<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yi-Kuan Tseng</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fan-Sheng Lin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wernhuar Tarng</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yu-Ling Lu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tzu-Ling Wang</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">COMPARING THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL, VIRTUAL, AND HYBRID LABS ON PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL LEARNING OF HEAT AND TEMPERATURE</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">experimental design</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">heat and temperature</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">physical manipulative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">virtual manipulative</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">February/2023</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2023/987-1676961317.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Physical and virtual labs have unique capabilities that can influence how students learn from them. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ learning of heat and temperature and to examine the influence of various combinations of physical and virtual manipulatives. A total of 205 participants were divided into four groups: only physical manipulatives, only virtual manipulatives, physical-virtual manipulatives, and virtual-physical manipulatives. Students’ knowledge acquisition was tested using Pre-test–Post-test design. The results showed that physical and virtual manipulatives are as effective in facilitating students’ learning of state changes, but virtual manipulatives are more beneficial to students’ learning of thermal expansion and contraction than physical manipulatives are. Physical-virtual manipulatives are more effective than virtual-physical manipulatives or physical manipulatives alone are to promote students’ learning of heat and temperature, but this effect is similar to that of virtual manipulatives alone. The results suggest that virtual laboratories can effectively model abstract concepts. The better effect of the physical-virtual operation sequence on learning does not depend on whether the two types of experiments are combined or on the sequence of operations but on the type of experiment when its advantages actually contribute to learning.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">153-166</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Show-Run Lee</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yu-Ling Lu</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chi-Jui Lien</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STUDENTS’AND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS: TRANSITION FROM DAILY TO SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">model representations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">scientific model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">students’ view</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teachers’ view</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2019</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2019/987-1576226134.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The use of scientific models has been regarded as an important skill for scientific enquiry. However, although many national curricula and major international science education reform movements have stressed the use of scientific models in science teaching and learning, students and teachers generally do not know how to perceive models properly. This research explores these perceptions about scientific models using the Perception of Models in Science (PMS), a self-developed instrument designed to collect participants’ model perceptions, among 218 grade 4, 6 and 8 students, as including 57 of the science teachers in their respective schools, and treated these statistically with analysis of variance, post hoc analysis and cluster analysis. Results showed that the groups of students and teachers agreed that the most acceptable model representation is reality but remained uncertain on whether a model can be presented through nonreality representations (i.e., diagram, graph, symbol, writing and speech). Participants did not significantly differ in perception intensity of seeing each model representation and held three kinds of model perceptions: daily language, transitional and scientific language. This research thus proposes action plans in managing this transitional perspective in learning the concepts of scientific models.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">892-906</style></section></record></records></xml>