Coordinating multiple representations in a hybrid real–virtual laboratory: Students’ strategies in learning light reflection and refraction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2025.035Keywords:
Multiple representations, hybrid real–virtual laboratory, simulation-based learning, light reflection and refractionAbstract
This study investigates how middle school students coordinate multiple representations while learning about reflection and refraction of light in a hybrid laboratory environment that combines real and virtual settings. Conducted as a qualitative case study, the research involved a group of 48 students enrolled in a public school. The dataset comprised video and screen recordings from real and virtual experiment sessions, student worksheets, drawings, semi-structured interviews, and findings from a concept test administered prior to the implementation. The data were coded with respect to representation use, patterns of transitions and correspondences among representations, and levels of abstraction (concrete–intermediate–general). After establishing inter-coder reliability, the data were analyzed through descriptive and content analysis methods. The findings indicate that students transitioned between real experiments, simulations, schematic drawings, and mathematical expressions using specific strategies, such as verification, re-representation, and elaboration of explanations. However, these representations were not always fully integrated. Levels of abstraction were found to be predominantly concrete during the exploration phase, while shifting toward more general principles during the modeling and discussion phases. The results from this two-session implementation suggest that hybrid laboratories may not fully realize their pedagogical potential for supporting multiple representations unless representational transitions are intentionally structured and guided by the teacher.
Downloads
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia‐based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20005
Bakirci, H., Calik, M., & Cepni, S. (2017). The effect of the common knowledge construction model-oriented education on sixth grade students' views on the nature of science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 43-55.
Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Investigating dynamic visualizations of multiple representations using mobile video analysis in physics lessons. Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 26(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-020-00116-9
Bessas, N., Tzanaki, E., Vavougios, D., & Plagianakos, V. P. (2024). Locked up in the Science Laboratory: A smooth transition from class-room to escape-room. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101056
Bousquet, B., Hachet, M., Casamayou, V., Normand, E., Guillet, J.-P., & Canioni, L. (2024). Reconfigurable and versatile augmented reality optical setup for tangible experimentations. Discover Education, 3(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00192-w
Cheung, K. K. C., & Erduran, S. (2025). Designing an analytical framework to investigate students’ multimodal representations of scientific practices and methods. Research in Science Education, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-025-10248-y
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
Dodevska, M., Zdravevski, E., Chorbev, I., Kostoska, M., Branco, F., Coelho, P. J., Pires, I. M., & Lameski, P. (2025). Virtual reality as a learning tool: Evaluating the use and effectiveness of simulation laboratories in educational settings. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101742
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
Elmoazen, R., Saqr, M., Khalil, M., & Wasson, B. (2023). Learning analytics in virtual laboratories: a systematic literature review of empirical research. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00244-y
Flores-Camacho, F., & Gallegos-Cázares, L. (2025). Representational pluralism in science education. Science & Education, 34(4), 1933–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00559-3
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3
Giardino, V. (2017). Diagrammatic reasoning in mathematics. In L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti (Eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science. Springer handbooks (pp. 499–522). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_22
Hsu, C.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Lin, C.-H., & Wang, T.-I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
Irwanto, I., Lintangnicita, T., Cahyana, U., & Cha, J. (2025). Examining the effect of immersive virtual reality on 11th-grade students’ creative thinking disposition and academic achievement. Discover Education, 4(1), 438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00880-1
Jaakkola, T., & Veermans, K. (2018). Exploring the effects of concreteness fading across grades in elementary school science education. Instructional Science, 46(2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9428-y
Jaakkola, T., & Veermans, K. (2020). Learning electric circuit principles in a simulation environment with a single representation versus “concreteness fading” through multiple representations. Computers & Education, 148, 103811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103811
Jiang, H., Zhu, D., Chugh, R., Turnbull, D., & Jin, W. (2025). Virtual reality and augmented reality-supported K-12 STEM learning: trends, advantages and challenges. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 12827–12863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13210-z
Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2019). Using hands-on and virtual laboratories alone or together―which works better for acquiring knowledge and skills? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0
Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). Impact of secondary students’ content knowledge on their communication skills in science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9762-6
Kurtz, M., Benabbou, A., Pons, C., & Broisin, J. (2025). Collaboration in virtual and remote laboratories for education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09454-7
Lestari, D. P., Supahar, Paidi, Suwarjo, & Herianto. (2023). Effect of science virtual laboratory combination with demonstration methods on lower-secondary school students’ scientific literacy ability in a science course. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16153–16175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11857-8
Lore, C., Lee, H.-S., Pallant, A., & Chao, J. (2024). Using multiple, dynamically linked representations to develop representational competency and conceptual understanding of the earthquake cycle. Computers & Education, 222, 105149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105149
Lu, D., Li, H., Qiu, B., Liu, S., & Qi, S. (2024). Chemical simulation teaching system based on virtual reality and gesture interaction. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 6(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2023.09.001
Manyilizu, M. C. (2023). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory vs. paper-based experiences to the hands-on chemistry practical in Tanzanian secondary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 4831–4848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11327-7
Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2011). Solving algebra problems with interactive diagrams: Demonstration and construction of examples. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.12.002
Nielsen, W., Turney, A., Georgiou, H., & Jones, P. (2022). Meaning making with multiple representations: A case study of a preservice teacher creating a digital explanation. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 871–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10038-2
Paillusson, F., & Booth, M. (2025). Embracing representational plurality to bypass misconceptions in science education. Science & Education, 34(4), 1955–1969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00590-4
Rau, M. A. (2017). A Framework for educational technologies that support representational competencies. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2623303
Rau, M. A. (2020). Comparing multiple theories about learning with physical and virtual representations: conflicting or complementary effects? Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09517-1
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2017). Making connections among multiple graphical representations of fractions: Sense-making competencies enhance perceptual fluency, but not vice versa. Instructional Science, 45(3), 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9403-7
Rau, M. A., Zahn, M., Misback, E., Herder, T., & Burstyn, J. (2021). Adaptive support for representational competencies during technology-based problem solving in chemistry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1888733
Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: how to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4
Rexigel, E., Kuhn, J., Becker, S., & Malone, S. (2024). The more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of more than two external representations in stem education. Educational Psychology Review, 36(4), 124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09958-y
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
Sheffield, R. S., Koul, R. B., & Sims, C. (2024). Game-based science simulations to support learning and teaching: Science pre-service teachers’ perceptions. Innovation and Education, 6(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1163/25248502-bja00003
Skulmowski, A. (2022). Is there an optimum of realism in computer-generated instructional visualizations? Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10309–10326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11043-2
Stöger, B., & Nerdel, C. (2024). Using external representations to support mathematical modelling competence in biology education. In Shaping the future of biological education research (pp. 35–50). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44792-1_3
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 404–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.719956
Tóthová, M., & Rusek, M. (2025). Eye tracking in science education research: comprehensive Literature review. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-025-00644-1
Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37–53.
Ulger, B. B. & Çepni, S. (2020). Gifted education and STEM: A thematic review. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(3), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.38
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007
Volkwyn, T. S., Airey, J., Gregorcic, B., & Linder, C. (2020). Developing representational competence: linking real-world motion to physics concepts through graphs. Learning: Research and Practice, 6(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2020.1750670
Wang, C. H. (2025). Education in the metaverse: Developing virtual reality teaching materials for K–12 natural science. Education and Information Technologies, 30(7), 8637–8658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13156-2
Wang, X.-M., Yu, X.-H., Yu, D., Hwang, G.-J., & Lan, M. (2025). Does combining real and virtual experiments improve learning achievement in physics? Evidence from a meta-analysis (2001–2021). Educational Research Review, 46, 100661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100661
Wörner, S., Kuhn, J., & Scheiter, K. (2022). The best of two worlds: A systematic review on combining real and virtual experiments in science education. Review of Educational Research, 92(6), 911–952. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221079417
Yao, X. (2022). Representation transformations in transition from empirical to structural generalization. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66, 100964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100964
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Turkish Science Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This license enables reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. CC BY-NC-ND includes the following elements: Credit must be given to the creator; only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted; no derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted.
How to Cite
