Efficacy of Phet Simulation 1

Republic of the Philippines
CARAGA STATE UNIVERSITY

P.O Box 165, Ampayon, Butuan City
Caraga Administrative Region XIII
No. (085)3423047 Fax No. (085)3421079
EFFICACY OF PHET SIMULATION IN PHYSICAL

SCIENCE OF GRADE 8 AND GRADE 11 IN ALEGRIA
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
ACTION RESEARCH
Presented to
The Faculty of Caraga State University
by:
KEITH JAMES L. LEGADOS

JOHN JERI A. BARING
DENNALYN M. MARTEL
December 2017
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quasi-experimental research study is to examine the
efficacy of experimental simulation in improving students learning of Alegria National
High School students. The experimental group (n = 29) uses Phet simulation as their
method of teaching, while the control group (n = 29) use traditional method or
lecture method. Results shows that either experimental simulation and lecture
method is effective class intervention based on the significant differences of the
pretest and posttest result. However, comparing the two methods to determine
whether which is a better, result favors Experimental simulation and statistically is
effective Intervention. The self-efficacy survey shows that the experimental groups
do favor experimental simulation than Traditional/Lecture method. Conclusions,
Students treated by experimental simulation got higher scores than lecture method
supplemented by higher self-efficacy perception, indicating the value of Experimental
simulation in improving knowledge and self-efficacy of Alegria National High School
Students. Students must be educated with the most realistic technologies available
to improve better learning.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to extend their gratitude to the following
persons who helped in the making of this study;
To Karen M. Burdeos, who effortly guided the researchers on what to
do the whole process of study;
To Marry Ann E. Gubaton, allowing us to conduct study at Alegria
National High School;
To our family for their unending support and love;
Above all, to the Almighty God for giving the researchers all the
blessings, knowledge and inner strengths to overcome all the difficulties and
obstacles in conducting this study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………i
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………..ii
Chapter 1
Introduction ……………………………………………………………….………..1
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework………………………………………….4
Statement of Problem……………………………………………….……………5
Statement of Hypothesis…………………………………………………………6
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………...7
Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature and Studies…………..….9
Chapter 3 Methodology……………………………………………….…..12
Subject………………………………………………………………………….…..…12
Instrument………………………………………………………………………..….13
Treatment……………………………….……………………………………….…..13
Research Respondents…………………………………………………….…..…13
Chapter 4 Results and Analysis ……………….…………………….... 14
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusion ……………………………………………………… 24
Recommendation…………………………………………………………………. 25
References ………………………………………..………………………………………. 26
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
INTRODUCTION
Education encounter, in modern times, challenges in all aspects of
social, economic & cultural life; the most important of which are over-
population, over-knowledge, education philosophy development & the change
of teacher’s role, the spread of illiteracy, lack of the staff & the technological
development & mass media (Aloraini, 2005, p. 30–32). This drove the
teaching staff to use the modern teaching technologies to face some of the
main problems, which education & its productivity encounter, by increasing
the learning level which may be achieved through providing equivalent
opportunities for all people whenever & wherever they are, while taking into
account the individual differences between learners (Wilkinson, 1986, p. 13 &
Abd El-Halim Said, 1997, p. 19). To improve the educational productivity,
some of the teaching staff sought to mainstream technology within education,
developing traditional techniques & using new educational methods (Al-A’ny,
2000).
Educational researchers have found that with direct instruction
students do not engage in their school work as a scientist would (Piaget,
1970). They do not investigate, explore, ask questions, make connections or
deduce the rules. Instead they just answer what has been asked, transfer and
retain very little. Why is this? One might postulate that students don’t know
1
how to be a scientist, or they don’t care and are in a hurry and that they are
underprepared so not able to do the work. In response to direct instruction
not working, many educators tried pure discovery learning. They’d supply
students with a selection of equipment (batteries, light bulbs, magnet, a
compass and wire) and tell them to figure out how to accomplish a certain
task (figure out how the magnet can affect the light bulb). In activities such
as this student are quickly overwhelmed, were confused without directions
and have many false starts. Others have devised pure discovery activities that
would have students being actively productive (build a paper boat that can
hold the most paper clips) however, the students come away not knowing
what is important or what they have learned (Mayer, 2004)
With traditional way of class instruction, meaningful learning still is
attainable by doing actual experimentation especially in science subjects.
However, if the laboratory apparatus and equipment are unavailable, it is
partially a burden for science teachers to perform such experimentation. To
apply the 21st century teaching-learning process and to meet the standard of
quality education, the use of the trending gadgets nowadays could
significantly increase the effectiveness of teaching. For instance, in a study
about
1 the effectiveness of technology in schools, Sivin-Kachala and
Bialo(2000) reported positive and consistent patterns when students were
engaged in technology-richenvironments. According to
Keegwe(2007),Technology is a catalyst for change in classroom processes
2
because it provides a distinct departure, a change in context that suggests
alternative ways of operating. It can drive a
shift from a traditional instructional approach toward a more eclectic set of
learning activities that include knowledge-building situations for students .
However, there are instances that some school cannot afford to apply this
sophisticated teaching-learning process especially those schools in remote
areas where electrical connection is a problem, thereby leading to lack of
technological development.
With inadequate supply of electricity in remote school areas such as
some island schools in Surigao City, the use of technology for students’
learning in science subjects can still be attained through utilization of what
are available materials with consideration on the electrical capacity.
Some stakeholders provide sustainable energy source through solar
panel, however the capacity of this is inadequate to support technological
learning environment. But the authors of this study did something to utilize
technology with minimal energy cost. Computer simulation now is trending
source of independent learning, however it is ideally applicable if the number
of computers can accommodate the number of students. But, if the teacher
will facilitate the use of experimental simulation by extending it through TV or
projector, experiment is possible. This lead to interactive experimentation not
just per student individually but for whole class collaboratively.
3
Simulations now are considered as replacement of or enhancement to
traditional instruction. In particular, we consider the effects of variations in
how information is visualized, how instructional support is provided, and how
computer simulations are embedded within the lesson scenario.
Technology can be a powerful tool for learning science concepts and
developing skills of measurement, analysis, and processing information.
Virtual labs and simulations should not substitute for laboratory experience,
but may be used to supplement and extend such experience providing a good
quality of energy in remote area with the help of the Government.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
There are a various strategies made by the teachers to deliver the
topic to their students. Using experimental simulation helps students to learn
about abstract concepts, develop critical thinking and solve problems. It is
enjoyable application in which the students will play and learn that could
answer their curiosity. It can burst out their learning interest and motivates
them to learn. According to the book of Howard Gardner, teachers must be
sensitive to enough to cater the needs of the learners. Probably from this
experimental simulation, it could cater the needs of the students.
4
Controlled group
LECTURE METHOD
POSTTEST
PRETEST SELF EFFICACY
Experimental Group
EXPERIMENTAL
SIMULATION
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The purpose of the study is to determine the efficacy in
experimental simulation of students and how it affects to their learning
in Physical Sciences topics. It also attempts to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the students?
5
2. What is the level of self-efficacy of the students in learning
experimental simulation?
3. What is the academic performance of students who are taught using
the traditional method of instruction and using the experimental
simulation?
4. Is there no significant difference in the academic performance of the
students when using the traditional teaching method (lecture method,
chalk and talk) and the use of experimental simulation?
5. Is there no significant difference in the academic performance of the
students before and after the topic was delivered using the two
methods of instruction?
6. Is self-efficacy not significantly related to the academic performance of
the students?
7. Is the teaching preference (whether traditional teaching or
experimental simulation method) not significantly associated to the
academic performance of the students?
8. For those who had undergone experimental simulation way of
teaching (new method), would they still prefer to be taught using
the new method or the traditional method of teaching?
6
STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS
1. There is no significant difference in the academic performance when
using the traditional method and experimental method.
2. There is no significant difference in the academic performance of the
students before and after the topic was delivered using the two
methods of instruction.
3. Self-efficacy is not significantly related to the academic performance
of the students.
4. The teaching preference (whether traditional teaching or experimental
simulation method) is not significantly associated to the academic
performance of the students
Definition of Terms
EFFICACY. Refers to the effect or produced a desired result in the research.
EXPERIMENTAL SIMULATION. Refers to the application which is a simulated
way of experimentation (e.g. PHET).
SCIENCE TEACHER. This refers to a teacher assigned to teach the Science
subjects.
7
TEACHING METHOD. The body of systematic techniques used by a particular
discipline, especially a scientific one.
TRADITIONAL METHOD. A systematic techniques in teaching like the chalk
and talk, lecture methods and it is a teacher-centered.
PRETEST. A preliminary test administered to determine a student's baseline
knowledge or preparedness for an educational experience or course of study.
POSTTEST. A test given to students after completion of an instructional
program or segment and often used in conjunction with a pretest to measure
their achievement and the effectiveness of the program.
8
Chapter 2
REVIEW ON RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
The previous studies and current studies mentioned in this chapter
provides the researcher’s the absolute strategies that serves as a guide in
conducting this present studies.
Related Studies
In a previous study it was shown that the use of Experimental
simulations in lecture can produce much higher results on in class conceptual
questions when compared to a demonstration using real equipment. The
simulations show physical phenomena using real world objects but allow for
time to be slowed and do not include other distracting unnecessary details
that typically accompany a demonstration with real equipment (Finkelstein,
2006).
The researchers have engaged in several studies comparing the
effectiveness of Experimental simulation SIMS(Strategic Intervention
Materials) to real laboratory equipment (Finkelstein, 2005). The results of
these studies demonstrate that simulations help students’ conceptual
understanding about the phenomena. For example, one two hour lab of an
algebra based physics course was divided into two groups—those that only
used a simulation and those that only used real equipment (bulbs, wires,
resistors etc.). The lab activity written around the sim/equipment was
9
identical otherwise. On the final exam (6 weeks later) three questions were
asked about DC circuits. The students who had used CCK (Circuit
Construction Kit) in lab performed statistically better on average than the
students who used real equipment. The averages for the two groups were
identical on the exam questions that did not address circuits. In addition, the
lab was followed up by an activity where both groups used real equipment.
Students had to build a complicated circuit and then describe how the circuit
would react if they created a break in a specified location.
The students who had used the sim for the previous 1 1 2 of lab were
faster on average and completing this challenge. This is consistent with their
attitude during lab where the sim students explored and investigated without
needing much assistance from the Teaching Assistant, while the real
equipment students were nervous about breaking the equipment or
themselves. In addition to measuring learning on assessments we document
affective differences when using sims compared to other instructional
materials. As with CCK in the lab above, where students were more
comfortable trying things with the simulations than with real equipment. The
introductory quantum mechanics course at Colorado uses the suite of 18
quantum simulations (Mckagan, 2008; McKagan, 2009). Here are two
representative student comments from that course:
10
“I definitely not only enjoyed the simulations, but I’d go as far to say that the
simulations taught me the most about the course because I could really
visualize the inner workings of the physics processes that were going on.”
“I thought the simulations were great. It helped me to gain intuition about
the topic. This is especially useful in quantum mechanics where it is not
normally possible to directly observe the described phenomena.”
Current Studies
The Researchers are identifying the characteristics of homework that
will take advantage of the unique features of simulations as well as focusing
on the effectiveness in the chemistry classroom. They are currently midway
through a study that identifies if, where and how showing invisible
representations such as current in a wire or a magnetic field helps with
student understanding.
11
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The independent variable of this quasi experimental study is the method
of instruction. The dependent variable is the posttest score. The posttest is
made up of problem-oriented questioners. The subject matter is atom.
The study focuses on two sections grade 8 and 11 which are merged
respectively, the respondents are divided randomly into two; the control
group and experimental group.
Pretest was administered to both experimental and control group first to
assess students' prior knowledge of the topic and also to test the initial
equivalence between groups. A posttest will be administered to measure
treatment effects. This test is designed to assess the content that will be
learned after and to have the students apply the learned material. The pretest
and posttest is identical to measure the concept development of the groups.
Subjects
The population of this study were 58 students in Alegria National High
School, 38 of these are grade 8 students and the remaining 20 are grade 11
students of the said school. The groups are randomly divided into two
groups, namely lecture method for control group and experimental simulation
for experimental group.
12
Treatment
Each group discussed all about ‘Atom’ which is the main topic. Lecture
Method was applied to control group while experimental simulation on
experimental group.
Instruments
The instruments used in this study are developed by the authors. The
pretest and posttest is identical. This is made to measure student
understanding of the subject matter. The researchers used survey questioner
checklist which regards to their self-efficacy.
RESEARCH RESPONDENTS
The respondents of our study were students in Alegria National High
School, Surigao City.
13
Chapter 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Instructional effectiveness is the main concern of teachers now and
before. Number of improvised material was made just to solve the common
problem on a teaching learning environment, some are effective, and some
are relatively ineffective. One of the trending intervention now a day is the
use of technology. Although technology supports meaningful learning but in
some cases and factors this may not be ineffective. Experimental simulation is
utilized for this study; this is a way of having experiment virtually projected
on the screen of LED T.V. otherwise through projector. By using this as a
treatment for instructional effectiveness is purpose of this discussion/study.
Research Question 1 & 2
1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the students?
2. What is the level of self-efficacy of the students in learning
experimental simulation?
14
Table 1. Mean and percentage of every rated score on self-efficacy
INDICATORS Mean Verbal

Equival
ent
1. I can understand well when my teacher do chalk Neutral
3.1034
and talk during discussion.
2. I do learn well when I’m listening and not doing Neutral
3.0000
things.
3. I can formulate big ideas by listening to my Neutral
3.4138
teacher than doing experimentation.
4. I prefer to listen to teacher discussion than Disagree
2.8966
doing experimentation.
5. I learn better through memorizing information Disagree
2.6207
than doing experimentation.
6. Lecture from the teacher is enough for me to Disagree
2.3793
understand deeply the topic
7. I learn better on experimental simulation than Disagree
3.2069
pure lecture.
8. I learn more if I see than I hear. 4.2069 Agree
9. I am comfortable and interested to do new Agree
experimental simulation activities lead by the 4.2759
teacher
10. I am motivated to learn whenever my teacher Agree
4.0345
used experimental simulation
11. I actively participate on the class whenever my Agree
4.2759
teacher do experimental simulation.
12. I learn better in every new task/activities Agree
whenever the teacher guide me and my 4.1034
classmates help me.
13. I am excited to our discussion if there’s an Agree
4.1379
audio-visual presentation.
14. I can able to construct big ideas doing Agree
experimental simulation rather than listening 3.8621
from my teachers’ lecture.
15. I can able to answer the questions whenever Agree
4.2414
I’m involve in doing experimental simulation.
Out of 15 survey questions on self-efficacy conducted on 19

15
respondents specifically on the experimental group, the highest mean with a
rating of 84.81 % of the students agree that they can able to answer the
questions whenever they are being involve in doing experimental simulation.
On the other hand, the lowest mean with a rating of 47.59 % of the students
disagree that Lecture from the teacher is enough for them to understand
deeply the topic.
Research Question 3
3. What is the academic performance of students who are taught using
the traditional method of instruction and using the experimental
simulation?
Table 3. Pretest and Posttest Mean Score of Experimental and Controlled
Group
Group Statistics
METHOD N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

EXPERIMENTAL
29 9.4483 2.27700 .42283
PRETEST SIMULATION
LECTURE METHOD 29 7.4138 2.61202 .48504

EXPERIMENTAL
29 14.5172 2.51596 .46720
POSTTEST SIMULATION
LECTURE METHOD 29 10.0000 2.54951 .47343
There were 58 students compose of two sections; 38 from grade 8 and
20 from grade 11, took the pretest and posttest. In Table 3 Pretest results
shows that the control group composed of 29 respondents has an average of

16
7.41 points with the standard deviation of 2.61 from the 20 items questions,
while comparatively the Experimental group with the same number of
respondents got 9.45 average points with a standard deviation of 2.27.
Research Question 4
Is there no significant difference in the academic performance of the
students when using the traditional teaching method (lecture method, chalk
and talk) and the use of experimental simulation?
Table 4.1. Pretest-Posttest Paired T-test of Controlled Group
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)
Mean Std. Std. 95% Confidence

Deviatio Error Interval of the
n Mean Difference
Lower Upper
PRETEST
Pair 1 - -2.58621 2.21226 .41081 -3.42771 -1.74471 -6.295 28 .000
POSTEST
A paired t-test is done on the pretest and posttest score 29
respondents of controlled group which use lecture method as their method of
instruction. Table 4.1 Shows significant value of .000, this is lesser than alpha
which do means that the null hypotheses is rejected, and therefore there is
significant difference in the academic performance of the students when using
the traditional teaching method.
17
Table 4.2 Pretest-Posttest Paired T-test of Experimental
Group
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Deviation Mean of the Difference
Lower Upper
PRETEST -
Pair 1 -5.06897 3.25062 .60362 -6.30543 -3.83250 -8.398 28 .000
POSTEST
A paired t-test is also done on the pretest and posttest score 29
respondents of Experimental group which use Experimental Simulation as
their method of instruction. Table 4.2 Shows significant value of .000, this is
lesser than alpha which do means that the null hypotheses is rejected, and
therefore there is significant difference in the academic performance of the
students when using the Experimental Simulation.
Research Question 5
Is there no significant difference in the academic performance of the students
before and after the topic was delivered using the two methods of
instruction?
18
Table 5.1 Mean Posttest Scores of the Two Method of Instruction
Group Statistics
METHOD N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
EXPERIMENTAL
29 14.5172 2.51596 .46720
POSTTEST SIMULATION
LECTURE METHOD 29 10.0000 2.54951 .47343
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. 95% Confidence

tailed) Differenc Error Interval of the
e Differenc Difference
e Lower Upper
Equal
variances .049 .825 6.791 56 .000 4.51724 .66514 3.18480 5.84968
assumed
POSTTEST Equal
variances
6.791 55.990 .000 4.51724 .66514 3.18479 5.84969
not
assumed
Table 5.2 Independent T-Test of the posttest scores of Experimental
and controlled group
However, after the treatment was conducted to the experimental
group, the posttest result shown in table 5 .1 and 5.2 shows difference on
students learning performance. The posttest average points of the
19
experimental group reach 14.52 points, 5.07 greater than their pretest
average which score is 9.45 with 0.47 standard deviation and 0.00 significant
value. The significant value is lesser than alpha, therefore the null hypothesis
is rejected, this means that there is significant difference between the pretest
scores and posttest score which moreover proves that there is a significant
improvement of the learning of the students.
Research Question 6
Is self-efficacy not significantly related to the academic performance of the
students?
Table 6. Correlational Analysis in the Posttest of experimental group to the
Question number 9 of Self-Efficacy Questioner Rating.
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
POSTTEST 12.2586 3.39018 58

Q9 4.2759 .92182 29
Correlations
POSTTEST Q9
Pearson Correlation 1 .029
Sig. (2-tailed) .883
Sum of Squares and Cross-

POSTTEST 655.121 1.862
products
Covariance 11.493 .067
N 58 29
Q9 Pearson Correlation .029 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .883
20
Sum of Squares and Cross-

1.862 23.793
products
Covariance .067 .850
N 29 29
To test that self-efficacy (M=4.2759, SD=.92182), received is
statistically significantly related to the academic performance
(M=12.2586,SD=3.39018) a correlational statistics was performed. As can be
seen in Table 6, with 95% confidence interval p value is (p=.883), in which
the p value is greater than 0.05, thus self-efficacy is statistically significantly
not related to the academic performance.
Research Question 7
Is the teaching preference (whether traditional teaching or
experimental simulation method) not significantly associated to the
academic performance of the students?
21
Table 7.Chi-Square Analysis between the Method of
Instruction and Posttest Scores of the Students
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 32.978a 14 .003

Likelihood Ratio 45.354 14 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 25.744 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 58
a. 30 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is .50.
To test that the teaching preference is statistically significantly
associated with the academic performance of the students a Chi-square
statistics was performed. As can be seen in Table 7, with 95% confidence
interval p value is (p=.003), in which the p value is lesser than 0.05, thus the
method of teaching is statistically significantly associated to the academic
performance of the students in other words the experimental group
introduced by Phet simulation tend to have greater scores than the lecture
group.
22
Research Question 8
For those who had undergone experimental simulation way of
teaching (new method), would they still prefer to be taught using the
new method or the traditional method of teaching?
From table 1 students relatively agree based on their rating from
question 8 to 15. From this it can be infer that for those who had
undergone experimental simulation way of teaching, they prefer to be
taught using experimental simulation.
23
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
From Table 1 Self Efficacy questionnaire there were 84.81 % of the
students agree that they can able to answer the questions whenever they are
being involve in doing experimental simulation and 47.59 % of the students
disagree that Lecture from the teacher is enough for them to understand
deeply the topic.
From table 3 control group composed of 29 respondents has an
average of 7.41 while comparatively the Experimental group with the same
number of respondents got 9.45 average points.
From Table 4.1, there is significant difference in the academic
performance of the students when using the traditional teaching method.
From Table 4.2 there is significant difference in the academic
performance of the students when using the Experimental Simulation.
From Table 5.1 and 5.2 there is significant difference in the academic
performance of the students before and after the topic was delivered using
the two methods of instruction.
24
From Table 6, self-efficacy is not significantly related to the academic
performance of the students.
From table 7, teaching preference is significantly associated to the
academic performance of the students.
For those who had undergone experimental simulation way of
teaching they still prefer to be taught using the experimental Simulation.
Recommendations
Based on the result of the study the researchers were able to come up
with these recommendations to the following bodies of organizations:
Department of Education.
To strengthen and improve teaching learning efficiency. This study
may would be a way to endorse experimental simulation to public and private
schools.
Future Researchers.
To be guided on the conduct of further study related to experimental
simulation.
31
25
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, & Winston.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.

New York: Longmans Green.
Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.
Cope, P., & Simmons, M. (1994). Some effects of limited feedback on performance and
problem-solving strategy in a Logo microworld. Journal of Educational Psychology,
86(3), 368-379.
Dewey, J. (1938). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Faryniarz, J. V., & Lockwood, L. G. (1992). Effectiveness of microcomputer simulations

in stimulating environmental problem solving by community college
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 453-470.
Garcia, J. R. (1995). Use of technology in developing problem-solving/critical thinking

skills. Journal of Industrial Technology, 11(1), 14-17.
Gokhale, A. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer simulation versus lab, and sequencing of

instruction, in teaching logic circuits. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 29(1),
1-12.
Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation

games. Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 113-132.
Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science
education reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 43-50.
Mayes, R. L. (1992). The effects of using software tools on mathematical problem solving
in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 92(5), 243-248.
Menn, D. (1993, October). Multimedia in education. PC World, M52-M60.
National Education Association Research Division Publication. (1994). Multimedia: Its

promises and challenges for public education.
Pogrow, S. (1994). Students who just don't understand. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 62-
66.
Quinn, C. N. (1993). Cognitive skills and computers: "Framing" the link. Proceedings of

the Fifth International Conference on Thinking, Townsville, Australia. 26
Rivers, R. H., & Vockell, E. (1987). Computer simulations to stimulate scientific problem
solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(5), 403-415.
Smith, E. (1995). Where is the mind? Knowing and knowledge in Cobb's constructivist
and sociocultural perspectives. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 13-22.
Tanner, L. N. (1991). The meaning of curriculum in Dewey's laboratory school (1896-

1904). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(2), 101-117.
Thomas, R. A., & Hooper, E. (1989). Simulations: An opportunity we are missing. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Computing in
Education, San Francisco, CA.
Veenman, M. V., Elshout, J., & Busato, V. (1994). Metacognitive mediation in learning
with computer-based simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(1), 93-106.
Woolf, B., & Hall, W. (1995). Multimedia pedagogues: Interactive systems for teaching
and learning. IEEE Multimedia, 74-80.
Reference Citation: Gokhale, A. A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for

enhancing higher order thinking. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(4), 36-
46.
27

Efficacy of Phet Simulation 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficacy of Phet Simulation 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

CARAGA STATE UNIVERSITY

EFFICACY OF PHET SIMULATION IN PHYSICAL

The Faculty of Caraga State University

KEITH JAMES L. LEGADOS

The purpose of this quasi-experimental research study is to examine the

efficacy of experimental simulation in improving students learning of Alegria National

method is effective class intervention based on the significant differences of the

whether which is a better, result favors Experimental simulation and statistically is

do favor experimental simulation than Traditional/Lecture method. Conclusions,

supplemented by higher self-efficacy perception, indicating the value of Experimental

simulation in improving knowledge and self-efficacy of Alegria National High School

to improve better learning.

The researchers would like to extend their gratitude to the following

persons who helped in the making of this study;

To Karen M. Burdeos, who effortly guided the researchers on what to

do the whole process of study;

To Marry Ann E. Gubaton, allowing us to conduct study at Alegria

National High School;

To our family for their unending support and love;

obstacles in conducting this study.

Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature and Studies…………..….9

Chapter 4 Results and Analysis ……………….…………………….... 14

Summary and Conclusion ……………………………………………………… 24

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Education encounter, in modern times, challenges in all aspects of

population, over-knowledge, education philosophy development & the change

main problems, which education & its productivity encounter, by increasing

the learning level which may be achieved through providing equivalent

account the individual differences between learners (Wilkinson, 1986, p. 13 &

Abd El-Halim Said, 1997, p. 19). To improve the educational productivity,

some of the teaching staff sought to mainstream technology within education,

developing traditional techniques & using new educational methods (Al-A’ny,

Educational researchers have found that with direct instruction

students do not engage in their school work as a scientist would (Piaget,

1970). They do not investigate, explore, ask questions, make connections or

underprepared so not able to do the work. In response to direct instruction

students with a selection of equipment (batteries, light bulbs, magnet, a

as this student are quickly overwhelmed, were confused without directions

what is important or what they have learned (Mayer, 2004)

With traditional way of class instruction, meaningful learning still is

attainable by doing actual experimentation especially in science subjects.

However, if the laboratory apparatus and equipment are unavailable, it is

partially a burden for science teachers to perform such experimentation. To

quality education, the use of the trending gadgets nowadays could

significantly increase the effectiveness of teaching. For instance, in a study

Bialo(2000) reported positive and consistent patterns when students were

engaged in technology-richenvironments. According to

Keegwe(2007),Technology is a catalyst for change in classroom processes

because it provides a distinct departure, a change in context that suggests

alternative ways of operating. It can drive a

shift from a traditional instructional approach toward a more eclectic set of

learning activities that include knowledge-building situations for students .

sophisticated teaching-learning process especially those schools in remote

areas where electrical connection is a problem, thereby leading to lack of

With inadequate supply of electricity in remote school areas such as

learning in science subjects can still be attained through utilization of what

are available materials with consideration on the electrical capacity.

Some stakeholders provide sustainable energy source through solar

panel, however the capacity of this is inadequate to support technological

technology with minimal energy cost. Computer simulation now is trending

source of independent learning, however it is ideally applicable if the number

of computers can accommodate the number of students. But, if the teacher