Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121

SLACTIONS 2013: Research conference on virtual worlds - Learning with simulations

Contribution of a computer simulation to students’ learning of the

physics concepts of weight and mass
Cândida Sarabandoa,*, José P. Cravinob,c, Armando A. Soaresb
a
Agrupamento de Escolas de Armamar, 5110-642 Tões, Armamar, Portugal
b
Physics Department, School of Science and Technology, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Apartado 1013, 5001-801 Vila
Real, Portugal
c
Research Centre “Didactics and Technology in Education of Trainers” (CIDTFF), Aveiro, Portugal

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of a computer simulation to students´ learning of physics concepts
(weight and mass). Our simulation was produced using the software Modellus. This study evaluates progresses in understanding
made by students (grade 7; 12-13 years old) after one lesson (90 minutes) in three different scenarios: using only “hands-on”
activities, using only a computer simulation, and using both. The progresses were measured through pre- and post-tests. The
results show that the total gains were higher when students used the computer simulation, alone or together with “hands-on”
activities. However, we found that the total gains obtained depend on the teachers’ pedagogy when using the computer
simulation to teach the concepts of weight and mass.

© 2013
© 2014 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
ElsevierB.V.
Selection and
Selection and peer-review
peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibilityof
of [Organizer
the University of Tras-os- Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)
Name].

Keywords: Computer simulation; teaching; learning; physics; mass; weight; teacher mediation.

1. Introduction

Interest in the problem underlying the present research started from the analysis of some difficulties and
misconceptions that basic school students have shown in the discipline of Physical and Chemical Sciences, 7th

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-259-350-356; fax: +351-259-350-356.

E-mail address: candidasarabando@hotmail.com

2212-0173 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the University of Tras-os- Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD)
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.015
 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121 113

grade (12-13 years old students). We realized that these difficulties and misconceptions are obstacles to the
construction of scientific knowledge, particularly when students are learning the concepts of weight and mass.
It is in the basic education (7th grade) that many of the fundamental concepts of science are introduced. However,
research results show that many students do not understand the scientific concepts of earth and space [1]. Some
studies have shown that not only students but also teacher trainees have misconceptions in these areas [2]. These
concepts are highly resistant to change through traditional interventions [3]. The idea that students develop
alternative conceptions remains at the center of many empirical studies on the learning of science during the last
twenty years. These studies show that students do not reach the classroom as blank states. Students bring to the
classroom their previous ideas and develop concepts with lasting power exploratory. However, these views are
inconsistent with the scientific concepts present in classroom teaching. The research has also shown that alternative
conceptions lead students not to understand situations and laboratory demonstrations in the classroom [4].
Although the concepts of weight and mass are considered central in physics teaching, they are still not well
understood by students [5], resulting in the need to use consistent definitions [6,7,8]. The students' learning about
the concepts of weight and mass has raised interest in research over several decades. Most of these studies have been
descriptive, with the aim of cataloging alternative conceptions of students [9,10,11,12]. As far as we know, there
are not many studies focusing on the effects of teaching strategies on students' understanding of the concepts of
weight and mass. Mullet and Gervais [13] showed that the concepts of weight and mass are both understood as one
concept, that of weight, whereas the expression "quantity of matter” is clearly related with the concept of mass.
The evidence based on experimental studies suggests that we can improve learning by integrating computer
simulations on topics that students find conceptually difficult [14]. Given all the previously mentioned aspects, we
focused the use of new technologies of information and communication (ICT), particularly computer simulations, as
a possible contribution to the problems described, regarding the difficulties that basic school students show in
learning the concepts of weight and mass.
Research on the use of technology in education has expanded and diversified to the extent that the technologies
developed, and these rapid changes in technology make the investigation difficult, complex and challenging [15].
Currently, the landscape of research on the use of ICT in education in general, or even in the specific case of science
education is vast, especially studies on the use of computer simulations.
Computer simulations have become increasingly powerful and available to teachers in the past three decades [16].
Currently, science teachers can select from a wide range of computer simulations available, for example through the
internet. The computer simulations are designed to facilitate teaching and learning through visualization and
interaction with dynamic models of natural phenomena [17,18,19].
Computer simulations offer idealized, dynamic and visual representations of physical phenomena and experiments
which would be dangerous, costly or otherwise not feasible in a school laboratory [20]. Since the computer
simulations show simplified versions of the natural world, they can focus students' attention more directly on the
desired phenomenon [17,18,19]. Additionally, computer simulations may allow students to visualize objects and
processes that are normally beyond the user’ control in the natural world [21]. In comparison with textbooks and
lectures, a learning environment with a computer simulation has the advantages that students can systematically
explore hypothetical situations, interact with a simplified version of a process or system, change the time-scale of
events, and practice tasks and solve problems in a realistic environment without stress [22]. According to Psycharis
[23], effective computer simulations are built upon “mathematical models” in order to accurately depict the
phenomena or process to be studied, and a well-designed computer simulation can engage the learner in interaction
by helping the learner to predict the course and results of certain actions, understand why observed events occur,
explore the effects of modifying preliminary conclusions, evaluate ideas, gain insight, and stimulate critical
thinking.
Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of computer simulations on student learning. Many of these studies
focused on acquiring knowledge of specific content [24,25]. Some researchers also noted the success of computer
simulations to develop skills of questioning and reasoning [26]. Other investigations have reported less impressive
results in the use of computer simulations in science teaching. Some of them found no advantage in using computer
simulations over traditional methods [27]. Further investigation also showed that the use of computer simulations
was less effective than traditional instruction and hands-on laboratory strategies [28]. Even when the gains made by
students were shown through the use of technologies such as computer simulations, some argue that this should be
attributed to effective teaching methods and effects of teachers [29]. In addition, Abdulwahed and Nagy [30] have
proposed that computer simulations might be most effective when they are integrated as a complementary part of a
114 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121

course involving “hands-on” activities. Thus, despite high expectations for the computer simulations, we cannot
guarantee a general conclusion about their effectiveness [31].
Clearly, the efficacy of computer simulations is closely linked to the pedagogy through which they are
implemented [15]. Failure to take account of the pedagogy of technology use may explain some of the negative
results obtained [28,32]. Only provide access to computers or software without careful attention to learning support
and teaching models seems to not result in gains of teaching desired.
The effects of computer simulations in science education are caused by interplay between the computer
simulation, the nature of the content, the student and the teacher [22]. In order for educational innovations such as
computer simulations to be successful, teachers need to be provided with the necessary skills and knowledge to
implement them [15]. Without proper teacher skills, the full potential of computer simulations, such as their
suitability for practicing inquiry skills, may remain out of reach. Instead, they may be used as demonstration
experiments or be completely controlled by the teacher [33]. Reducing the use of computer simulations to a step-by-
step cookbook approach undermines their potential to afford students with a opportunity to freely create, test and
evaluate their own hypotheses in a more richly contextualized environment [34].
The role of the teacher in the classroom is an important factor affecting the use of technology by teachers [15].
However, comparatively little research has inquired into the science teacher’ pedagogy of working with computer
simulations [22,35].
The present study aims to compare the progress in understanding the concepts of weight and mass using the
computer simulation "Weight and Mass", made by students from the 7th grade, taking into account the mediating
role of the teacher.

2. Research questions

The purpose of this study was to compare the progress in understanding the concepts of weight and mass using
the computer simulation "Weight and Mass", made by students from the 7th grade, as a result of learning mediated
by the teacher. The study compared three different treatments: students performed only experimental activities
("hands-on"); students performed experimental activities ("hands-on") and used the computer simulation (CS);
students used only the computer simulation. The main research question was:
- Are computer simulations combined with “hands-on” activities more effective, than simulations or “hands-on”
activities alone, in promoting students’ learning about the concepts of weight and mass?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The study took place during the academic years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, in a lesson of Physical and Chemical
Sciences (90 minutes). Since students were already divided into classes, it was not possible to make a random
selection for the different treatments. The students were all from four schools in northern Portugal. The pilot study
was developed by the teacher-researcher, and involved the participation of 51 students from three different 7th grade
classes (12-13 years old students). The 2010/2011 intervention involved the participation of three teachers of
Physical and Chemical Sciences and students from two of their classes (with a total of 142 7th grade students). Each
teacher would teach two 7th grade classes (code named X and Y). Before the implementation of the 2010/2011
intervention, all teachers invited to participate in this study were informed about its aims, and all aspects to be
considered during the implementation with students in the classroom.

3.2. Research design

According to the study design (see Table 1), students participating in the study were given a pretest in order to
characterize their knowledge with regard to the concepts of weight and mass. The students were then subjected to
different treatments and, after the lesson about weight and mass (90 minutes), were given a posttest (equal to the
pretest) to evaluate the evolution of learning.
 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121 115

Table 1. Study Design

Pretest (10 minutes)

Class X (24 students) – HoA

Lesson about weight and mass

Teacher A
Class Y (27 students) – HoA+CS

(90 minutes)
Class X (27 students) – HoA
Teacher D
Class Y (24 students) – CS

Class X (19 students) – HoA

Teacher E
Class Y (20 students) – CS

Posttest (10 minutes)

During the implementation of the second intervention, the students of teacher A had only “hands-on” activities
(HoA) in class X and in class Y conducted “hands-on” activities with the computer simulation (HoA+CS). Students
of teachers called D and E had only “hands-on” activities (HoA) in class X and, in class Y used only the computer
simulation (CS).
Before this lesson about weight and mass, students had no other lessons about these concepts. Based on an activity
guide, consisting of three tasks designed to assess students’ understanding of the concepts of weight and mass,
students performed the experimental activities. In Task 1 students were asked about the relationship between weight
and mass of a body. For Task 2 students were asked to explain how the weight of a body relates with the mass of the
planet where it is. In Task 3, students were asked to identify the main differences between the two concepts (mass
and weight).
In the groups that performed “hands-on” activities, students tried to do the tasks only manipulating with laboratory
equipment (see Table 2). In the groups that performed “hands-on” activities with the computer simulation (CS), the
students tried to answer Task 1 using laboratory equipment and Task 2 using the computer simulation (CS). In the
groups using only the computer simulation (CS), the students tried to answer all tasks using the CS. In Task 3
students didn’t need any equipment (laboratory equipment or computer simulation).

Table 2. Laboratory equipment and computer simulation used in classroom activities

Classroom Activities
TasK Class X (HoA) Class Y (HoA + CS) Class Y (CS)
Task 1 Laboratory equipment Laboratory equipment CS
Task 2 Laboratory equipment CS CS

3.3 Materials

Hands-on activities

The implementation of “hands-on” activities involved the use of measuring instruments (beam balances and
dynamometers) and objects with different masses. The goal was to find out if there is any relationship between mass
and weight.

Computer simulation

The computer simulation used – “Weight and Mass” – was built by our team based on the Modellus software.
116 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121

A powerful Modellus feature is the multiple representations that can be seen simultaneously [36,37]. For example,
the user can create, see, and interact with analytical, analogous and graphical representations of mathematical
objects.
The computer simulation used in this study addresses the impractical space requirements typically associated with
the experimental teaching of the concepts of weight and mass, which would involve measurements on other planets.
The simulation, by allowing students to explore and test predictions, can also facilitate the development of students´
scientific understandings about the concepts of weight and mass.

3.4 Data collection and analysis

Data collection about teaching was conducted through semi-structured interviews, four weeks after instruction,
with teachers participating in the study, to try to gather information about how they conducted their lessons. The
interviews lasted an average of 30 minutes.
To assess students’ learning on the concepts of weight and mass, conceptual tests were administered: a pretest
(before the teaching intervention) and a posttest (after the teaching intervention). The posttest questions were
integrated in a regular formal assessment test. The time elapsed between the completion of the lesson about the
concepts weight and mass, and the posttest ranged between 7 days (teacher A) and 35 days (teachers D and E).
The test was developed by our research team and refined after the pilot study. The pretest and posttest were both
composed of the same two questions (see Table 3), formulated based on the concepts of weight and mass, which are
integrated in the official Portuguese Curriculum for the 7th grade.

Table 3. Questions about weight and mass used in the tests

Question 1 – Mass and weight have

(a) The same physical meaning
(b) Different physical meaning
Because, __________________________________________

Question 2 - When a body is transported from Earth to the Moon

(a) its weight and its mass not change
(b) its weight and its mass change
(c) The weight changes and its mass does not
(d) its weight stays the same and its mass changes
Because, __________________________________________

Answers of the students that answered both tests (pretest and posttest) were analyzed according to criteria found in
Table 4 (based on [5]). These criteria were applied to the justification that students provided in their answers.
These answers were analyzed independently by three researchers, obtaining in all cases a degree of agreement
exceeding 95.0% (the average was 98.6%). In situations where there was disagreement in the classification of the
responses, the discrepancy was only of one level.

Table 4. Criteria used to describe the conceptual understandings

Level Criteria
3 - Answer that includes all the components of the validated answer
2 - Answer that shows some understanding of the concepts
1 - Answer incorrect or irrelevant, illogical, or a answer that is not clear, or blank answer

4. Results and discussion

Table 5 provides a summary of pretest and posttest results for students of teachers A, D and E.
 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121 117

Table 5. Frequencies in percentage for the three types of conceptual understanding about weight and mass (pre and posttest)
Teacher A Teacher D Teacher E
Question

ev
el
L
X Y X Y X Y
3 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q1 2 12.0 11.1 7.4 0.0 5.3 0.0
1 88.0 85.2 92.6 100.0 94.7 100.0
Pre
3 4.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Q2 2 44.0 11.1 22.2 25.0 5.3 20.0
1 52.0 85.2 77.8 75.0 94.7 80.0
3 20.0 14.8 7.4 54.2 31.6 5.0
Q1 2 32.0 48.1 44.4 12.5 5.3 40.0
1 48.0 37.1 48.2 33.3 63.1 55.0
Post
3 20.0 14.8 0.0 12.5 10.5 5.0
Q2 2 40.0 63.0 33.3 33.3 26.3 60.0
1 40.0 22.2 66.7 54.2 63.2 35.0

For question Q1, students were asked to say if weight and mass have the same or different physical meaning, and
to identify the main differences between the two concepts (mass and weight). Validated answers should include
knowledge that weight and mass have different physical meaning because mass is the quantity of matter of a body
and weight is the gravitational attraction force that a planet exerts in a body. For question Q2, students were asked
what happens to the weight and mass of a body when is transported from Earth to the Moon. Validated answers
should include knowledge that weight changes and mass does not because mass does not change from place to place
but weight changes because gravity in the moon is different.
The overall pretest findings indicate that prior to participating in their respective treatments, a large majority of
students in each group respond incorrectly to the two questions of the tests.
After application of the different treatments, more students showed scientifically correct views of the physical
meaning of the concepts weight and mass (Level 3 answers, see Table 5). Also, more students responded correctly
to Q2, after the lesson about weight and mass (Level 3 answers, see Table 5).
The answers given by the students to Q1 and Q2 were analyzed simultaneously, first in the pretest and then in the
posttest. The Very High Comprehension (VH) was defined for responses of level 3 in Q1 and Q2. Then, High
Comprehension (H) was defined for responses of level 3 in one of the questions and level 2 in the other question. As
a minimum comprehension were considered responses of level 2 in Q1 and Q2, or level 3 in one of the questions
and level 1 in the other question – Low Comprehension (L). Comprehension lower than minimum comprehension,
corresponding to responses of level 2 in one of the questions and level 1 in the other question or level 1 in Q1 and
Q2, was considered Very Low Comprehension (VL). Table 6 provides a summary of pretest and posttest results,
when students’ responses to questions Q1 and Q2 are analyzed simultaneously.
To determine whether there was a significant difference among treatment groups X and Y, of each teacher, in
terms of their content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass (Q1 and Q2), we used the Mann-Whitney test.
The differences in groups’ content knowledge were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) before the lesson about
weight and mass (Class X and Y - teacher A: U=325, n1=25, n2=27, p=0.699; Class X and Y - teacher D: U=324,
n1=27, n2=24, p=1.000; Class X and Y - teacher E: U=190, n1=19, n2=20, p=1.000). Likewise, after the lesson
about weight and mass, there was no significant difference among groups X and Y of teacher A (U=308.5, n1=25,
n2=27, p=0.556) and of teacher E (U=185, n1=19, n2=20, p=0.872). However, there was a statistically significant
difference (p < 0.05) among groups X and Y of teacher D in terms of their content knowledge of the concepts
weight and mass after the lesson of weight and mass (U=203, n1=27, n2=24, p=0.010).
118 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121

Table 6. Frequencies in percentage for the different types of comprehension about weight and mass (pre and posttest) and corresponding number
of students
Pretest Posttest
Teacher Class N (Level of Comprehension) (Level of Comprehension)
VL L H VH VL L H VH
X 25 84.0 (21) 16.0 (4) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 64.0 (16) 8.0 (2) 16.0 (4) 12.0 (3)
A
Y 27 88.9 (24) 3.7 (1) 7.4 (2) 0.0 (0) 48.1 (13) 25.9 (7) 22.2 (6) 3.7 (1)

X 27 100.0 (27) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 70.4 (19) 29.6 (8) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
D
Y 24 100.0 (24) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 41.7 (10) 29.2 (7) 16.7 (4) 12.5 (3)

X 19 100.0 (19) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 63.2 (12) 21.1 (4) 10.5 (2) 5.3 (1)
E
Y 20 100.0 (20) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 55.0 (11) 40.0 (8) 5.0 (1) 0.0 (0)

To compare the three X classes (from teachers A, D and E), and to compare the three Y classes (from teachers A,
D and E) we used the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Pretest results were compared first to see whether the groups were equivalent at the beginning of the study. The
differences in groups’ content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass were not statistically significant before
the lesson about weight and mass among the groups in class Y (H=5.031, p=0.081). However, there was a
statistically significant difference among groups in class X (H=7.690, p=0.021).
The Kruskall-Wallis test tells us only that there is or is not a statistically significant difference, not where the
difference lies. To find out where the difference lies we used the LSD method of Fisher. This test indicated that
students of teacher A, in class X, obtained higher classifications in the pretest. After this lesson, there was no
significant difference among groups in class X (H=1.341, p=0.511) and between groups in class Y (H=2.280,
p=0.320), in terms of their content knowledge of the concepts weight and mass.
To determine whether there was a significant difference among the treatment groups in terms of change in their
content knowledge from pre to posttest, for Q1 and Q2, it was used the Wilcoxon test. Results showed a statistical
significant change in conceptual understanding from pretest to posttest for all groups of all the three teachers:
Teacher A – “hands-on” (Z=-2.762, p=0.006) and “hands-on”+CS (Z=-3.153, p=0.002); Teacher D – “hands-on”
(Z=-2.828, p=0.005) and CS (Z=-3.354, p=0.001); Teacher E – “hands-on” (Z=-2.414, p=0.016) and CS (Z=-2.887,
p=0.004).
Figure 1 provides the frequencies in percentage of nulls and positive variations obtained, based on Wilcoxon test.
From figure 1 we see that there were no negative variations and the higher positive variations were obtained by
students in class Y, from all the teachers (teacher A: 44.4%; teacher D: 58.3%; teacher E: 45.0%).

80,0 70 Null
64 63
56 58 55
60,0 Positive
Variations / %

44 42 45
36 37
40,0 30

20,0

0,0
AX AY DX DY EX EY
Group
Fig. 1. Frequencies in % of null or positive variations, obtained by students of teachers A, D and E, in class X and
Y, based on Wilcoxon test.

Table 7 provides the respective total gains (GT) for students of teachers A, D and E, taking into account gains of
very high comprehension (VH), high comprehension (H) and low comprehension (L).
 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121 119

Table 7. Total gains (GT) in percentage for students of teachers A, D and E

GT
(GVH + GH + GL)
Class X (N=25) (HoA) 20.0 %
Teacher A
Class Y (N=27) (HoA+CS) 40.7 %
Class X (N=27) (HoA) 29.6 %
Teacher D
Class Y (N=24) (CS) 58.4 %
Class X (N=19) (HoA) 36.9 %
Teacher E
Class Y (N=20) (CS) 45.0 %

From table 7 we can see that the total gains (GT) were higher for students who used the computer simulation (class
Y), from all teachers. Students manipulating the computer simulation visualize information in ways that students
using laboratory equipment cannot see. When they were using the computer simulation, they could see a table with
the values of the weight of a body in three planets (Earth, Mercury and Jupiter) and in moon and, simultaneously,
they could see the weight vector representation in each of these planets (see Fig. 1). For instance, when they
changed the mass value of the body, they could see what happened to the weight of the body in each of the planets
(vector representation in the planet and respective value in the table).
This result is not very surprising and confirms previous findings (e.g., a recent review in [22]). Comparative
studies indicate that traditional instruction may be successfully enhanced by using computer simulations. In most
cases, the use of simulation leads to improvements in learning outcomes. The use of computer simulations appears
to facilitate students’ conceptual understanding [38,39,40], requires less time [41], and improves the ability to
predict the results of experiments [42].
In our study, the use of the simulation also seemed to help students learn the physics concepts of weight and mass.
However, in spite of these results, we considered it was important to analyze each of the different gains, and not
only the total gains (GT), and search for reasons that would allow us to understand why the performance of the
groups that used the computer simulation was not similar for all the teachers.
Figure 2 provides the gains (post-pre) obtained by students of teachers A, D and E from pretest to posttest, in
classes X and Y, of very high comprehension (GVH) , high comprehension (GH) and low comprehension (GL).

40,0 40,0 40,0

40,0
29,6 29,2
30,0 30,0 30,0 22,2
GH / %

21,1
GVH /%

20,0 16,0 16,7 20,0 Class X

GL / %

20,0 14,8
12,0 12,5 10,6
10,0 Class Y
10,0 5,3 10,0 5,0
3,7 0,0
0,0 0,0 0,0
0,0 0,0
A D E A D E
A D E -10,0
Teacher -8,0
Teacher Teacher

Fig. 2. Gains of very high comprehension (GVH), high comprehension (GH) and low comprehension (GL), as a percentage, obtained by students in
classes X and Y.

From figure 2, we see that the students of teacher D in class Y, who used only the computer simulation, had better
gains of very high comprehension (GVH=12.5%) and high comprehension (GH=16.7%) than were obtained by
students of teachers A and E, in class Y. Students of teacher E in class Y obtained the higher gains for low
comprehension (40.0%), but they obtained the lower gains for high or very high comprehension (5.0% and 0.0%,
respectively). Students of teachers A and D in class Y obtained better gains for high or very high comprehension,
than students of teacher E. However, the higher gains for high comprehension (16.7%) or very high comprehension
(12.5%) were obtained by students of teacher D in class Y (used only the CS). In class X, students of teacher D had
no gains for high or very high comprehension, but they obtained the higher gains for low comprehension (29.6%).
120 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121

The higher gains for high comprehension (16.0%) or very high comprehension (12.0%) were obtained by students of
teacher A.
Since there was no statistically significant differences in the pretest among groups X and Y of each teacher, and
among groups Y of the three teachers, the total gains obtained may be attributable to the use of the computer
simulation but, also, to the teachers’ pedagogy when using the computer simulation to teach the concepts of weight
and mass. What the teacher did in the classroom when using the computer simulation may explain the differences on
students’ performance in class Y.
This conclusion is consistent with other research studies that suggest that the identification of the learning needs
by the teacher, the choice of the simulation software and how it is integrated into the learning environment, are all
crucially important to the learning outcomes [14].
Clearly, the efficacy of computer simulations depends on the teacher's role in its implementation. According to
Lopes and colleagues [43], the task for the students, the mediating role of the teacher in the learning tasks and the
available resources for that learning should be all connected. The teachers have an important role in selecting
appropriate resources, sequencing and structuring learning activities and guiding students´ experimentation,
generation of hypotheses and predictions, and critical reflection upon outcomes.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that, prior to the different treatments, most students presented scientifically
incorrect conceptions about the concepts of weight and mass.
The gains obtained in this study by students may be considered quite reasonable given the difficulties related to
these two concepts, weight and mass, as we mentioned in introduction.
Our results show that the use of the computer simulation “Weight and mass” helped students learn the physics
concepts of weight and mass, either use alone or together with “hands-on” activities. The total gains (GT) were
higher (~40-58%) for students who used the computer simulation, whereas for students who used only experimental
activities the total gains were ~20-37%. However, students of teacher D in class Y obtained the best gains,
corresponding to a better comprehension of the concepts of weight and mass. Thus, the efficacy of computer
simulations depends on the teacher’s role in its implementation.
In any case, we should note that the gains obtained by students in this study may be considered quite reasonable
given the documented difficulties in learning the concepts of weight and mass, as mentioned in the introduction.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded (or part-funded) by the European Regional Development Fund through the COMPETE
Programme and by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia within project PTDC/CPE-CED/112303/2009.

References

[1] Libarkin JC, Anderson SW, Dahl J, Beilfuss M, Boone W. Qualitative analysis of college students´ideas about the earth: interviews and open-
ended questionnaires. Journal Geosciences Education 2005;53:17-26.
[2] Trumper, R. A cross-college age study of science and nonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in pre-service training
for high-school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2001;10:189-195.
[3] Dahl J, Anderson SW, Libarkin J. Digging into earth science: alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. Journal of Science Education
2005;6:65-68.
[4] Clement J. Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 1982;50:66-71.
[5] Gönen S. A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science
Education and Technology 2008;17:70-81.
[6] Hecht E. There is no really good definition of mass. The Physics Teacher 2006;44:40-45.
[7] Hecht E. On defining mass. The Physics Teacher 2011;49:40-44.
[8] Morrison RC. Weight and gravity – the need for consistent definitions. The Physics Teacher 1999;37:51-52.
[9] Galili I. Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education 2001;23:1073-
1093.
[10] Philips WC. Earth science misconceptions. Science Teacher 1991;58:21-23.
[11] Sequeira M, Leite L. Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education. Science Education 1991;75:45-56.
[12] Tural G, Akdeniz AR, Alev N. Effect of 5E teaching model on student teachers´ understanding of weightlessness. Journal of Science
Education and Technology 2010; 220:477-478.
 Cândida Sarabando et al. / Procedia Technology 13 (2014) 112 – 121 121

[13] Mullet E, & Gervais H. Distinction between the concepts of weight and mass in high school students. International Journal of Science
Education 1990;12:217-226.
[14] Webb I. Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education
2005;27:705-735.
[15] Osborne J, Dillon J. Good Practice in Science Teaching. What Research has to Say. 2nd ed. Open University Press; 2010.
[16] Trundle KC, Bell RL. The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi- experimental study. Computers & Education
2010;54:1078-1088.
[17] de Jong T, van Joolingen WR. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational
Research 1998;68:179-201.
[18] Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C. PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The
Physics Teacher 2006;44:18-23.
[19] Wieman CE, Perkins KK, Adams WK. Oersted medal lecture 2007: interactive simulations for teaching physics: what works, what doesn´t,
and why. American Journal of Physics 2008;76:393–399.
[20] Hennessy S, Wishart J, Whitelock D, Deaney R, Brawn R, Velle L, McFarlane A, Ruthven K, Winterbottom M. Pedagogical approaches for
technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education 2007;48:137-152.
[21] de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 2013;340:305-308.
[22] Rutten N, van Joolingen WR, van der Veen JT. The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education
2012;58:136-153.
[23] Psycharis S. The computational experiment and its effects on approach to learning and beliefs on physics. Computers & Education
2011;56:547-555.
[24] Trey L, Khan S. How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education
2008;51:519-529.
[25] Huppert J, Lomask SM, Lazarowitz R. Computer simulations in the high school: students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and
academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education 2002;24:803-821.
[26] Chang, Chen, Lin, Sung. Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education 2008;5:1486-1498.
[27] Winn W, Stahr F, Sarason C, Fruland R, Oppenheimer P, Lee Y. Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct
experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006;43:25-42.
[28] Marshall JA, Young ES. Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 2006;43:907-937.
[29] Clark R. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 1994;42:21-29.
[30] Abdulwahed M, Nagy ZK. The TriLab, a novel ICT based triple access mode laboratory education model. Computers & Education
2011;56:262-274.
[31] Yaman M, Nerdel C, Bayrhuber H. The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations.
Computers & Education 2008;51:1784–1794.
[32] Waight N, Abd-El-Khalick F. The impact of technology on the enactment of inquiry in a technology enthusiast’s sixth grade science
classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007;44:154-182.
[33] Lindgren R, Schwartz D. Spatial learning and computer simulations in science. International Journal of Science Education 2009;31:419-
438.
[34] Windschitl M, Andre T. Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: the Roles of constructivist instruction and student
epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1998;35:145–160.
[35] Khan S. New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2011;20:215-232.
[36] Teodoro VD. From formulae to conceptual experiments: interactive modelling in the physical sciences and in mathematics. In International
CoLos conference new network-based media in education, Maribor, Slovenia; 1998.
[37] Teodoro VD. Modellus Web Page. http://phoenix.sce.fct.unl.pt/modellus/; 2000.
[38] Jimoyiannis A, Komis V. Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory
motion. Computers & Education 2001;36:183-204.
[39] Stern L, Barnea N, Shauli S. The effect of a computerized simulations on middle school students’ understanding of the kinetic molecular
theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2008;17:305-315.
[40] Zacharia ZC. Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric
circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007;23:120-132.
[41] Gibbons NJ, Evans C, Payne A, Shah K, Griffin DK. Computer simulations improve university instructional laboratories. Cell Biology
Education 2004; 3:263-269
[42] McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Reid S, LeMaster R, Wieman CE. Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching
quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 2008;76:406–417.
[43] Lopes JB, Cravino JP, Branco MJ, Saraiva E, Silva AA. Mediation of student learning: dimensions and evidences in science teaching.
Problems of Education in 21 st Century 2008, 9:42-52.