "Sudden change of pedagogy in education driven by COVID-19: Perspectives and evaluation from a developing country," Research in Globalization, 2020.

Daineko, Y., Dmitriyev, V. and Ipalakova, M., 2017. Using virtual laboratories in teaching natural sciences: An example of physics courses in university. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(1), pp.39-47.

Daineko, Y., Ipalakova, M., Muhamedyev, R., Brodyagina, M., Yunnikova, M. and Omarov, B., 2016, June. Use of game technologies for the development of virtual laboratories for physics study. In International Conference on Digital Transformation and Global Society (pp. 422-428). Springer, Cham.

Franz-Odendaal, T.A., Blotnicky, K., French, F. and Joy, P., 2016. Experiences and perceptions of STEM subjects, careers, and engagement in STEM activities among middle school students in the maritime provinces. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(2), pp.153-168.

Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Bush, S.B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., Schroeder, D.C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L. and Cremeans, C., 2018. Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International journal of STEM education, 5(1), pp.1-14.

Pawson, C., 2012. A Comparative Analysis of Students' Satisfaction with Teaching on STEM vs. Non-STEM Programmes. Psychology Teaching Review, 18(2), pp.16-21.

Stipanovic, N. and Woo, H., 2017. Understanding African American students' experiences in STEM education: An ecological systems approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 65(3), pp.192-206.

Daher, W. and Shahbari, J.A., 2020. Design of STEM activities: Experiences and perceptions of prospective secondary school teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(4), pp.112-128.

Bonner, E. and Reinders, H., 2018. Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), pp.33-53.

Shaharanee, I.N.M., Jamil, J.M. and Rodzi, S.S.M., 2016. The application of Google Classroom as a tool for teaching and learning. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 8(10), pp.5-8.

Dyrberg, N.R., Treusch, A.H. and Wiegand, C., 2017. Virtual laboratories in science education: students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), pp.358-374.

De Jong, T., Linn, M.C. and Zacharia, Z.C., 2013. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), pp.305-308.

Stankova, E.N., Dyachenko, N.V. and Tibilova, G.S., 2018, May. Virtual laboratories: prospects for the development of techniques and methods of work. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 3-11). Springer, Cham.

Vasiliadou, R., 2020. Virtual laboratories during coronavirus (COVID‐19) pandemic. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(5), pp.482-483.

Hofstein, A. and Kind, P.M., 2012. Learning in and from science laboratories. Second international handbook of science education, pp.189-207.

Roth, W.M., 2012. Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.

Bradley, R.L., 1968. Is the science laboratory necessary for general education science courses?. Science education, 52(1), pp.58-66.

Jenkins, E., 2007. What is the school science laboratory for?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), pp.723-736.

Rowe, R.J., Koban, L., Davidoff, A.J. and Thompson, K.H., 2018. Efficacy of online laboratory science courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(1), pp.56-67.

Sypsas, A. and Kalles, D., 2018, November. Virtual laboratories in biology, biotechnology and chemistry education: a literature review. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 70-75).

Cobb, S., Heaney, R., Corcoran, O. and Henderson-Begg, S., 2009. The learning gains and student perceptions of a Second Life virtual lab. Bioscience Education, 13(1), pp.1-9.

Akpan, J. and Strayer, J., 2010. Which comes first the use of computer simulation of frog dissection or conventional dissection as academic exercise?. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), pp.113-138.

Pyatt, K. and Sims, R., 2012. Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), pp.133-147.

Swan, A.E. and O’Donnell, A.M., 2009. The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), pp.405-419.

Chini, J. J. (2010). Comparing the scaffolding provided by physical and virtual manipulatives for students’ understanding of simple machines.

Trundle, K.C. and Bell, R.L., 2010. The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), pp.1078-1088.

Brinson, J.R., 2015. Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, pp.218-237.

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W. and Davis, T.J., 2014. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, pp.29-40.

Wannous, M., Nakano, H. and Nagai, T., 2011, April. Google Calendar™ for managing and monitoring the utilization of a web-based laboratory's resources. In 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 210-213). IEEE.

Oser, R. and Fraser, B.J., 2015. Effectiveness of virtual laboratories in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement among high-school genetics students. Curriculum and Teaching, 30(2), pp.65-80.

Tsihouridis, C., Vavougios, D. and Ioannidis, G.S., 2013, September. The effectiveness of virtual laboratories as a contemporary teaching tool in the teaching of electric circuits in Upper High School as compared to that of real labs. In 2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 816-820). IEEE.

Jordá, J.M.M., 2013. Virtual tools: virtual laboratories for experimental science–an experience with VCL tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, pp.3355-3365.

Kapici, H.O., Akcay, H. and de Jong, T., 2019. Using hands-on and virtual laboratories alone or together―which works better for acquiring knowledge and skills?. Journal of science education and technology, 28(3), pp.231-250.

Halliday, David, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. Fundamentals of physics. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Xie, Yu, Michael Fang, and Kimberlee Shauman. "STEM education." Annual review of sociology 41 (2015): 331-357.

Engelhardt, Paula Vetter. "Examining students' understanding of electrical circuits through multiple-choice testing and interviews." PhD diss., North Carolina State University., 1997.

Söderlind, Johan, and Lars Geschwind. "More students of better quality? Effects of a mathematics and physics aptitude test on student performance." European Journal of Engineering Education 42, no. 4 (2017): 445-457.

Kurnaz, Mehmet Altan, and Nevzat Yiğit. "Physics attitude scale: Development, validity and reliability." (2010).

Kaur, Daisy, and Yi Zhao. "Development of Physics Attitude Scale (PAS): An instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward physics." The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 26, no. 5 (2017): 291-304.

Wieman, Carl E., Wendy K. Adams, Patricia Loeblein, and Katherine K. Perkins. "Teaching physics using PhET simulations." The Physics Teacher 48, no. 4 (2010): 225-227.

Perkins, Katherine, Wendy Adams, Michael Dubson, Noah Finkelstein, Sam Reid, Carl Wieman, and Ron LeMaster. "PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics." The physics teacher 44, no. 1 (2006): 18-23.

Wieman, Carl E., Wendy K. Adams, and Katherine K. Perkins. "PhET: Simulations that enhance learning." Science 322, no. 5902 (2008): 682-683.

Adams, Wendy K. "Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations." Il nuovo cimento C 33, no. 3 (2010): 21-32.

Keller, C. J., N. D. Finkelstein, K. K. Perkins, and S. J. Pollock. "Assessing the effectiveness of a computer simulation in introductory undergraduate environments." In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 883, no. 1, pp. 121-124. American Institute of Physics, 2007.

Fosnot, Catherine Twomey. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, 2013.

Hurd, Ian. "Constructivism." In The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Darrah, Marjorie, Roxann Humbert, Jeanne Finstein, Marllin Simon, and John Hopkins. "Are virtual labs as effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities." Journal of science education and technology 23, no. 6 (2014): 803-814.

Amineh, Roya Jafari, and Hanieh Davatgari Asl. "Review of constructivism and social constructivism." Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages 1, no. 1 (2015): 9-16.

Lowenthal, Patrick, and R. Muth. "Constructivism." Encyclopedia of the social and cultural foundations of education 46 (2008): 177-179.

Kolb, David A., Richard E. Boyatzis, and Charalampos Mainemelis. "Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions." In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles, pp. 227-248. Routledge, 2014.

Moon, Jennifer A. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Routledge, 2013.