Original article

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x

Fostering elementary school students’

understanding of simple electricity by combining
simulation and laboratory activities
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
Educational Technology Unit and Centre for Learning Research, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Abstract Computer simulations and laboratory activities have been traditionally treated as substitute or
competing methods in science teaching. The aim of this experimental study was to investigate if
it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them
separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Based on their pre-test performances,
66 elementary school students were placed into three different learning environments: com-
puter simulation, laboratory exercise and a simulation–laboratory combination. The results
showed that the simulation–laboratory combination environment led to statistically greater
learning gains than the use of either simulation or laboratory activities alone, and it also pro-
moted students’ conceptual understanding most efficiently. There were no statistical differ-
ences between simulation and laboratory environments. The results highlight the benefits of
using simulation along with hands-on laboratory activities to promote students’ understanding
of electricity. A simulation can help students to first understand the theoretical principles of
electricity; however, in order to promote conceptual change, it is necessary to challenge further
students’ intuitive conceptions by demonstrating through testing that the laws and principles
that are discovered through a simulation also apply in reality.

Keywords conceptual change, electricity, experimental study, inquiry learning, laboratory, computer
simulation .

before any formal instruction ever takes place. Although

Introduction
Students build new ideas in the context of their existing
conceptual framework. Extensive research conducted
during the last 30 years have shown that students come
to science classes with a wide range of informal ideas
and conceptions that often differ considerably from
accepted scientific views (e.g. Driver & Easley 1978;
Shipstone 1984; McDermott & Shaffer 1992; Limon &
Mason 2002). Students acquire these intuitive con-
ceptions from their everyday experiences and language
Accepted: 3 September 2007
Correspondence: Tomi Jaakkola, Educational Technology Unit,
University of Turku, 20014-University of Turku, Finland. Email: tomi.
jaakkola@utu.fi
these intuitive conceptions are often poorly articulated,
internally inconsistent and highly context-dependent,
they offer tremendous explanatory power for the stu-
dents (Lee & Law 2001; Planinic et al. 2006). As a con-
sequence, intuitive conceptions can be very resistant to
change and easily interfere with students’ abilities to
learn correct scientific principles; in the domain of
electricity, there is a large body of research evidence that
shows that students in all school levels have severe diffi-
culties and misconceptions in their understanding of
electric circuits even after formal instruction has taken
place (e.g. Cohen et al. 1983; Osborne 1983; Shipstone
1984; McDermott & Shaffer 1992; Shepardson & Moje
1999). Therefore, learning of complex science issues

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2008), 24, 271–283 271
272
such as electricity often requires not only acquisition
of new knowledge, but changes in students’ deeply
entrenched intuitive conceptions as well. This kind of
learning is referred to as conceptual change (see Limon
& Mason 2002, for multiple perspectives on conceptual
change).
Since intuitive conceptions are grounded in personal
experience, educational environments should expose
students to re-experience the phenomena, help them to
recognize the conflict between their prior knowledge
and new concepts, and support them during the
demanding process of conceptual change. One promis-
ing method of promoting conceptual change in science
learning is inquiry-based (or discovery-based) learning
(e.g. Hofstein & Lunetta 2004; de Jong 2006). Inquiry-
based learning can be defined as a learning approach
that mimics authentic scientific inquiry; it involves a
process of actively exploring some realistic phenomena
or part of the natural world in a way that leads to asking
questions, generating testable hypotheses, making dis-
coveries, and rigorously testing and evaluating the plau-
sibility of those discoveries in the search for new
understanding (de Jong 2006).
Inquiry learning has traditionally been implemented
in real laboratory environments via concrete, hands-on
activities. The main aim of the laboratory activities is to
provide students the means to investigate phenomena
through the active manipulation of physical materials,
as well as to open up the possibility of doing scientific
work as experts in authentic settings. In the area of elec-
tricity, students ought to infer the laws of electricity that
underlie circuit behaviour through physical experimen-
tation with real equipment. However, although the use
of concrete physical materials has a long history and a
distinctive role in science teaching, many authors have
questioned the effectiveness of laboratory work (e.g.
Hofstein & Lunetta 1982, 2004; Hodson 1996;
Kirschner & Huisman 1998). Hennessy et al. (2006)
have argued that the development of a theoretical under-
standing of complex phenomena (such as electricity)
through practical manipulation can be problematic; in
many cases students can only see what is happening on
the surface level, while being unable to grasp the under-
lying processes and mechanisms that are invisible in
natural systems and important for theoretical under-
standing (e.g. current flow). This means that students
are not necessarily experiencing the specific conflict
between their prior knowledge and the demands of the
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
situation, and this conflict is necessary for conceptual
change to take place.
Resnick (1998) has argued that it is the active
manipulation – rather than the physicality as such – that
may be the most important element in inquiry learning.
This would indicate that real equipment can be replaced
by digital (or virtual) ‘manipulatives’ (Triona & Klahr
2003). Indeed, recently there has been considerable
interest within the science community in conducting
research on the use of computer-based interactive
simulations in order to help students to learn science by
implementing inquiry learning (e.g. Frederiksen et al.
1999; Tao & Gunstone 1999; Ronen & Eliahu 2000;
Zacharia 2007; de Jong 2006). It has been argued that
teaching physics via computer-based models and simu-
lations makes the content more easily graspable, espe-
cially in areas that have been traditionally difficult to
learn (Wiser & Amin 2002). Interactive electricity
simulation – i.e. a computer program that models the
functioning of electric circuits – may offer several
advantages over traditional classroom teaching or
physical laboratory exercises (Hsu & Thomas 2002). In
general, simulations provide a safe and customizable
learning environments in which students can perform
experiments virtually by setting up different circuits,
changing circuit variables (such as resistance), and
observing the outcomes of their actions (e.g. change in
voltage). As a consequence, they may discover the prop-
erties of the model underlying the functioning of the
circuit (e.g. Ohm’s law). In contrast to a laboratory
working, a simulation can also reveal processes or
abstract laws that are invisible in natural systems – for
example, by visualizing the current flow within the
circuit (Hennessy et al. 2006). Furthermore, simulation
can reduce the cognitive demands of physical labora-
tory experiments by providing students with a ‘cleaned-
up’, idealized version of the complex and messy real
world, while still retaining a necessary level of theoreti-
cal authenticity (Hennessy et al. 2006). These capabili-
ties make simulation a promising tool for promoting
conceptual change (Tao & Gunstone 1999; Zacharia &
Anderson 2003; Blake & Scanlon 2007).
Even though previous research has documented the
potentially positive impact of simulations on students’
learning performance (e.g. Ronen & Eliahu 2000;
Hsu & Thomas 2002; Zacharia & Anderson 2003), the
positive effects are not self-evident (see de Jong & van
Joolingen 1998, for a review). The major criticism of the
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Simulation–laboratory combination
use of simulations has been that when using simula-
tions, students are asked to learn in a fundamentally dif-
ferent way than scientists in an authentic environment
do (Steinberg 2000). The other concern has been that a
simulation may oversimplify complex systems (Crook
1994). Moreover, students do not always believe that the
laws and principles that a simulation demonstrates will
also apply in the real world (Couture 2004). In these
cases, simulations are not enough, and more authentic,
stronger experiences may be needed to overcome the
emotional barriers related to the processes of concep-
tual change (Merenluoto & Lehtinen 2004; Sinatra &
Mason in press). As a solution, combining and linking
simulation activities with concrete hands-on activities
may increase the creditability of the simulations. The
results of a recent study by Zacharia1 (2007) indicate
that, in order to gain deeper understanding of complex
issues such as electricity, students may need to experi-
ence both virtual and physical experimentation (see also
Hennessy et al. 2006). This finding suggests that we
should not see computer simulations and laboratory
activities as substitute or competing methods in science
teaching (as is performed traditionally) but as being
complementary to one another. Unfortunately, there
exists a lack of studies investigating the impact that
these two environments can have on students’ learning
when used together.
The aim of this experimental study is to investigate if
it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and
laboratory activities than to use them separately in
teaching simple electricity. It is hypothesized that the
simulation–laboratory combination environment will
lead to greater learning gains than the use of either simu-
lation or laboratory activities alone. Furthermore, it is
expected that the use of simulation will also result in
better learning outcomes than the use of laboratory
equipment. In this context, the main research questions
investigated in this study are ‘Would it be better to
combine simulation and laboratory activities than to
use them separately?’ and ‘How do these three environ-
ments affect students’ conceptual development in
understanding electricity?’
Methods
Sample
The participants were 66 fourth and fifth grade students
(10–11 years old; 29 boys and 35 girls) from one
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
273
average urban Finnish elementary school. The students
had not had any formal education on electricity before
the study took place.
Study topic
In order to develop a proper understanding of electric
circuits in students, many researchers have suggested
that students should first adopt qualitative and a voltage-
centred view of electric circuits (e.g. Cohen et al. 1983;
White & Frederiksen 1990; Lee & Law 2001). A proper
understanding of the concept of potential difference
(voltage) is very important in understanding electric
circuits, because the qualitative rules that govern the
voltage redistribution process are related to well-known
laws of quantitative circuit theory, namely Kirchhoff’s
Voltage Law and Ohm’s Law (White & Frederiksen
1990; Reiner et al. 2000). Therefore, as the study was
the first formal introduction to the subject of electricity
for these students, the aim was to familiarize students
with simple electricity by teaching them the definition
of a closed circuit and the principles for the potential
difference within series and parallel circuits. The focus
was on acquiring a qualitative understanding of circuits.
Teaching focused on the establishment of a relationship
between observable variables, namely the number of
batteries and bulbs, the circuit configuration and the
variations in bulb brightness. An understanding of cir-
cuits containing batteries, wires and bulbs (or resistors)
requires students to reason about electrical potentials at
different points within a circuit, as well as to examine
the flow of electrical charge that is caused by differences
in these electrical potentials. Students should learn that
lightning depends not only on the number of batteries
and bulbs in a circuit, but also on circuit configuration.
Procedure
The empirical phase of the study took place during 2
weeks. In the first session, which took 1.5 h, the students
were given pre-tests. Based on their subject knowledge
pre-test scores, students were placed into laboratory,
simulation and combination learning environments. In
order to ensure that each environment had the same
spread of achievement – i.e. that students in all three
learning environments were equal at the baseline – the
placing was performed by first classifying students
according to their pre-test scores, then selecting them
274
in groups of three (e.g. the first three students with the
lowest scores, then next three, and so on) and allocating
these three randomly into one of the three learning
environments.
The actual intervention lasted two consecutive hours
and took place in the second week. In the beginning of
the intervention, students received a 15-min general
introduction to the subject of electricity. This introduc-
tion was identical in all three learning environments.
After the introduction, the students worked with various
circuit assignments in randomly assigned pairs. Learn-
ing electricity is notoriously difficult, and previous
studies have shown that working in pairs can be espe-
cially effective when the work requires complex
problem-solving processes (e.g. Light & Glachan 1985;
Lou et al. 2001).
In order to measure and compare the effectiveness of
the different learning environments, a subject knowl-
edge post-test was administered to students 1 day after
the intervention. Although students worked in pairs
during the intervention phase, they completed all of the
tests individually.
Learning environments
1 Students assigned to the Laboratory Environment
(n = 22) solved circuit assignments in a normal class-
room, with laboratory equipment kits that included real
batteries, bulbs, wires, switches, and a multimeter (see
Fig 1).
2 The Simulation Environment (n = 222) was located in a
computer suite where students solved the assignments
Fig 1 Example of parallel circuit constructed with the laboratory
equipment kit.
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
with an online electricity simulation, the ‘Electricity
Exploration Tool’ (see Fig 2). The representation level
of the simulation is semi-realistic, as it displays circuits
on a diagrammatic level. With the simulation, students
are able to set up various circuits easily by dragging
wires, bulbs and resistors into desired points in the cir-
cuits with simple mouse moves; the battery voltage can
be changed this way as well. They can also conduct dif-
ferent electric measurements with a multimeter simply
by dragging its probes onto the required testing points.
The simulation also visualizes the current flow within
the circuit. After making a certain configuration with the
circuit, students can observe the effects of their actions
and get instant feedback.
3 Students in the Combination Environment (n = 22) also
worked in a computer suite. Here students used both the
Electricity Exploration Tool and laboratory equipment
kits. Students were first asked to complete the assign-
ment using the simulation and then, after succeeding
with the simulation, they were asked to repeat the
assignment with the laboratory equipment kits that were
located right next to the computer. It was hypothesized
that it would be easier for the students to discover the
theoretical principles using the simulation first, and then
to transfer them into the real circuits and to see that these
laws apply outside the simulation environment as well.
Instructional support
The most effective learning results in inquiry learning
are found with instructional supports that structure the
learning process, help students to plan meaningful
experimentations, and guide them in reflecting their
working and interpreting obtained experimentation
findings (de Jong 2006; Fund 2007). In this study,
instructions were given in specially designed work-
sheets that requested and guided students to construct
various circuits and conduct various electrical
measurements. Each worksheet also contained several
instructional questions that encouraged students to pay
special attention to circuit configurations and investi-
gate how the changes and differences in these configu-
rations affected bulb brightness and voltages (see
Appendix I for an example). The students were required
to take notes regarding their observations and then write
down their answer on the worksheet. The students’ pro-
gression through the worksheets was tightly controlled
by the teacher (the teacher remained consistent for each
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Simulation–laboratory combination
Fig 2 The Electricity Exploration Tool simulation (© digitalbrain).
learning environment): once a student pair had com-
pleted a worksheet, they had to ask the teacher to check
their answer, and they could proceed into the next work-
sheet only if they had completed the previous worksheet
correctly. There were 12 worksheets in total, and each
worksheet consisted of one main topic. The worksheets
began with a very simple task wherein students were
asked to construct a circuit with one battery, wires and a
bulb, and later progressed towards more challenging
tasks in which students had to, for example, construct a
circuit in which the brightness of four bulbs could be
expressed as A > B > C = D. In order to treat the learn-
ing environments equally, the circuits and circuit ele-
ments in the worksheets were always presented both on
a realistic and a diagrammatic level. Each pair had 2 h to
complete as many assignments as they could.
Data collection
The pre-test consisted of two separate tests. The
Raven’s (1958) Standard Progressive Matrices (Sets
A–E) test was used to measure students’ general educa-
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
275
tive ability, and a subject knowledge test was used to
measure domain-specific prior knowledge. Previous
studies have shown that domain-specific prior knowl-
edge (Chambers & Andre 1997) and general intellectual
abilities (e.g. Cohen et al. 1983; von Rhöneck & Grob
1990) can affect students’ learning about basic electric-
ity, and in order to compare the effectiveness of the three
learning environments on students’ understanding of
simple electricity, it was important to control the effects
of these two background variables on learning
outcomes.
The subject knowledge pre-test consisted of four
main questions measuring students’ understanding of
simple series and parallel circuits. The first two ques-
tions measured students’ understanding of the concept
of a closed circuit. In the first question, students had to
evaluate different circuit configurations and decide
whether the bulb would light or not. In order to be suc-
cessful, they needed to understand that there are two
polarities associated 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
276
connected, one to each of the ports of the device. In the
second question, students were asked to indicate how
they thought current flows within the circuit. Here they
needed to know that once a circuit is closed, the current
circulates around the circuit in a given direction, and
the current flow between the voltage source and
devices connected to the circuit is uniform and con-
tinual. The third and fourth questions measured stu-
dents’ understanding of potential difference in series
and parallel circuits; i.e., how different circuit configu-
rations affect bulb brightness. The third question (see
Appendix II) requested students to rank five identical
bulbs according to their relative brightness. Regardless
of whether the battery is perceived as ideal or real, the
relative brightness remains the same. To solve the ques-
tion, no calculations are required. It is 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 in the studies of McDermott and
Shaffer (1992), and it has been found to be very effec-
tive in discriminating between students who under-
stand the principles behind series and parallel circuits
and those who do not. In the fourth question, students
were asked to alter bulb brightness by reconfiguring
circuits. Even though this question was designed pri-
marily to measure students’ understanding of series
and parallel circuits, it also gave us further evidence
on their conception of closed circuit (e.g. if they drew
only one wire from either of the battery terminals
to the bulb, thinking that was sufficient to light the
bulb).
In the post-test, we repeated the pre-test subject
knowledge questions (these will be called post-test
basic questions from now on) and added four more
challenging questions, called advanced questions.
Disregarding the fact that the circuits were more com-
plex (e.g. involved more bulbs, contained both series
and parallel connections, and included simple voltage
calculations), the advanced questions also measured
students’ conception of closed circuits and their under-
standing of series and parallel circuits.
After the post-test, in order to increase the validity
of the interpretations of students’ responses to the
subject knowledge questionnaire, 20 students were ran-
domly selected for the stimulated recall interview, in
which they were asked to explain and justify their
answers.
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
Data analysis
The Raven test answers were scored with the official
scoring key. Students’ answers to the subject knowl-
edge questionnaires were analysed on two levels. First,
they were scored quantitatively against the model
answer template (0 point for wrong answer; from 0.5 to
1 point for correct answer). Second, in order to obtain a
deeper insight into students’ conceptual understanding
of simple electric circuits in different learning environ-
ments, students’ answers to pre-test and post-test basic
questions were also analysed on a qualitative level,
and were then classified into conceptual categories
that characterized the qualitatively different models
through which students understand simple electric cir-
cuits. Data from the stimulated recall interview served
as a validity confirmation for qualitative analysis.
Extensive research conducted by Kärrqvist (1985),
McDermott and Shaffer (1992), Osborne (1983) and
Shipstone (1984) on students mental models of elec-
tricity served as a starting point for the qualitative cat-
egorization. The qualitative analysis was conducted by
two independent raters with the inter-rater reliability
(Cohen’s Kappa) of 0.89. Disagreements were due to
the fact that especially some of the weaker students
constantly changed their reasoning pattern to suit the
question in hand; thus, their reasoning did not consis-
tently follow any single principle (see also, McDermott
& Shaffer 1992; Shepardson & Moje 1999;
Planinic et al. 2006). These discrepant answers were
negotiated and systematically coded into the lowest
model category, including characteristics of student’s
reasoning.
Results
Overall effects of learning environments
As students were matched into learning environments,
all three groups were equal in general ability and prior
knowledge at baseline (see Table 1). Analysis of regres-
sion showed that only prior knowledge significantly
adjusted post-test scores (P < 0.05). Therefore, in order
to account for the variance associated with students’
prior experience with electric circuits, subject knowl-
edge pre-test variable was selected as a covariate for the
post-test scores.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Simulation–laboratory combination 277

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for measured variables in three learning environments and omnibus differences for these variables.

Laboratory Simulation Combination AN(C)OVA1

(n = 22) (n = 20) (n = 22)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Subject knowledge pre-test (Max. 8 points) 4.07 (1.80) 4.50 (1.56) 4.09 (1.45) F2,61 = 0.469, P = 0.628
Raven 42.86 (7.86) 44.35 (4.96) 43.23 (5.66) F2,61 = 0.311, P = 0.734
Subject knowledge post-test
Basic (Max. 8 points) 5.25 (1.78) 6.15 (1.67) 6.61 (1.88) F2,60 = 4.354, P = 0.017
Advanced (Max. 12 points) 5.95 (2.44) 7.30 (3.08) 8.55 (2.30) F2,60 = 8.685, P < 0.001
Total (Max. 20 points) 11.20 (3.91) 13.45 (4.30) 15.16 (3.33) F2,60 = 10.247, P < 0.001

Basic scores consist of post-test items that were identical to the subject knowledge pre-test. Advanced item scores consist of four more
challenging subject knowledge questions that were included only in the post-test. Total score is the sum score of all post-test subject
knowledge questions, thus the sum of basic and advanced scores.
1
Subject knowledge pre-test was used as a covariate for post-test scores.

Table 2. Post-test pairwise mean differences between the three learning environments.

Simulation vs. laboratory Combination vs. laboratory Combination vs. simulation

Mean Diff P ES (CI.95) Mean Diff P ES (CI.95) Mean Diff P ES (CI.95)

Basic 0.64 0.418 0.41 (⫾0.61) 1.35 0.014 0.87 (⫾0.62) 0.71 0.435 0.45 (⫾0.61)
Advanced 0.92 0.467 0.43 (⫾0.61) 2.57 <0.001 1.22 (⫾0.64) 1.65 0.038 0.78 (⫾0.63)
Total 1.56 0.273 0.53 (⫾0.62) 3.92 <0.001 1.33 (⫾0.65) 2.36 0.033 0.80 (⫾0.63)

All probabilities are Bonferroni corrected.

Mean Diff, mean difference in original scale; ES, Hedges (1981) bias corrected standardized mean difference (i.e. mean difference in
standard deviation units); CI.95, 95% confidence interval.

There was significant pre-test–post-test (basic) deve-

lopment within each learning environment (P < 0.05).
As can be seen in Table 1, there were statistical differ-
ences between the learning environments in post-test
basic, advanced and total scores. Pairwise comparisons
(see Table 2) revealed that the students working in the
combination environment outperformed the students
working in the laboratory environment in all three post-
test scores with clear margin. They also outperformed
the students in the simulation environment in post-test
advanced and total scores but not in the post-test basic
points. There were no statistical differences between the
simulation and laboratory environments in the post-test
(P > 0.05). As an additional observation, the descriptive
statistics in Table 1 show that there seems to be overall
more diversity in the laboratory and simulation environ-
ments in the post-test scores as compared with combi-
nation environment, which implies the existence of a
higher dispersion of developmental rates in these two
learning environments.
Students’ conceptual understanding of circuits in
different learning environments
From students’ responses to the pre-test and post-test
basic questions (1 to 4), we were able to derive seven
conceptual models, as shown in Table 3. These models
illustrate the differences in students’ qualitative under-
standing of simple series and parallel circuits, and they
are presented in ‘approximate’ developmental order
(approximate because there is no univocal evidence on
the order the models 3a–3d emerge).
As can be seen from Table 4, in the pre-test phase and
independent of the learning environment, there were
only total of five students who perceived circuits
through the scientifically accepted ‘Ohm model’. The
rest of the students’ conceptions were classified into one
of the six intuitive model categories, the clashing model
being the most popular. In the post-test, as many as
15 (68%) students in the combination environment
possessed correct knowledge of the Ohm model. The

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

278 T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi

Table 3. Students’ conceptual models of simple electric circuits.

1. Sink model. In this most primitive model, students believe that only one wire between the bulb and the battery
suffices to light the bulb. They also think that the second wire is either unnecessary or that on some circuits it simply
provides more current to the bulb. Fredette and Lochhead (1980) call this model a ‘sink model’, and Kärrqvist (1985)
and Osborne (1983) a ‘unipolar model’.
2. Clashing current model. Students recognize that for a bulb to be part of a complete circuit, its two terminals must be
connected to different terminals of the battery. This thinking is characteristic in the remaining models as well. The
mistake students make in this category is that they constantly believe that the positive charge travels from the positive
end of the voltage source to the positive end of electrical device and that the negative charge travels from source’s
negative end to device’s negative end. When these two different charges clash, they produce electricity or energy and
cause the device to work. This model corresponds to Osborne’s (1983) ‘clashing currents model’, Shipstone’s (1984)
‘model I’ and Kärrqvist’s (1985) ‘two-component model’.
3a. Consumption model. This is the first model in which students understand that current circulates around the circuit in a
given direction. This thinking is characteristic in the remaining models as well. The distinctive feature in this model is
that circuits are perceived through a very common misconception that current is gradually consumed by the circuit
components. This model corresponds to Kärrqvist’s (1985) ‘current consumption model’, Shipstone’s (1984) ‘model II,
sequence model’ and Osborne’s (1983) ‘attenuation model’.
3b. Constant current model. These students think that the current supplied by the battery stays constant throughout the
circuit, as they perceive the brightness of a bulbs as being unaffected by the number of elements or the way that
circuits are configured. This model is equivalent to the constant current source models of Kärrqvist (1985) and Cohen
et al. (1983). It also shares most of the features of Shipstone’s (1984) ‘sharing model, model III’.
3c. Surface model. Another common misconception involves concentrating on the surface features of the circuit instead
of the way in which the circuits are configured. Students assume that the amount of bulbs is always negatively or
positively correlated with the brightness. McDermott and Shaffer (1992) refer to this misconception as a ‘tendency to
focus on number of elements or branches’.
3d. Preliminary Ohm model. Few responses indicated an emerging level of understanding that the ways the circuits are
configured affects the brightness. Although these students occasionally even used the concepts of series and parallel
circuits in their language, they were not able to identify these features correctly within a circuit. Similar findings have
been reported frequently, e.g. McDermott and Shaffer (1992).
4. Ohm model. Distinctively, the students holding the ‘Ohm model’, as named by Kärrqvist (1985), are able to distinguish
between series and parallel circuits, and they understand how circuit configuration is related to bulb brightness and
battery endurance. This model corresponds to the ‘scientific view’, as it was called by Osborne (1983) and Shipstone
(1984).

Table 4. Students’ conceptual models of simple electric circuits in different learning environments.

Sink Clashing Consumption Constant Surface Preliminary Ohm Ohm

Laboratory (n = 22) Pre-test 4 8 3 0 6 0 1

Post-test 3 5 5 1 4 0 4
Simulation (n = 20) Pre-test 1 9 3 1 3 1 2
Post-test 0 2 3 2 4 2 7
Combination (n = 22) Pre-test 4 9 1 2 4 0 2
Post-test 0 1 0 2 3 1 15

conceptual shift was also apparent in the simulation
environment (from the most intuitive categories on the
left towards the more coherent models on the right in
Table 4), even though the total amount of students
(35%) holding the Ohm model stayed relatively low. In
the laboratory environment, the conceptual shift was
modest, as the majority of the students still perceived
circuits through the three most elementary models (the
three leftmost models in Table 4), and only 18% of the
students were able to acquire the correct Ohm model.
In order to allow statistical comparisons, conceptual
categories in the pre-test and post-test were transformed
into binomial distribution; Ohm models were coded as
‘correct’ models (1) and the other six intuitive models
were coded as ‘incorrect’ (0). The McNemar test for
paired proportions showed that the increase in correct

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Simulation–laboratory combination
Ohm models between the pre-test and the post-test was
statistically significant only in the combination environ-
ment (P < 0.05). The chi-squared test with Yates conti-
nuity correction revealed that the total proportion of
correct Ohm models in the post-test was significantly
higher in the combination environment (68%) as com-
pared with the laboratory environment (18%), c2 (1,
n = 44) = 9.26, P = 0.002. The difference in the propor-
tions of correct models between the combination and
simulation (35%) environments fell just outside statis-
tical boundaries, c2 (1, n = 42) = 3.390, P = 0.065.
Between the simulation and laboratory environment,
there were no statistical differences, c2 (1, n = 42) =
0.786, P = 0.38.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate if it would be
more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory
activities than to use them separately in teaching the
concepts of simple electricity. The results revealed that
there was significant overall pre-test–post-test develop-
ment within all three learning environments. Post-test
score comparisons between the three learning environ-
ments revealed that it was especially the students who
worked with both the simulation and laboratory equip-
ment (the combination environment) whose learning
outcomes stood out from the rest of the field. The mean
scores were significantly higher and the dispersion
around the mean was notably smaller in the combina-
tion environment when compared with the simulation
and laboratory learning environments. The difference in
the dispersion indicates that the impact of the learning
environment was relatively homogenous among the stu-
dents in the combination environment, whereas in the
other two environments there were more individual dif-
ferences (i.e. some benefited from the environment
whereas others did not). There were no statistical differ-
ences between the simulation and laboratory learning
environments.
The superiority of the combination environment was
even more evident on a conceptual level; the amount of
correct models in the post-test was significantly higher
as compared with the laboratory environment, and the
difference to the simulation environment fell just
outside the alpha level 0.05. The development from
incorrect models of electric circuits in the pre-test to the
correct, scientifically accepted Ohm model in the post-
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
279
test was statistically significant only in the combination
environment. Even though the number of correct
models in the simulation environment remained rela-
tively low in the post-test, the conceptual shift towards
more coherent understanding was observable in this
environment. In the laboratory environment, the con-
ceptual understanding remained on an initial model
level even after the intervention.
Our findings suggest that we should not consider
computer simulations and laboratory activities as sub-
stitute or competing methods in teaching electricity as
they both have unique characteristics that are needed to
promote deeper conceptual understanding and concep-
tual change. The simulation offered two distinctive fea-
tures that appeared to have critical impact on students’
conceptual development: it provided students with an
idealized model of a circuit, and visualized circuit
functioning; the students possessing the most intuitive
conceptions (e.g. sink, clashing and consumption
models) in the pre-test were predominantly able to over-
come these misconceptions during the intervention in
the simulation and combination environments, but more
than half of the students working in the laboratory envi-
ronment still possessed such primitive conceptions even
after the instruction. Even though the simulation pro-
vided students with a clear and informative learning
environment, it was also important for students to obtain
experience with real circuits. One explanation is that as
the simulation was only semi-realistic in representing
circuits on a diagrammatic level, the students, particu-
larly owing to their young age at the time of our study,
needed assurance that the laws and principles of simula-
tion also apply in reality (cf. Couture 2004; Srinivasan
et al. 2006). In other words, students may have kept the
laws and principles they had learned in the simulation
environment apart from their ‘real’ beliefs until these
beliefs were further conflicted in an authentic setting
with the laboratory equipment; this may have finally
‘forced’ students to abandon their intuitive conceptions
(Merenluoto & Lehtinen 2004).
To conclude, the results of this study highlight the
benefits of using simulation along with hands-on labo-
ratory activities to promote students’ understanding of
electricity (see also Ronen & Eliahu 2000; Zacharia
2007). A simulation can help students to first understand
the theoretical principles of electricity; however, in
order to promote conceptual change, it is necessary to
challenge further students’ intuitive conceptions by
280
demonstrating through testing that the laws and prin-
ciples discovered through a simulation also apply in
reality. Thus, the combination of simulation and labora-
tory exercise can bridge the gap between theory and
reality. It is important to emphasize that the results of
this study were obtained in a normal school environ-
ment, not in laboratory setting, which is likely to add to
the validity and applicability of the results. Neverthe-
less, this study has limitations that warrant further
research. For instance, we do not know what would have
happened if the students in the combination environ-
ment had used real equipment prior to simulation. If the
positive effect in Zacharia’s (2007) study was created
truly by a laboratory–simulation combination and not
by a simulation alone1, then one might expect that stu-
dents in a combination environment would do well even
if the order was reversed. Furthermore, it may be that
students in the simulation environment would have per-
formed better had the appearance of the simulation been
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
identical to real equipment. In this case, the physical
experience may be less important for promoting con-
ceptual change.
Notes
1
Zacharia’s study consisted of parts A, B and C, all of which covered different
aspects of electricity. The control group used laboratory equipment in all parts,
whereas the experimental group switched from laboratory equipment into elec-
tricity simulation in the beginning of part C. The overall development (from A to
C) was significantly better in the experimental group, but no differences were
reported between the conditions for parts A and B. Instead, the post-test scores
for part C were statistically higher in the experimental group. Therefore, one
may question as to whether it was really the combination of laboratory and
simulation activities that caused the difference, as Zacharia interprets his
results, or whether it was just the simulation that caused the positive learning
effect. In order to make this claim (in either direction), the study would have
needed more complex design; e.g. additional experimental group(s) using simu-
lation in parts A and B.
2
Only 20 students in the simulation environment completed the study as two had
to pull out owing to illness.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Simulation–laboratory combination 281

Appendix I Compacted example of a worksheet (translated)

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

282
Appendix II Subject knowledge pre-test questionnaire item example (translated)
3. Look at the circuits below and compare the brightness of the bulbs (a–e). The battery in each circuit is identical
(Max. 2.5 points).
References
Blake C. & Scanlon E. (2007) Reconsidering simulations in
science education at a distance: features of effective use.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning doi:10.1111/j.
1365-2729.2007.00239.x.
Chambers S. & Andre T. (1997) Gender, prior knowledge,
interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual
change text manipulations in learning about direct current.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, 107–123.
Cohen R., Eylon B. & Ganiel U. (1983) Potential difference
and current in simple electric circuits: a study of students’
concepts. American Journal of Physics 51, 407–412.
Couture M. (2004) Realism in the design process and credibil-
ity of a simulation-based virtual laboratory. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 20, 40–49.
Crook C. (1994) Computers and the Collaborative Experi-
ence of Learning. Routledge, London.
Driver R. & Easley J. (1978) Pupil and paradigms: a review of
the literature related to concept development in adole-
scent science students. Studies in Science Education 5,
61–84.
Frederiksen J.R., White B.Y. & Gutwill J. (1999) Dynamic
mental models in learning science: the importance of con-
structing derivational linkages among models. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 36, 806–836.
Fredette N. & Lochhead J. (1980) Student conceptions of
simple circuits. The Physics Teacher 18, 194–198.
T. Jaakkola & S. Nurmi
Fund Z. (2007) The effects of scaffolded computerized
science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: a com-
parative study of support programs. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning 23, 410–424.
Hedges L.V. (1981) Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator
of effect sizes and related estimators. Journal of Educa-
tional Statistics 6, 107–128.
Hennessy S., Deaney R. & Ruthven K. (2006) Situated exper-
tise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into sec-
ondary science teaching. International Journal of Science
Education 28, 701–732.
Hodson D. (1996) Laboratory work as scientific method: three
decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum
Studies 28, 115–135.
Hofstein A. & Lunetta V. (1982) The role of laboratory in
science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of
Educational Research 52, 201–217.
Hofstein A. & Lunetta V. (2004) The laboratory in science
education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science
Education 88, 24–54.
Hsu Y. & Thomas R.A. (2002) The impacts of a web-aided
instructional simulation on science learning. International
Journal of Science Education 24, 955–979.
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, 179–201.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Simulation–laboratory combination
Kirschner P. & Huisman W. (1998) Dry laboratories in science
education: computer-based practical work. International
Journal of Science Education 20, 665–682.
Kärrqvist C. (1985) The development of concepts by means
of dialogues centred on experiments. In Aspects of Under-
standing Electricity (eds R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von
Rhöneck), pp. 215–226. IPN, Kiel, Germany.
Lee Y. & Law N. (2001) Explorations in promoting conceptual
change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift.
International Journal of Science Education 23, 111–149.
Light P. & Glachan M. (1985) Facilitation of problem solving
through peer interaction. Educational Psychology 5, 217–
225.
Limon M. & Mason L. (2002) Reconsidering Conceptual
Change: Issues in Theory and Practice. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
Lou Y., Abrami P.C. & Apollonia S. (2001) Small group and
individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research 71, 449–521.
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, 994–1013.
Merenluoto K. & Lehtinen E. (2004) Number concept and
conceptual change: towards a systemic model of the pro-
cesses of change. Learning and Instruction 14, 519–534.
Osborne R. (1983) Towards modifying children’s ideas about
electric current. Research in Science and Technology Edu-
cation 1, 73–82.
Planinic M., Boone W.J., Krsnik R. & Beilfuss M. (2006)
Exploring alternative conceptions from Newtonian dynam-
ics and simple DC circuits: links between item difficulty
and item confidence. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing 43, 150–171.
Raven J.C. (1958) Standard Progressive Matrices. Sets A, B,
C, D and E. H.K. Lewis & Co. Ltd., Cambridge, UK.
Reiner M., Slotta J.D., Chi M.T.H. & Resnick L.B. (2000)
Naïve physics reasoning: a commitment to substance-based
conceptions. Cognition and Instruction 18, 1–34.
Resnick M. (1998) Technologies for lifelong kindergarten.
Educational Technology Research and Development 46,
43–55.
von Rhöneck C. & Grob K. (1990) Psychological aspects of
learning about basic electricity. In Learning and
Instruction. European Research in an International
Context, Vol. 2.2 (eds H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett &
H.F. Friedrich), pp. 589–603. Pergamon, Oxford, UK.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
283
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.
Shepardson D.P. & Moje E.B. (1999) The role of anomalous
data in restructuring fourth graders’ frameworks for under-
standing electric circuits. International Journal of Science
Education 21, 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.
Sinatra G.M. & Mason L. (in press) Beyond knowledge:
learner characteristics influencing conceptual change. In
Handbook on Conceptual Change (ed. S. Vosniadou).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Srinivasan S., Perez L.C., Palmer R.D., Brooks D.W., Wilson
K. & Fowler D. (2006) Reality versus simulation. Journal
of Science Education and Technology 15, 137–141.
Steinberg R.N. (2000) Computers in teaching science: to
simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of Physics
68, 37–41.
Tao P. & Gunstone R. (1999) The process of conceptual
change in force and motion during computer-supported
physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing 36, 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.
White B.Y. & Frederiksen J.R. (1990) Causal model progres-
sion as a foundation for intelligent learning environments.
Artificial Intelligence 42, 99–157.
Wiser M. & Amin T.G. (2002) Computer-based interac-
tions for conceptual change in science. In Reconsidering
Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice
(eds M. Limon & L. Mason), pp. 357–387. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Zacharia Z.C. (2007) Comparing and combining real and
virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ con-
ceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Com-
puter Assisted Learning 23, 120–132.
Zacharia Z.C. & Anderson O.R. (2003) The effects of an inter-
active computer-based simulation prior to performing a
laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ concep-
tual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics
71, 618–629.