Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 151–160 | Cite as

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Physlet-Based Materials in Supporting Conceptual Learning About Electricity

  • Simon Ülen
  • Ivan Gerlič
  • Mitja Slavinec
  • Robert Repnik


To provide a good understanding of many abstract concepts in the field of electricity above that of their students is often a major challenge for secondary school teachers. Many educational researchers promote conceptual learning as a teaching approach that can help teachers to achieve this goal. In this paper, we present Physlet-based materials for supporting conceptual learning about electricity. To conduct research into the effectiveness of these materials, we designed two different physics courses: one group of students, the experimental group, was taught using Physlet-based materials and the second group of students, the control group, was taught using expository instruction without using Physlets. After completion of the teaching, we assessed students’ thinking skills and analysed the materials with an independent t test, multiple regression analyses and one-way analysis of covariance. The test scores were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (p < 0.05). The results of this study confirmed the effectiveness of conceptual learning about electricity with the help of Physlet-based materials.


Physics’ teaching Conceptual learning about electricity Physlets Physlet-based materials 



The authors are grateful to the 4-year high school Gimnazija Franca Miklošiča Ljutomer, where this research was carried out. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of the members of the Department of Physics at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Maribor and the support of the members of the Department of Basic Pedagogical Studies at the Faculty of Education from the University of Maribor, for their thoughtful contributions to this study. Finally, the authors are also very grateful to the reviewers of this article for their thoughtful suggestions that contributed to the composition of this article.


  1. Bonham SW, Risley JS, Cristian W (1999) Using Physlets to teach electrostatics. Phys Teach 57:276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casperson J, Linn MC (2006) Using visualizations to teach electrostatics. Am J Phys 74(4):316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ChanLin L (2000) Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. J Instr Psychol 27:228–238Google Scholar
  4. Chen YL, Hong YR, Sung YT, Chang KE (2011) Efficacy of simulation-based learning of electronics using visualization and manipulation. Educ Technol Soc 14(2):269–277Google Scholar
  5. Chen Y-L, Pan P-R, Sung Y-T, Chang K-E (2013) Correcting misconceptions on electronics: effects of a simulation based learning environment backed by a conceptual change model. Educ Technol Soc 16(2):212–227Google Scholar
  6. Cheng PC-H (1999) Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computer & Education 33:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christian W, Belloni M (2004) Physlet physics. Interactive illustrations, explorations, and problems for introductory physics. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  8. Christian W, Novak G (2005a) What is a physlet? Retrieved June 25, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
  9. Christian W Novak G (2005b) Physlets. Retrieved June 25, 2006 from the World Wide Web:
  10. Churchill D (2011) Conceptual model learning objects and design recommendations for small screens. Educ Technol Soc 14(1):203–216Google Scholar
  11. Cox AJ, Junkin WF, Christian W, Belloni M, Esquembre F (2011) Teaching physics (and some computation) using intentionally incorrect simulations. Phys Teach 49(5):273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dori YJ, Barak M, Adir N (2003) A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshman learning. J Chem Educ 80:1084–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsu Y-S, Thomas RA (2002) The impacts of a web-aided instructional simulation on science learning. Int J Sci Educ 24:955–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koedinger KR, Anderson JR (1990) Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: elements of expertise in geometry. Cogn Sci 14:511–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krusberg ZAC (2007) Emerging technologies in physics education. Journal of Science Education & Technology 16(5):401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee YF, Guo Y, Ho HJ (2008) Explore effective use of computer simulations for physics education. J Comput Math Sci Teach 27(4):443–466Google Scholar
  18. Mitra NK, Nagaraja HS, Ponnudurai G, Judson JP (2009) The levels of difficulty and discrimination indices in type a multiple choice questions of pre-clinical semester 1 multidisciplinary summative tests. International e-Journal of Science, Medicine & Education 3(1):2–7Google Scholar
  19. Papaevripidou M, Hadjiagapiou M, Constantinou CP (2005) Combined development of middle school children’s conceptual understanding in momentum conservation, procedural skills and epistemological awareness in a constructionist learning environment. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning 15(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phye GD (1997) Handbook of classroom assessment: learning, adjustment and achievement. Academic press, ZDAGoogle Scholar
  21. Planinšič G, Belina R, Kukman I, Cvahte M (2008) Curriculum of physics for secondary school. Retrieved September 5, 2008, from
  22. Podolefsky NS, Perkins KK, Adams WK (2010) Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Physics Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 6:020117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roussou M, Oliver M, Slater M (2006) The virtual playground: an educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning. Virtual Reality 10:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadaghiani HR (2010) Scientific reasoning for preservice elementary teachers. AIPConference Proceedings 1289:57Google Scholar
  25. Sim S-M, Rasiah RI (2006) Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper. Ann Acad Med Singap 35:67–71Google Scholar
  26. Treagust DF, Duit R (2003) Multiple perspectives of conceptual change in science and the challenges ahead. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia 32(2):89–104Google Scholar
  27. Ülen S, Čagran B, Slavinec M, Gerlič I (2014) Designing and evaluating the effectiveness of Physlet-based learning materials in supporting conceptual learning in secondary school physics. Journal of Science Education & Technology 23(5):658–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yen HC, Tuan HL, Liao CH (2011) Investigation on the influence of motivation on students’ conceptual learning outcomes in web-based vs. classroom-based science teaching contexts. Res Sci Educ 41:211–224Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences and MathematicsUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia

Personalised recommendations