Ace
Short answer: yes, when they're used actively. Studies of science simulations, such as the University of Colorado's PhET project, find that students who explore a well-designed simulation often understand the underlying idea as well as or better than students taught with traditional methods or even real lab equipment. The benefit comes from predicting, adjusting and checking, not from watching. A simulation used like a video helps little.
What is an interactive simulation, in studying?
A small model of a system that you can change and watch respond: the voltage in a circuit, the angle of a projectile, the mass in a heat equation. Instead of reading that energy grows with temperature change, you push the temperature up and see the energy rise, in proportion, every time.
What does the research say about simulations?
They can match or beat real equipment for understanding concepts
In a well-known study, Finkelstein and colleagues (2005) had introductory physics students learn about electric circuits either with real bulbs, batteries and wires or with a PhET circuit simulation. The simulation group did better on conceptual questions about circuits, and was even quicker and better at building a real circuit afterwards. The researchers' explanation: the simulation made the invisible visible (the flow of current) and removed distractions that real equipment adds.
Reviews find consistent, but conditional, benefits
Rutten, van Joolingen and van der Veen (2012) reviewed a decade of studies on computer simulations in science education. Simulations generally improved learning, especially when added to traditional teaching, and especially for understanding relationships between variables. How they were used mattered as much as the simulation itself: support and structure made the difference.
Design matters
The PhET team (Wieman, Adams and Perkins, 2008) described what makes simulations effective: direct, immediate feedback when you change something; showing things you can't normally see; and inviting the student to ask "what if" questions. A simulation that shows everything at once, or that you click through passively, loses most of that.
Why do simulations help you learn?
- You make predictions. Deciding what will happen before you move the slider is a form of retrieval practice: you have to use what you know. Being wrong and seeing it is memorable.
- You see relationships, not just values. Doubling the mass doubles the energy; doubling the speed quadruples kinetic energy. Feeling that difference by moving a slider is harder to forget than a line in your notes.
- Feedback is instant. You don't wait for a marked worksheet to find out you misunderstood the formula.
When don't simulations help?
Discovery on its own is slow and patchy. Reviews of discovery learning with simulations (de Jong and van Joolingen, 1998) found that students struggle to form hypotheses, design informative experiments and interpret what they see, unless the activity gives them a goal and some guidance. Open-ended play can feel productive while teaching very little.
So the useful version has a target: "set the values so the result is exactly this", followed by a check. That turns the simulation from a toy into a question.
How to study with a simulation (and get something from it)
- Predict first. Before touching anything, write down what you expect to happen and why.
- Change one thing at a time. Hold the others still so you can see what each variable does.
- Set yourself a target. Pick a result and try to hit it. If you can reach it by reasoning in one or two moves, you understand the relationship.
- Explain the result in words. "The energy went up four times because..." If you can't finish the sentence, go back to your notes.
- Return to the equation. Check that your result matches the formula in your material. The simulation is there to make the formula make sense, not to replace it.
This is how Ace's simulation questions work. When your lecture material states a formula, as in physics, chemistry or economics, Ace can build a small simulation from it and ask you to set the values that reach a given result. You get a score for how close you got, then the exact setting, and the formula comes from your own material, shown with its source. Medicine and health topics never get simulations. Try it on your own notes in the Ace web app; for formulas you can't simulate, the spaced practice advice still applies.
Frequently asked questions
Are simulations better than real labs?
For understanding concepts, studies such as Finkelstein et al. (2005) found simulations can be as good or better. Real labs still teach things simulations can't, like handling equipment and dealing with messy measurements, so the best courses use both.
Which subjects benefit most from simulations?
Anything built on relationships between quantities: physics, chemistry, economics, engineering and parts of biology. Subjects that are mostly vocabulary or argument benefit less.
Are PhET simulations free?
Yes. PhET Interactive Simulations from the University of Colorado Boulder are free to use online and cover physics, chemistry, maths, earth science and biology.
Do simulations replace practice questions?
No. A simulation with a clear target is a kind of practice question. Mix it with recall questions on definitions and processes so you can both explain and apply the idea.
Sources
- Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 1, 010103.
- Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
- Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683.
- de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.
