Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 18 no. 4 (2024)

Computer Simulation in Teaching Science 7

ROMALYN UBALDO

Discipline: Computer Science

 

Abstract:

This study investigated the effectiveness of computer simulations in teaching Science 7. It Specifically answers the following questions: 1. How may the performance in the pre–test scores of the learners in the experimental and control groups be described; 2. How may the performance in the post–test scores of the learners in the experimental and control groups be described; 3. Is there a significant difference between the pre–test and post–test scores of the learners in the experimental group; 4. Is there a significant difference between the post–test scores of the learners in the experimental and control groups; and 5. What are the implications of the study to science education? The subjects of the study were eighty (80) randomly selected Grade 7 students of the Don Ramon E. Costales Memorial National High School, which were classified into two groups: the experimental group and the control group. This study employed the Experimental Design with the Pretest-Posttest Control group. Results of the study showed a significant difference in the pretest and post-test scores of the learners in the experimental group (t=-24.086, ρ=.000). These results indicate that the PhET Simulation method is effective in teaching topics in electricity. There was also a significant difference in the post-test scores of the learners in the experimental and control groups. Further, when the difference in the mean gain scores of the control group (13.9750) and the experimental group (25.6500) were compared using t-test, the tvalue obtained is 7.449 while the ρ-value is. 000.Since ρ<.05, then the difference is significant. This means that in terms of gained knowledge in electricity, there is greater learning achieved by the experimental group, which was exposed to the computer simulation method, than by the control group, which was exposed to the traditional method. Thus, the Computer simulation method is more effective in teaching Electricity than the traditional method based on their mean gain scores which showed significant difference.



References:

  1. Akhar, S., Tabassum, R. & Faroof, R (2014). Effect of Teaching Physics with Physics Suite on the Achievement of Secondary School
  2. Students.Pinnacle Educational Research and Development. Retrieved from: http://www.pjpub.org
  3. Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (2010) Computer Based Instruction: Methods and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  4. Aloraini, Sara (2012). The Impact of Using Multimedia to Students’ Academic Performance in College Education at King Saud
  5. University. Doi:10.1016/j.jksult.2012.05.002
  6. Andre, T., & Haselhuhn, C. (1995). Mission Newton! using a computer game that simulates motion in Newtonian space before or after formal instruction in mechanics. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.
  7. Antonio, V. V. et al. (2018). Exploring the Effect of PhET® Interactive Simulation-Based Activities on Students’ Performance and
  8. Learning Experiences in Electromagnetism. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 2018.
  9. Apostol, Cifide Luvit G. (2016). Physics Education Technology (Phet) Simulation-Aided Instruction: Its Effectiveness In Enhancing Grade 10 Students’ Proficiency Level In Physics. Master’s Thesis. Mindanao State University.
  10. Bakaç E. (2018).The Impact On Technology Integration Self-Efficacy Beliefs Of Prospective Teachers’ Self-Directed Learning Trends
  11. With TechnoloGY. Sinop University, Faculty of Education, Turkey. European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 4 │ Issue 12 │2018
  12. Barlis Jr, Jose M., and Josefin D. Fajardo III. (2013). “P Effectiveness of Simulation and Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) on the
  13. Performance of Students under Regimental Training on Selected Topics in Physics II.” International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics 3.1: 82.
  14. Bell, R.L., & Smetana, L. K. (2011). Using computer simulations to enhance science teaching and learning. National Science Teachers Association, 3, 23-32.
  15. Blake, C., & Scanlon, E. (2012). Reconsidering simulations in science education at a distance: features of effective use. Journal of
  16. Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 491–502.
  17. Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486–1498.
  18. Cox AJ, Belloni M, Christian W, Dancy MH (2012) Teaching thermodynamics with Physlets in introductory physics. Phys Educ 38:433–440.
  19. Demirel, Ö. and E. Yagci, 2011. Principles and methods of Instruction. Feza Journalism.
  20. Dilshad, M. et. al. (2015). Teaching of Physics at Higher Secondary Level in the Perception of Students. Vol. 2, 2015- Page 491-496
  21. Duran, M. J., Gallardo, S., Toral, S. L., Martinez-Torres, R., & Barrero, F. J. (2007). A learning methodology using Matlab/Simulink for undergraduate electrical engineering courses attending to learner satisfaction outcomes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 55–73.
  22. Ersen Çığrık et al (2010). The investigation of the effect of simulation based teaching on the student achievement and attitude in electrostatic induction,Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,Pages 2470-247.
  23. Fajardo III, et al, (2013). “Effectiveness of Simulation and Computer Assisted Instruction on the Performance of Students under
  24. Regimental Training on Selected Topics in Physics II”. International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Vol. 3, No. 1,
  25. Finkelstein, ND, Adams, WK, Keller, CJ, Kohl, PB, Perkins, KK, Podolefsky, NS and Reid, S (2014). When Learning About the Real
  26. World Is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulation for Laboratory Equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research 1, 010103. American Physical Society.
  27. Gülçiçek Ç. & Güneş, B. (2004). Materializing the concepts during Science Instruction: Modeling Strategy, Computer Simulations and
  28. Analogies. Science and Education, 29(134), 36-48.
  29. Huppert, J., Yaakobi, J. and Lazarovvitz, R., (1998), “Learning microbiology with computer simulations: Students’ academic achievement by method and gender,” Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 16, no.2, 231-246.
  30. Kahraman, O. (2010). Effect of the computer assisted instruction on student’s attitude and achievement on the physics topic of the 7th grade science lesson. Pamukkale University, M.Sc. Thesis, Pamukkale University, Science Institute, Denizli.
  31. Kiboss, Joel K. (2002). Impact of a Computer based Physics Instruction Program on Pupils’ Understanding of measurement Concepts and Methods Associated with School Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp 193-198.
  32. Laakso, M. J., Myller, N., & Korhonen, A. (2010). Comparing learning performance of students using algorithm visualizations collaboratively on different engagement levels.Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 267–282.
  33. Laxamana, Relly A. (2012). Development and validation of Video-based instructional material in Physics.Tarlac State University, Tarlac City, Philippines.
  34. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of E-learning: A case study of the Blackboard System. Computers & Education, 51, 864-873.
  35. London, N. (2005). A field test of CAI software: A journey through the solar system, M.Sc. Thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills
  36. Lamina, Omar. (2019). Investigating the Effects of PhET Interactive Simulation-Based Activities on Students’ Learning Involvement and Performance on Two-Dimensional Motion Topic in Physics Grade 9.
  37. Magdasoc, A. (2016). Effectiveness of Electronic Based Strategy in Teaching Science. Master’s Thesis. Marikina Polytechnic College.
  38. Mayer, R.E. (2013). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139
  39. Ornek, F., Robinson, W., and Haugan, M. (2010) “What Makes Physics Difficult?”.International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 3 (1), 30-34, retrieved from www.ijes.com/V3_N1_ ornek_etall.pdf
  40. Pirker, J. (2013). The Virtual TEAL World-An Interactive and Collaborative Virtual World Environment for Physics Education (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s thesis, Graz University of Technology).
  41. Randy, L.B., & Trundle, K.C. (2011). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3):346–372.
  42. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153.
  43. Rodrigo, M. T. (2010). Information and communication technology use in Philippine public and private schools.
  44. Sharples, M., Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., Vavoula, G. (2011). Mobile Learning: Small Devices, Big Issues, Chapter 14, Accessed:2.6.2014, At: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF5790/v12/undervisningsmateriale/articles/KAL_Legacy_Mobile_Learning_(001143v1).pdf
  45. Shauli, Sofia, et al. (2010). The Effect of a Computerized Simulation on Middle School Students’ Understanding of the Kinetic Molecular Theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, v17 n4 p305-31.
  46. Shamim, M., Rashid, T. & Rashid, R. (2013).Students Academic Performance in Physics Correlates the Experience of Teachers in
  47. Higher Secondary Schools of Jammu and Kashmir State. International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 5, Issue, 01, pp.201-204, January 2013.
  48. Simsek, N. (2002). The Use of Educational Technology in Lesson for Teachers and Nominee Teachers, Nobel Publication and Distribution
  49. Schutte, J.G., 1996. Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam?.
  50. Smetana, L.K., and Bell, R.L.(2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9):1337–1370. doi: 7.780/09500693.2011.605182.
  51. Stern, L., Barnea, L., & Shauli, S. (2018). The effect of a computerized simulation on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, No. 17, Sf. 305-315
  52. Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2011). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 778-788.
  53. Webb I. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education; 27:705-735.
  54. Windschitl M, Andre T. Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The Roles of constructivist instruction and student
  55. epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998;35:145–160

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic