Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Three Learning Environments: Hyper-Realistic Virtual Simulations, Traditional Schematic Simulations and Traditional Laboratory

phenomenon to other scientific disciplines [43]. In spite of the obvious potential of simulations as learning tools, the results of previous studies examining their educational effectiveness have been inconsistent. It is possible, however, that the increased sophistication and realism of current models might yield different results if those studies were to be repeated. The ineffectiveness of a computer simulation may not be the result of poor design. Steinberg [33] argues that the impact of a simulation depends on the details of the program and how it is implemented. Brant et al. [49] attribute the ineffectiveness of simulations to the inappropriate instructional roles for which they are used in the teaching process and argue that their effectiveness may depend upon when they are administered within an instructional sequence. These works suggest that computer simulations may lead to overdependence on the results of the simulation, inhibiting students’ ability to think independently and form hypotheses and logical deductions. For instance, Steinberg states that computer simulations that quickly and transparently deliver exact answers can encourage passive learning among students of science. Another problem often encountered in working with simulations is the accuracy of the graphical components. As indicated by Chang et al. [4], this accuracy should be increased to prevent problems for students with less capacity for abstraction. C. Educational setting In a schematic simulation, students are faced with abstract entities that at times lack any real-world connection. Focusing on the field of optics, our mission in this work was to show the students what the abstract phenomenon looks like in reality. Students of all academic levels misinterpret the behavior of light and the formation of images by mirrors and lenses [6,18,50–53]. During our prior teaching experience we found that, even after our students had been taught about the theory of image formation by lenses and mirrors and the presence of aberrations, most of them were unable to connect the images with real-world phenomena. This inability remained even after detailed instruction in the formation of images (our students had already completed their study of geometrical optics and they had, in principle, all the knowledge necessary to solve simple problems). This may be partly explained by the fact that their textbooks that use the ray-tracing approach stress the central light rays (relative to the optical axis) at the expense of peripheral rays [51]. Ray tracing is, of course, a powerful tool with which to describe and explain image formation in geometrical optics [18,54]. It is useful for both locating the position of an image relative to a lens or mirror and determining the image’s size relative to the size of the object. However, ray tracing is sometimes so heavily emphasized that the more basic questions of how and why images are formed are neglected [18,19,42]. Our main objective in this work was to help fill in the gaps in the students’ understanding by providing them with the means to conduct real-life observation of a phenomenon they had studied in a schematic computer simulation. Our work is designed to endow these overly schematic classical simulations with a far higher level of realism so as to minimize the difficulties that students with low levels of abstract reasoning often encounter in working with classic simulations. In the present study, two virtual environments were constructed. One of them is a schematic environment MARTÍNEZ et al. PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 7, 020111 (2011)