Simulated Physics Class Management: Does It Predict Student’s Academic Achievement?

  • Muhammad Riaz Dowling College, Long Island New York
  • Sajida Naureen University of Balochistan, Quetta
  • Elsa-Sofia Morote Dowling College, Long Island New York


In this paper, we examined how simulated physics class management predicted the percentage of students who achieved a grade point average of B or better as reported by teachers in secondary school physics classes. We conducted this study with the eighty-two secondary school physics teachers who were members of the American Modeling Teachers Association (AMTA), and used physics educational technology (Ph. T) simulations in their physics classes from 2013 to 2014 in New York schools. We used the linear regression analysis to determine the relationship between simulated secondary school physics class management and student academic achievement of grade point average (GPA) of B or better.  Classroom management was significantly related to the percentage of students who achieved a grade point average of B or better, F(7.166) = 12.50, p < .001, indicating that class management accounts for 12.5 percent of the variance of the percentage of students who achieved a grade point average of B or better.  To improve their students’ academic achievement, teachers should focus on the use of simulations to manage secondary school physics classes.


Adams, W. K. (2010). Student engagement and learning with PhET interactive simulations. Multimedia in physics teaching and learning proceedings (pp. 1-12). Boulder: Maggio 2010; publicaton online.

Adegoke, B. D., & Chukwunenye, N. (2013). Improving students' learning outcomes in practical physics, which is better? computer simulated experiment or hands-on experiment? IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education ( IOSR-JRME), 2(6), 18-26.

AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education., Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aldrich, C. (2004, September 14). Simulations and the future of learning: An innovative and perhaps revolutionary approach to e-learning. An innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. Pfeiffer, San Francisco:, USA.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in College? Four critical years revisited. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bayrak, C. (2008). Effects of computer simulation programs on university students' achievement in physics. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 9(4), 48-53.

Brown, J. (2006). New learning environments for the 21st century: Exploring the edge change. The magazine of higher learning, 38(5), 18-24.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of student centered learning unit: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79-100.

Carpenter, S. I. (2009). Virtual worlds as educational experience: Living and learning in interesting times. Journal for Virtual World Research, 2(1), 1-21.

Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 38-44.

Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e‐learning: online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 657-663.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in scinece. Duit: Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Evertson, C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. Classroom Research.

Goldberg, F., & Nidderer, H. (1991). Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Kiel: Kiel: IPN-University of Kiel.

Gorrell, J., & Downing, H. (1989). Effects of computer-simulated behavior analysis on pre-service teachers' problem solving. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(3), 335-347.

Holmes, H. (2012). Serving high achieving students through honors tracks. Academic Advising Today, 35(4).

Huppert, J. L., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.

Kelly, J., Bradley, C., & Gratch, J. (2008). Science Simulations: Do they make a difference in student achievement and attitude in the Physics laboratory? Online Submission.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-266.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.

Kulik, T. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefits from instrctional technology. Arlington: National Science Foundation.

Mazur, A. (2014, September 24). Mazur Group. Retrieved from

Michael, K. Y. (2001). The effect of a computer simulation activity versus a hands-on activity on product creativity in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 31-43.

Miller, R., Michalski, W., & Stevens, B. (2012, October 16). 21st Century technologies: Promises and Perils of a dynamics future. Retrieved from

Ornek, F. (2008). What makes physics difficult? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 1, 30-34. Retrieved November 7, 2014, from

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Pascarella, T., & Terenzin, P. (2005). How college affects students, A Third decade of research San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Journal of Student Affairs in Africa, 2(2).

Perkins, K. K., Beale, P., Polluck, S. J., & Wieman, C. (2011). A thoughtful approach to instruction:Course transformation for the rest of US. A Journal of Science Teaching, 40, 70-76.

Redish, E. F. (1994). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62, 796-803.

Roberts, N., & Blakeslee, G. (1996). The dynamics of learning in a computer simulation environment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(1), 41-58.

Robertson, H. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communication technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 258-268.

Sahin, S. (2006). Computer simulations in science education: Implication for distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education(TOJDE), 7(4), 132-146.

Sethi, R. (2005). Using virtual laboratories and online instrction to enhance physics edcuation. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 2(3), 22-26.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171–187.

Stieff, M., & Wilenskey, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations in the chemistery class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.

Steinberg, R. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of physics, 68, 37-41.

Strang, H. R., Landrum, M. S., & Lynch, K. A. (1989). Talking with the computer: A simulation for training basic teaching skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(2), 143-153.

Tambade, P. (2013, June 10). Investigating effect of computer simulation in physics. Retrieved from EDITLIB:

Taylor, B. (2009). Classroom management impacts on student achievement: Tip to thrive. Jackson State University, Education. Retrieved from

Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. K. (2005). Trasnforming physics education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36-41.

Zacharia, Z. (2003). Belief, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry -based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792-823.