Electrostatic induction questions produced the lowest achievement of all six situations, and the Real group outperformed the Sim group despite the simulation's ability to visualize charge redistribution¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only 11% of the Real group, 7% of the Sim group and 3% of the control group answered the induction situations correctly, and the expected advantage of the simulation's visualization did not materialize. → Ajredini 2013

Evidence¶

Ajredini 2013¶

Ajredini, F., Izairi, N., Zajkov, O. (2013). Real Experiments versus PhET Simulations for Understanding Electrostatic Charging. European J of Physics Education, 5(1). https://ejpe.phywe.de

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Posttest results for situations e) and f), which investigated understanding of electrostatic induction. The authors had expected the Sim group to benefit from the Balloons and Static Electricity visualization, but "students in Real group achieved better result than the ones in the Sim group".

"Only 11 % of the students from the Real group, 7 % from the Sim group and 3 % from the control group gave correct answers, while the percentages of the incorrect answers are 20 %, 41% and 47 % for the Real group, Sim group and control group, respectively."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Achievement on questions testing force-distance and force-charge relations dropped sharply in all groups, with experimental groups still ahead of the control group — related
• Tenth-grade students taught electrical charging with real experiments or PhET simulations gave more correct posttest answers on a like-charge interaction question than students taught by traditional direct teaching — related
• The article concludes there is no significant difference between knowledge acquired through real experiments and through computer-simulated experiments — reports the opposite