Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children

Hands-on'' activities play an important, but controversial, role in early science education. In this study we attempt to clarify some of the issues surrounding the controversy by calling attention to distinctions between: (a) type of instruction (direct or discovery); (b) type of knowledge to be acquired (domain-general or domain-specific); and (c) type of materials that are used (physical or virtual). We then describe an empirical study that investigates the relative effectiveness of the physical-virtual dimension. In the present study, seventh and eighth grade students assembled and tested mousetrap cars with the goal of designing a car that would go the farthest. Children were assigned to four different conditions, depending on whether they manipulated physical or virtual materials, and whether they had a fixed number of cars they could construct or a fixed amount of time in which to construct them. All four conditions were equally effective in producing significant gains in learners' knowledge about causal factors, in their ability to design optimal cars, and in their confidence in their knowledge. Girls' performance, knowledge, and effort were equal to boys' in all conditions, but girls' confidence remained below boys' throughout. Given the fact that, on several different measures, children were able to learn as well with virtual as with physical materials, the inherent pragmatic advantages of virtual materials in science may make them the preferred instructional medium in many hands-on contexts. ! 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 183-203, 2007 The merits and definitions of ''hands-on'' activities in early science education have been debated for over a century (Deboer, 1991; Huxley, 1899). Advocates for hands-on science argue that it promotes learning because it is consistent with the concrete-to-abstract nature of cognitive development, because it provides additional sources of brain activation via kinesthetic involvement, and because its intrinsic interest increases motivation and engagement (Flick, 1993; Haury & Rillero, 1994). Such arguments have led the National Science Teachers Asso- ciation to recommend that the minimal amount of science instruction time devoted to hands-on

[1]  E. Lenney,et al.  Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. , 1977 .

[2]  H M Staudenmaier.  Use of computers in science education , 1982 .

[3]  Sylvia Beyer,et al.  Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance , 1990 .

[4]  L. Schauble,et al.  Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning , 1992 .

[5]  George E. DeBoer,et al.  A history of ideas in science education : implications for practice , 1992 .

[6]  Lawrence B. Flick,et al.  The meanings of hands-on science , 1993 .

[7]  M. Trankina.  Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Science , 1993, Psychological reports.

[8]  Peter Rillero,et al.  Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching. , 1994 .

[9]  Douglas H. Clements,et al.  Effects of Computer and Noncomputer Environments on Students' Conceptualizations of Geometric Motions , 1994 .

[10]  D. Hodson.  Laboratory work as scientific method: three decades of confusion and distortion , 1996 .

[11]  Mary A. Mark,et al.  An Interview Reflection on “Intelligent Tutoring Goes to School in the Big City” , 2015, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[12]  K. Ann Renninger,et al.  Handbook Of Child Psychology: Child Psychology In Practice , 1998 .

[13]  D. Klahr,et al.  All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. , 1999, Child development.

[14]  D. Klahr,et al.  Bridging Research and Practice: A Cognitively Based Classroom Intervention for Teaching Experimentation Skills to Elementary School Children , 2000 .

[15]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Designing to Learn About Complex Systems , 2000 .

[16]  David D. Kumar,et al.  Effect of Gender on Computer-Based Chemistry Problem Solving: Early Findings , 2000 .

[17]  D. Clements.  ‘Concrete’ Manipulatives, Concrete Ideas , 2000 .

[18]  Corinne Zimmerman.  The development of scientific reasoning skills. , 2000 .

[19]  David Klahr,et al.  Error Matters: An Initial Exploration of Elementary School Children's Understanding of Experimental Error , 2003 .

[20]  Allen Ruby.  Hands-on science and student achievement , 2001 .

[21]  Joseph P. Apkan.  Which Comes First: Computer Simulation of Dissection or a Traditional Laboratory Practical Method of Dissection , 2002 .

[22]  Thomas Henry Huxley,et al.  Science and Education , 2003 .

[23]  Douglas H. Clements,et al.  Strip Mining for Gold: Research and Policy in Educational Technology—A Response to “Fool’s Gold” , 2003 .

[24]  Lara M. Triona,et al.  Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students' Ability to Design Experiments , 2003 .

[25]  Milena K. Nigam,et al.  The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction: Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning , 2022 .

[26]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  The psychology of gender, 2nd ed. , 2004 .

[27]  Kevin Crowley,et al.  From Living to Virtual: Learning from Museum Objects , 2005 .

[28]  Paul Marshall.  Tangibles in the balance: a comparison of physical and screen versions of the balance beam task , 2005 .

[29]  L. Schauble,et al.  Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy , 2007 .

[30]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  What is Scientific Thinking and How Does it Develop , 2007 .

[31]  J. Culpepper.  National Center for Educational Statistics , 2007 .