Skip to content
PaperFren

Engagement

Science simulations, engagement, and learning styles

Almasri F · Education and information technologies · 2022

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

Undergraduates reported high engagement and satisfaction with science simulations; engagement/satisfaction differed by subject and gender, and learning style predicted both.

Study at a glance

Design
Cross-sectional — Survey of engagement/satisfaction after semester-long science simulation teaching
N
N=1034 · 1,034 undergraduates (536 male, 498 female)
Population
Undergraduates taught with simulations across science subjects at a gulf-country university
Outcome
Engagement and satisfaction with simulation teaching by subject, gender, and learning style

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

Students generally reported high engagement and satisfaction. Levels differed by subject and gender; learning style significantly predicted engagement and satisfaction. Authors conclude simulations are a useful science pedagogy when learner differences are considered.

Methodology

In a gulf-country public university, researchers surveyed 1034 undergraduates taught with semester-long simulation activities across science subjects, measuring engagement, satisfaction, self-confidence, and learning-style preferences.

Limitations

Cross-sectional self-reports after one semester cannot prove simulations cause learning gains versus other methods, and all classes shared one teacher context.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsStudent Engagementconcept

    Science simulations can elicit high reported engagement and satisfaction, with differences by subject, gender, and learning style.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsEffect Sizemethod

    Near-zero and large are both in this set because the contrasts differ. FLEX’s programme-level exam effect is ~0 despite 51% less classroom time (only 24/133 courses significant). Peer feedback’s Partial η² = 0.35 is a single-group pre/post on essays. Science-simulation undergraduates (n = 1,034; 536 male, 498 female) reported high engagement and satisfaction with no control-group d at all. You cannot rank those as competing estimates of 'whether blended learning works'.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    SupportsEffect Size

    Near-zero and large are both in this set because the contrasts differ. FLEX’s programme-level exam effect is ~0 despite 51% less classroom time (only 24/133 courses significant). Peer feedback’s Partial η² = 0.35 is a single-group pre/post on essays. Science-simulation undergraduates (n = 1,034; 536 male, 498 female) reported high engagement and satisfaction with no control-group d at all. You cannot rank those as competing estimates of 'whether blended learning works'.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.