You are here:

Explore Effective Use of Computer Simulations for Physics Education Article

, Department of Learning and Instruction, State University of New York at Buffalo, United States ; , Department of Physics, Beijing Normal University, China ; , Teachers College, National Chiayi University, Taiwan

JCMST Volume 27, Number 4, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


The dual purpose of this article is to provide a synthesis of the findings related to the use of computer simulations in physics education and to present implications for teachers and researchers in science education. We try to establish a conceptual framework for the utilization of computer simulations as a tool for learning and instruction in physics education and explore effective approaches to integrate computer simulations into physics education. To achieve these goals, we first review studies pertaining to computer simulations in physics education categorized by three different learning frameworks and studies comparing the effects of different simulation environments. Our intent is to present the learning context and factors for successful use of computer simulations in past studies and to learn from the studies which did not obtain a significant result. Based on our analysis of the reviewed literature, we also propose effective approaches to integrate computer simulations in physics education, together with the discussion of implications for future research in the field.


Lee, Y.F., Guo, Y. & Ho, H.j. (2008). Explore Effective Use of Computer Simulations for Physics Education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(4), 443-466. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 21, 2018 from .



  1. Akpan, J. P. (2001). Issues associated with inserting computer simulations into biology instruction: a review of the literature. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(3). Retrieved november 10, 2006, from
  2. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999) Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61100.
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: national academy Press.
  4. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1981). Naïve beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition, 9, 117-123.
  5. Casperson, J., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Using visualizations to teach electrostatics. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 316-323.
  6. ChanLin, L. (2000) attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 228-238.
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
  8. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-51.
  9. Choi, B., & Gennaro, E. (1987). The effectiveness of using computer simulated experiments on junior high students’ understanding of the volume displacement concept. Journal of Research in Science Education, 24, 539-552.
  10. Chou, C. (1998). The effectiveness of using multimedia computer simulations coupled with social constructivist pedagogy in a college introductory physics classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia university, new York.
  11. Christian, W., & Belloni, M. (2004). Physlet Physics. Upper saddle River, nj: Pearson education.
  12. Cohen, H. D., Hillman, D. F., & Agne, R. M. (1978). Cognitive level and college physics achievement. American Journal of Physics, 46, 1026-1029.
  13. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000) scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in Kie. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
  14. Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realizing authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.317-333). Dordrecht, the netherlands: Kluwer academic.
  15. Eylon, B., Ronen, M., & Ganiel, U. (1996). Computer simulations as tools for teaching and learning: using a simulation environment in optics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(2), 93-110.
  16. Glaser, R. (1991). The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and Instruction, 1(2), 129-144.
  17. Goldberg, F., & Bendall, S. (1995). Making the invisible visible: a teaching/learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner. American Journal of Physics, 63, 978-991.
  18. Green, S. K., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). A Review and analysis of constructivism for school-based practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 53-70.
  19. Griffith, W. T. (1985). Factors affecting performance in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 53, 839-842.
  20. Harskamp, E., & Ding, N. (2006). Structured collaboration versus individual learning in solving physics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1669-1688.
  21. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217.
  22. Idar, J. & Ganiel, U. (1985). Learning difficulties in high school physics: Development of a remedial teaching method and assessment of its impact on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 279-285.
  23. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-380.
  24. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Babel (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.94-128). New York: Macmillan.
  25. Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64(12), 1495-1503.
  26. Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.265-294). Dordrecht, the netherlands: Kluwer academic.
  27. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2000). Knowledge integration and displaced volume. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(4), 287-310.
  28. Lumpe, A. T., & Staver, J. R. (1995). Peer collaboration and concept development: Learning about photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 71-98.
  29. Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). Dordrecht, the netherlands: Kluwer academic.
  30. Lunetta, V. N., & Hofstein, A. (1981). Simulations in science education. Science Education, 65(3), 243-253.
  31. Lunetta, V. N., & Peters, H. J. (1985). Simulations in education: sharpening an old tool. Curriculum Review, 24(4), 30-32, 34.
  32. Marks, G. H. (1982). Computer simulations in science teaching: an introduction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 1, 18-20.
  33. McDermott, L. C. (1998). Students’ conceptions and problem solving in mechanics. In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, & J. Barojas (eds.), Connecting research
  34. McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: Per-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
  35. Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11(3), 183-200.
  36. Park, J., & Lee, L. (2004). Analyzing cognitive or non-cognitive factors involved in the
  37. Peña, C. M., & Alessi, S. (1999). Promoting a qualitative understanding of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18, 439457.
  38. Pol, H., & Suhre, C. (2005). Solving physics problems with the help of computer-assisted instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 451-469.
  39. Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819-831.
  40. Roth, W. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-students interactions: The case of interactive physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 329-347.
  41. Sierra-Fernandez, J. L., & Perales-Palacios, F. J. (2003). The effect of instruction with computer simulation as a research tool on open-ended problem-solving
  42. Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of Physics, 68(7), s37-s41.
  43. Tao, P., & Gunstone, R. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39-57.
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard university Press.
  45. Weller, H. G. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based learning in science. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 461-485.
  46. White, B. Y. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand newton’s laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 69-108.
  47. White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
  48. Yildiz, R., & Atkins, M. (1996). The cognitive impact of multimedia simulations on 14 year old students. British Journal of Education Technology, 27, 106115.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact