本研究旨在探討鷹架探究的虛擬及實體實驗對概念理解、科學過程技能、探究自我效能、和享受度的有效性。PL(實體實驗)是加入科技的實體實驗，使用相機碼表和智慧工具應用軟體；而VL(虛擬實驗)使用PhET來模擬鐘擺。在這個準實驗設計中，共68名印尼國中學生被隨機分配到PL與VL情境。參與者進行了由鷹架探究學習單引導的鐘擺實驗，以及概念測驗的前後測及探究自我效能問卷。享受度藉由前後測問卷和實驗後訪談的混和方法測量。結果顯示，基於認知鷹架的VL在簡單概念上與PL同樣有效，但對於困難的測驗和探究自我效能VL更為有效。即便如此，PL組在關鍵科學過程技能上表現更好，即計畫、執行實驗、和對實驗作出改進。此外，PL和VL對於享受度都有顯著的提升。結論是PL和VL在不同的教學目標上顯得有效。

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of scaffolded inquiry-based physical (PL) and virtual laboratories (VL) on conceptual understanding, science process skills, inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment. The PL was a technology-enhanced laboratory utilizing the Camera Stopwatch and Smart Tools applications on smartphones, while the VL used PhET to simulate pendulum. In this quasi-experimental design, a total of 68 students of an Indonesian secondary school were randomly assigned to the PL and VL settings. The participants conducted the pendulum experiment guided by the scaffolded inquiry worksheet along with pre- and post-conceptual tests and inquiry self-efficacy questionnaires. Blending method was administered to enjoyment by using pre- and post enjoyment questionnaires and post-laboratory interviews. The result revealed that the scaffolded inquiry-based VL was as effective as the PL on simple concepts, but was more effective for improving difficult tests and inquiry self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the PL group performed better on crucial science process skills, that is, planning, experimenting, and further improvement of the experiment. Moreover, both the PL and VL significantly promoted enjoyment. It was concluded that the PL and VL were alternately successful for certain learning objectives.

Alsharif, N. Z., Roche, V. F., & Qi, Y. (2016). Students’ Perception of Self-Efficacy Following Medicinal Chemistry Skills Laboratory Exercises. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(5), 1-12.
Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in the science teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.
Azar, A., & Şengüleç, Ö.A. (2011). Computer-assisted and laboratory-assisted teaching methods in physics teaching: the effect on student physics achievement and attitude towards physics. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6(3), 43-50.
Bajpai, M. (2013). Developing concepts in physics through virtual lab experiment: An effectiveness study. Techno LEARN, 3(1), 43-50.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41.
Bergey, B. W., Ketelhut, D. J., Liang, S., Natarajan, U., & Karakus, M. (2015). Scientific inquiry self-efficacy and computer game self-efficacy as predictors and outcomes of middle school boys’ and girls’ performance in a science assessment in a virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 696-708.
Blunsdon, B., Reed, K., McNeil, N., & McEachern, S. (2003). Experiential learning in social science theory: An investigation of the relationship between student enjoyment and learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 43-56.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the Zone of Proximal Development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3, 1-18.
Britner, S. L. & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485-499.
Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bybee, R.W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. Science &Technology Education Library, 25, 1-14.
Chang, K.-E., Chen, Y.-L., Lin, H.-Y., & Sung, Y.-T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51, 1486-1498.
Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1123-1130.
Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation-based and microcomputer-based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935.
Chen, S., Huang, C. C., & Chou, T. L. (2016). The effect of metacognitive scaffolds on low achievers’ laboratory learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 281-296.
Chen, S., Lo, H. C., Lin, J. W., Liang, J. C., Chang, H. Y., Hwang, F. K., ... & Wang, C. Y. (2012). Development and implications of technology in reform-based physics laboratories. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020113.
Cheng, X., Wang, Y., & Sankar, C. S. (2016). Using Serious Games in Data Communications and Networking Management Course. Journal of Computer Information Systems. DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2016.1183465.
Chien, K. P., Tsai, C.-Y., Chen, H.-L., Chang, W.-H., & Chen, S. (2015). Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories. Computer & Education, 82, 191-201.
Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010113. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113.
Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). Students’ progression in monitoring anomalous results obtained in inquiry-based laboratory tasks. Research in Science Education. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9641-3.
Dumbrajs, S., Helin, P., Kärkkäinen, H., & Keinonen, T. (2011). Towards meaningful learning through inquiry. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 3(1), 39-50.
Engeskirchen, S., Tipold, A., Ehlers, J., & Dilly, M. (2017, April). Influence of skills laboratory training on students’ perceived self-efficacy. Poster session presented at the 5th International Veterinary Simulation in Teaching Conference, Pretoria, South Africa.
Flick, L. B. (2003). Teaching science as inquiry by scaffolding student thinking. Science Scope, 26(8), 34-38.
Gormally, C. (2017). Deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing signing undergraduates’ attitudes toward science in inquiry-based biology laboratory classes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(6) 1-13.
Halpern, D. F. (2007). The nature and nurture of critical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. I. Roediger, & D. F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical thinking in psychology (pp. 1−14). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harrell, S. J. (2017). The influence of a theory based U.S. history curriculum on student content knowledge, student historical interpretation skills, and student self efficacy for historical inquiry (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://publish.wm.edu/etd/1499449873/.
Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and cooperative learning in human learning and instruction (23-69). New York: City College, University of New York.
Hitt, A. M., & Smith, D. (2017). Filling in the gaps: An explicit protocol for scaffolding inquiry lessons. Science Educator, 25, 133- 141.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hsu, Y. S., Lai, T. L., & Hsu, W. H. (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241-273.
Ibrahim, A., Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2016). Development, validation, and factorial comparison of the McGill Self-Efficacy of Learners For Inquiry Engagement (McSELFIE) survey in natural science disciplines. International Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2450-2476.
Joern, W. T. (2009). Investigating the relationships between seventh and eighth grade science teachers' background, self-efficacy toward teaching science as inquiry, and attitudes and beliefs on classroom control (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/595/.
Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K.J. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 13, 50-64.
Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An explanatory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology. 16(1), 99-111.
Ketelhut, D. J. (2011). Assessing Gaming, Computer and Scientific Inquiry Self-Efficacy in a Virtual Environment. In: Annetta, L., Bronack, S. C. (eds) Serious Educational Game Assessment. Sense Publisher.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of counseling psychology, 31(3), 356-362.
Liang, Y., Lau, P.W., Huang, W.Y., Maddison, R., Baranowski, T. (2014). Validity and reliability of questionnaires measuring physical activity self-efficacy, enjoyment, social support among Hong Kong Chinese children. Prev Med Rep, 1, 48–52.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (second edition). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Mills, S. 2016. Conceptual understanding: A concept analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 546-557.
Moore, E. B., Mäeots, M., Smyrnaiou, Z. (2016). Scaffolding for inquiry learning in computer-based learning environments. In: Riopel, M., & Smyrnaiou, Z. (eds.) New Developments in Science and Technology Education. Innovations in Science Education and Technology, vol 23. Springer, Cham.
Motl, R.W., Dishman, R.K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G., & Pate, R.R. (2001). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 21(2), 110-117.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
OECD. (2016). Indonesia – Country note – Result from PISA 2015. (Database). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933431961.
Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2007). Undergraduates’ NOS conceptions and the role of historical narratives: A very tangled web. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Group, Calgary, Canada, 24-27 June.
Padilla, M. J. (1990, March). The science process skills. Research Matters – to The Science Teacher, No. 9004.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pisani, E. (2014, February 8). RI terendah di PISA, WNA: Indonesian kids don’t know how stupid they are. DetikNews. Retrieved from https://news.detik.com/berita/2491125/ri-terendah-di-pisa-wna-indonesian-kids-dont-know-how-stupid-they-are/1
Purwandari, R. D. (2015). Physics laboratory investigation of vocational high school field stone and concrete construction techniques in the Central Java province (Indonesia). Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 85-92.
Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 133-147. Doi:10.1007/s10956-011- 9291-6.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Weyer, B. & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94.
Reiser, B. J. (2004) Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304.
Renken, M. D., & Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23, 10-23.
Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 55-61.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20
Simon, N. (2014). Simulated and virtual science laboratory experiments: improving critical thinking and higher-order learning skills. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 453-459). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Shakroum, M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2018). The influence of Gesture-Based Learning System (GBLS) on learning outcomes. Computer & Education, 117, 75-101.
Tsai, C. C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1733-1750.
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173.
Trouche L., Borwein, J. M., Monaghan, J. (2016). Discussion of Part I Chapters. In: Tools and Mathematics. Mathematics Education Library, vol 110. Springer, Cham.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wardani, T. B., Widodo, A., & Winarno, N. (2017). Using inquiry-based laboratory activities in lights and optics topic to improve students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1-6.
Winkelmann, et al. (2015). Improving students’ inquiry skills and self-efficacy through research-inspired modules in the general chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 92¸ 247-255.
Wolf, S. J & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321-341.
Yang, K. Y., & Heh, J.S. (2007). The impact of internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills, and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (5), 451-461.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 425-430.
Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101-158.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.