Guided Digital Simulations in High School Physics: A Scoping Review of Conceptual Understanding, Transfer, and Retention

Authors

  • NORA MARGARITA CASTRO-MACIAS UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA DE BABAHOYO Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64747/6596qa36

Keywords:

digital simulations, physics, conceptual understanding, high school, inquiry, learning transfer

Abstract

Introduction: Interactive simulations make difficult-to-observe physical relationships visible and allow learners to manipulate variables with immediate feedback. Availability alone does not ensure conceptual change: outcomes depend on the question, guidance, representations, comparator, and assessment quality. Objective: To map evidence published through March 31, 2026, on guided digital simulations and their relationships with conceptual understanding, transfer, and retention in secondary physics education. Methods: A JBI-oriented scoping review was reported using PRISMA-ScR. Ten historical Crossref searches retrieved 600 records; 549 were unique and 102 passed a thematic filter. Forty reports were assessed and 20 sources were included. Design, population, domain, simulation, guidance, comparator, measurement, findings, and limitations were extracted. Results: Evidence was generally favorable for immediate conceptual understanding when simulations were integrated with prediction, exploration, explanation, guided inquiry, or problem-based learning. Reviews suggested that virtual experiments can match or outperform traditional practices for some outcomes and that real–virtual combinations are often beneficial; no universally superior sequence emerged. School studies clustered around electricity, mechanics, waves, and energy, with quasi-experimental designs, locally developed instruments, and short follow-up periods. Transfer, retention, accessibility, and fidelity were measured less often. Conclusions: Simulations should be understood as manipulable representations within a pedagogical architecture rather than self-sufficient interventions. The most defensible design connects prediction, productively constrained exploration, multi-representational explanation, comparison with physical phenomena, and transfer tasks. Current evidence does not support a universal causal effect or Ecuadorian outcomes.

References

Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2021). Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17, 023108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108

Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional versus traditional laboratories: A review of empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003

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

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (s. f.). Bachillerato General Unificado. https://educacion.gob.ec/curriculo-bgu/

Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463

Peters, M. D. J., et al. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Podolefsky, N. S., Perkins, K. K., & Adams, W. K. (2010). Factors promoting engaged exploration with computer simulations. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 6, 020117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020117

Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

Tricco, A. C., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

Uwambajimana, S., Minani, E., Mollel, A. D., & Nyirahabimana, P. (2023). The impact of using PhET simulation on conceptual understanding of electrostatics within selected secondary schools of Muhanga District, Rwanda. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher. https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/13595

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

Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30 — Updated on 2026-06-30

Versions

Issue

Section

Artículos científicos

How to Cite

Guided Digital Simulations in High School Physics: A Scoping Review of Conceptual Understanding, Transfer, and Retention. (2026). Sapiens Global, 2(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.64747/6596qa36