CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR

Volume 11, Number 2, 2008© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0024

Students’ Perceptions of Constructivist Internet LearningEnvironments by a Physics Virtual Laboratory: The Gap

between Ideal and Reality and Gender Differences

SHIH-CHYUEH CHUANG, M.A.,1 FU-KWUN HWANG, Ph.D.,2 and CHIN-CHUNG TSAI, Ed.D.1

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of Internet users of a physicsvirtual laboratory, Demolab, in Taiwan. Learners’ perceptions of Internet-based learning en-vironments were explored and the role of gender was examined by using preferred and ac-tual forms of a revised Constructivist Internet-based Learning Environment Survey (CILES).The students expressed a clear gap between ideal and reality, and they showed higher pref-erences for many features of constructivist Internet-based learning environments than for fea-tures they had actually learned in Demolab. The results further suggested that male usersprefer to be involved in the process of discussion and to show critical judgments. In addi-tion, male users indicated they enjoyed the process of negotiation and discussion with oth-ers and were able to engage in reflective thoughts while learning in Demolab. In light ofthese findings, male users seemed to demonstrate better adaptability to the constructivist In-ternet-based learning approach than female users did. Although this study indicated certaindifferences between males and females in their responses to Internet-based learning envi-ronments, they also shared numerous similarities. A well-established constructivist Internet-based learning environment may encourage more female learners to participate in the sciencecommunity.

150

INTRODUCTION

THE INTERNET HAS HELPED EDUCATORS develop avariety of learning environments for instruc-

tional practice.1 Some of the advantages of Internet-based learning environments may include rich mul-timedia presentation formats to help studentsbecome active learners, the capability to engage stu-dents in a cooperative manner, and the motivationalinfluence of authentic learning activities.2–3 More-over, the merits of Internet-based learning corre-spond to the assertions of the constructivists, high-

lighting the active role of students, the interactionbetween learners and their learning environments,and the importance of students’ collaboration.4 Re-searchers have stated that the Internet has altereddistance education from an objectivist approach toconstructivist environments.5 Hence, it may be con-cluded that the constructivist epistemology is suit-able to characterize the attributes of Internet-basedlearning environments.3,6 In educational research,scholars have found that students often showstronger preferences for open-ended, socially sup-ported, constructivist-oriented learning environ-

1Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.

2Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

ments when compared with their real-life learningexperiences.7–10 However, due to the limited re-search on how the constructivist approach can beconducted effectively using the Internet, it is essen-tial to investigate the potential gaps between learn-ers’ expectations of ideal constructivist Internet-based learning environments and those in realty.

In addition, gender difference is always a majorissue for technology usage and technology-en-hanced learning. It has been argued that females areless likely than males to take advantage of technol-ogy-related learning opportunities11 and that fe-male students in various levels of education tend toknow less about technology (such as computer orInternet), enjoy using the technology less than malesdo, and express less favorable attitudes towardtechnology.12–13 In sum, the findings in previousstudies show that gender is an important factor af-fecting students’ achievement and usage in tech-nology-enhanced learning environments.14 Hence,this study examined gender differences on the per-ceptions of Internet-based learning environmentsfor both ideal and reality.

The purpose of this study was to investigate theperceptions of Internet users involved in a physicsinstructional system of virtual laboratory in Taiwan.Their perceptions toward the Internet learning en-vironment for both ideal and reality were explored,and the role of gender was further examined.

METHODOLOGY

Target learning system

Demolab, the Internet-based learning system,chosen to be assessed in this study, was establishedby the Virtual Physics Laboratory (VPL) of the National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU). De-molab is offered in eight languages (www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/). The main function of Demolabis to assist teaching and learning in physics. It pro-vides abundant animation or videos for illustratingphysical concepts or simulation experiments. Ingeneral, Demolab can be viewed as a constructivist-based learning system. For example, Demolab hasset up several online discussion forums where stu-dents can exchange information.15 Demolab hasbeen recognized as an important online learning re-source center both locally and internationally. Thus,Demolab, based on the researchers’ perspectives, isviewed as constructivist-oriented because it in-cludes a variety of information, resources, and plat-forms to help students’ inquiry, knowledge con-struction, and social interactions.

Sample

The sample of this study consists of 109 highschool students who frequently used Demolab. Thesample was selected by high frequencies of their lo-gin times for participating in online forums of highschool physics. Once chosen, they were asked to com-plete a survey, assessing their preferences for the In-ternet-based learning environment and their percep-tions of Demolab. Because the sample students werefrequent Demolab users, they were confirmed tohave relevant Internet-based learning experiencesand basic physics background knowledge. The sam-ple included 56 males and 53 females. The status ofhigh school students was self-reported by the users.

Questionnaire assessing students’ perceptions towardconstructivist Internet-based learning environments

In order to investigate students’ preferences forInternet-based learning environments, a Construc-tivist Internet-based Learning Environment Survey(CILES) was developed in an earlier study.3 TheCILES was examined and revealed high validityand reliability, so it was selected for this study. TheCILES originally consisted of six scales, includingstudent negotiation, inquiry learning, reflectivethinking, relevance, ease of use, and challenge. Toacquire a fuller description of students’ perceptions,this study appended four additional scales by usingthe scales of CILES follow-up studies,16–17 includ-ing multiple sources, cognitive apprenticeship, crit-ical judgment, and epistemological awareness. As aresult, the revised CILES included 10 scales (fiveitems for each scale), presented with bipolar agree/disagree statements in a 5-point Likert scale.

The CILES was implemented in this study be-cause Demolab is considered a constructivist-basedlearning system. That is, many of the features ofDemolab are consistent with constructivist percep-tions. Compared with other Internet-based learningsystems, Demolab in general is regarded as an easy-to-use system because of its popularity. Demolab in-cludes physics-related simulations, allowing stu-dents to generate snapshot images of the simulationon a popup window. Teachers can use this featureto find out how students play with simulations onthe server, while students can input different vari-ables to see how the physics principles work. Thesimulations can help each user to engage in inquirylearning activities. Registered users can post newtopics or reply to messages; in this way, learners canobtain knowledge from multiple sources by com-municating with peers. The simulations and dis-cussion topics are usually situated in real-life au-thentic contexts; hence, the relevance between

PHYSICS VIRTUAL LABORATORY 151

physics knowledge and its realistic practice is veryclear in Demolab.

Two versions of the CILES, the preferred formand the actual form, were used to assess students’perceptions for ideal environment and those in re-ality respectively. Following is a sample of the dif-ference between the two forms:

• In the Internet-based physics learning envi-ronment, I prefer that I have the chance to talkto other students. (preferred form, student ne-gotiation scale)

• In the Demolab, I have the chance to talk toother students.

The wording of CILES items was changed to focuson physics learning (for preferred form) or Demolab(for actual form) respectively. Sample items for allscales are included in the appendix. The selected userswere first asked to indicate their preferences towardthe Internet-based learning environments (by pre-ferred CILES form), then later to evaluate Demolabby using the actual form. Both the preferred and ac-tual forms of the CILES contained 10 scales. The reli-ability (�) coefficients of the preferred form were from0.77 to 0.84, and those of the actual form were from0.82 to 0.91. These results indicated that CILES hadsatisfactory reliability in assessing students’ preferredand actual perceptions of constructivist Internet-based learning environments.

FINDINGS

Table 1 shows students’ average item scores andstandard deviations on the 10 scales of two forms

of the CILES. The t-tests in Table 1 also reveal thatstudents’ scores in the preferred form, in each scale,were significantly higher than those in the actualform. In order to find out whether there was a dif-ference between male students’ and female stu-dents’ preferred and actual perceptions of Internet-based learning environments, this study analyzedthe responses between two genders. A further ex-amination of mean differences among male usersbetween two forms is presented in Table 2, while anexamination of mean differences among femalesusers between two forms is shown in Table 3. Ex-cept in the ease-of-use scale for males, the differ-ences between actual form and preferred form stillexisted. They suggested that male users tended toignore the gap regarding the facilities of the Inter-net-based learning environments between ideal andreality, because male users might often have bettercomputational backgrounds, enabling them to re-solve technical problems. In general, the results pre-sented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 suggest that althoughDemolab is recognized as a superior Internet sys-tem for students and educators, the high schoolusers expressed stronger preferences for the fea-tures of constructivist-oriented learning than for thefeatures they had experienced in Demolab.

An examination of mean differences between twogenders of the preferred form is presented in Table4. The results indicate that, compared with femaleusers, male students had a higher preference for be-ing involved in the process of discussion. Male usersalso showed a preference for making critical judg-ments. An examination of mean differences be-tween the two genders of the actual form is pre-sented in Table 5. The results imply that male users,more than female users, enjoyed the process of ne-

CHUANG ET AL.152

TABLE 1. STUDENTS’ RESPONSES ON BOTH FORMS OF CILES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO FORMS

Preferred Actual

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t

Ease of use 21.23 2.56 19.83 3.52 3.80***Relevance 22.19 2.73 19.60 3.24 6.78***Multiple sources 21.95 2.73 19.16 3.35 7.37***Challenge 21.61 2.65 19.96 3.15 4.79***Student negotiation 20.25 3.17 18.80 3.02 4.67***Inquiry learning 22.28 2.56 19.93 3.23 6.80***Cognitive apprenticeship 21.81 2.50 19.38 3.22 7.28***Reflective thinking 22.28 2.52 19.11 3.37 8.59***Critical judgment 19.74 3.03 18.35 3.09 4.04***Epistemological awareness 21.98 2.57 18.89 3.82 7.84***

***p � 0.001.

gotiation and discussion with others when usingDemolab. They were more likely than females to engage in reflective thoughts.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Constructivist learning environments aim topromote students’ activeness, interactions with theenvironments, and collaboration with others. Thestudents expressed a clear gap between ideal andreality, and they showed higher preferences formany features of constructivist Internet-basedlearning environments than for features they hadactually experienced in Demolab. This finding wasconsistent with that revealed by the learning envi-ronment research in the context of traditional class-rooms: that students display higher preferences for

constructivist-oriented learning environments thanfor the learning environments they experience in re-ality.7–8 Educators should carefully explore the gapbetween ideal and reality, and try to design betterInternet-based learning environments to accommo-date students’ preferences.

This study also suggested that male students,whether in preference or in reality, were more likelythan females to talk with other students and to ap-preciate the opportunity to talk with other users.Male users also showed a preference for critical at-titude toward the Internet-based learning materials.On the contrary, female students tended to pay rel-atively less attention to the opportunities for peernegotiations. Some may have felt that the negotia-tion process taking place on the Internet was notnecessarily a significant discussion; that is to say, ameaningful discussion among peers or instructors

PHYSICS VIRTUAL LABORATORY 153

TABLE 2. MALE STUDENTS’ RESPONSES BETWEEN PREFERRED AND ACTUAL FORMS OF CILES

Preferred Actual

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t

Ease of use 20.80 2.56 20.05 3.66 1.44***Relevance 22.14 3.27 19.55 3.29 4.67***Multiple sources 22.13 2.88 19.25 3.59 5.56***Challenge 21.79 2.78 20.02 3.47 3.55***Student negotiation 21.09 2.79 19.41 2.80 4.00***Inquiry learning 21.98 2.88 20.02 3.35 3.83***Cognitive apprenticeship 21.70 2.82 19.38 3.21 4.74***Reflective thinking 21.93 2.76 19.73 2.82 5.32***Critical judgment 20.36 3.13 18.57 3.56 3.51***Epistemological awareness 22.13 2.65 18.93 3.94 5.93***

***p � 0.001.

TABLE 3. FEMALE STUDENTS’ RESPONSES BETWEEN PREFERRED AND ACTUAL FORMS OF CILES

Preferred Actual

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t

Ease of use 21.68 2.50 19.58 3.38 4.10***Relevance 22.25 2.03 19.64 3.22 4.90***Multiple sources 21.75 2.57 19.06 3.10 4.82***Challenge 21.42 2.51 19.91 2.81 3.18**Student negotiation 19.36 3.32 18.15 3.14 2.62***Inquiry learning 22.60 2.14 19.83 3.12 6.01***Cognitive apprenticeship 21.92 2.13 19.38 3.25 5.58***Reflective thinking 22.64 2.21 18.45 3.79 7.08***Critical judgment 19.09 2.82 18.11 2.52 2.13***Epistemological awareness 21.83 2.50 18.85 3.72 5.11***

*p � 0.05; **p � 0.01; ***p � 0.001.

did not have to happen on the Internet. The contentsof the negotiation process on the Internet indeed maybe varied with different levels of discussion. Despitethe fact that the results of the study suggested thatmales preferred and actually appreciated the oppor-tunities to talk with others, future studies may beneeded to find out whether or not negotiation on theInternet is valuable. Also, previous research has in-dicated students of different genders display quitedifferent interaction patterns in computer-supportedcollaborative learning.18–19 This study also revealedgender differences in this aspect (i.e., social interac-tion); thus, system designers should pay particular at-tentions to such gender differences and try to ac-commodate their needs or preferences.

When evaluating Demolab, male studentsseemed to be able to think about new ideas and how

they had learned (i.e., reflective thinking). In termsof these findings, male students seemed to demon-strate better adaptability to the constructivist Inter-net-based learning approach than female studentsdid. These findings were similar to those reportedby a previous study16 that male high school studentstended to show higher preferences for Internet-based learning environments where students hadmore opportunities for peer negotiation and criticalthinking.

Although this study indicated certain differencesbetween males and females in responses toward In-ternet-based learning environments, males and fe-males also shared a lot of similarities. Traditionally,science study seemed to favor males and be domi-nated by males.20–21 However, the outcome of thestudy has suggested that female learners may also

CHUANG ET AL.154

TABLE 4. GENDER DIFFERENCES TOWARD PREFERRED INTERNET-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Male (n � 56) Female (n � 53)

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t

Ease of use 20.80 2.56 21.68 2.50 �1.80Relevance 22.14 3.27 22.25 2.03 �0.20Multiple sources 22.13 2.88 21.75 2.57 0.71Challenge 21.79 2.78 21.42 2.51 0.73Student negotiation 21.09 2.79 19.36 3.32 2.95**Inquiry learning 21.98 2.88 22.60 2.14 �1.28Cognitive apprenticeship 21.70 2.82 21.92 2.13 �0.48Reflective thinking 21.93 2.76 22.64 2.21 �1.49Critical judgment 20.36 3.13 19.09 2.82 2.21*Epistemological awareness 22.13 2.65 21.83 2.50 0.60

*p � 0.05; **p � 0.01.

TABLE 5. GENDER DIFFERENCES TOWARD ACTUAL INTERNET-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, DEMOLAB

Male (n � 56) Female (n � 53)

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t

Ease of use 20.05 3.66 19.58 3.38 0.69Relevance 19.55 3.29 19.64 3.22 �0.14Multiple sources 19.25 3.59 19.06 3.10 0.30Challenge 20.02 3.47 19.91 2.81 0.19Student negotiation 19.41 2.80 18.15 3.14 2.21*Inquiry learning 20.02 3.35 19.83 3.12 0.30Cognitive apprenticeship 19.38 3.21 19.38 3.25 �0.00Reflective thinking 19.73 2.82 18.45 3.79 2.01*Critical judgment 18.57 3.56 18.11 2.52 0.78Epistemological awareness 18.93 3.94 18.85 3.72 0.11

*p � 0.05.

enjoy the science learning process if the Internet-based system could be equipped with more con-structivist features. Indeed, a well-established con-structivist Internet-based learning environmentmay eliminate this barrier and encourage more fe-male learners to participate in the science commu-nity. In addition, according to the findings listed inTable 1, students expressed a very large gap in theepistemological awareness scale and reflectivethinking scale between actual and preferred re-sponses. These results suggest that adequately es-tablished Internet-based learning environmentsshould provide more opportunities for student re-flective thinking and enhance learner epistemolog-ical awareness. In fact, researchers have proposedthat the features of Internet-based learning envi-ronments, such as the multiple information sourcesand decontextualized interactions, can help stu-dents promote metacognitive reflective thinkingand epistemological development.22–24

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDY

This study investigated only one particular In-ternet-based learning system. Thus, the results maybe different from the reports of other studies. It issuggested that other Internet-based learning sys-tems may be implemented with CILES to find outwhether the results could be applied to other Inter-net-based learning environments. In addition, thesample of the study included only 109 high schoolstudents who were frequent users. Hence, in the fu-ture, in order to fully understand what other usersmay prefer or think of the Internet-based learningenvironment, it may be meaningful for participantswith different academic backgrounds to respond toCILES. Perspectives may vary with different partic-ipants’ backgrounds. Finally, future studies may beconducted to confirm the value of the content of thediscussion.

APPENDIX

Questionnaire sample items used in this study(preferred form)

Ease of use scale: In the Internet-based physics learn-ing environment, I prefer that they take only ashort time to learn how to use.

Relevance scale: In the Internet-based physics learn-ing environment, I prefer that they present real-istic tasks.

Multiple sources scale: In the Internet-based physicslearning environment, I prefer that they discuss alearning topic through various perspectives.

Challenge scale: In the Internet-based physics learn-ing environment, I prefer that they help me togenerate new ideas.

Student negotiation scale: In the Internet-basedphysics learning environment, I prefer that I havethe chance to talk to other students.

Inquiry scale: In the Internet-based physics learningenvironment, I prefer that I can carry out inves-tigations to test my own ideas.

Cognitive apprenticeship scale: In the Internet-basedphysics learning environment, I prefer that theycan provide experts’ guidance to facilitate ad-vanced learning.

Reflective thinking scale: In the Internet-based physicslearning environment, I prefer that I can thinkdeeply how to become a better learner.

Critical judgment scale: In the Internet-based physicslearning environment, I prefer that I can criticallyevaluate Web content.

Epistemological awareness scale: In the Internet-basedphysics learning environment, I prefer that theycan explore deeply about the nature of physicsknowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding of this research work is supported byNational Science Council (grant numbers NSC 92-2811-S-009-016 and NSC92-2524-S-009-003), Tai-wan. The authors express their gratitude to two re-viewers’ helpful comments on the further develop-ment of this paper.

REFERENCES

1. Khan BH. Discussion of resources and attributes ofthe Web for the creation of meaningful learning en-vironments. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2000; 3:17–23.

2. Chou C, Tsai C-C. Developing Web-based curricula:issues and challenges. Journal of Curriculum Studies2002; 34:623–36.

3. Chuang S-C, Tsai C-C. Preferences toward the con-structivist internet-based learning environmentsamong high school students in Taiwan. Computers inHuman Behavior 2005; 21:255–72.

4. Tsai C-C. The interpretation construction designmodel for teaching science and its applications to In-ternet-based instruction in Taiwan. InternationalJournal of Educational Development 2001; 21:401–15.

PHYSICS VIRTUAL LABORATORY 155

5. Passerini K, Granger MJ. A developmental model fordistance learning using the Internet. Computers & Ed-ucation 2000; 34:1–15.

6. Wen LMC, Tsai C-C, Lin H-M, Chuang S-C. Cogni-tive-metacognitive and content-technical aspects ofconstructivist Internet-based learning environments:a LISREL analysis. Computers & Education 2004;43:237–48.

7. Fraser BJ. (1994). Research on classroom and schoolclimate. In Gabel DL, ed., Handbook of research on sci-ence teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan, pp.493–541.

8. Fraser BJ. Classroom environment instruments: de-velopment, validity and application. Learning Envi-ronments Research 1998; 1:7–33.

9. Tsai C-C. Relationships between student scientificepistemological beliefs and perceptions of construc-tivist learning environments. Educational Research2000; 42:193–205.

10. Tsai C-C. Taiwanese science students’ and teachers’perceptions of the laboratory learning environments:exploring epistemological gaps. International Journalof Science Education 2003; 25:847–60.

11. Kay R. Addressing gender differences in computerability, attitudes, and use: the laptop effect. Journal ofEducational Computing Research 2006; 34:187–211.

12. Linn MC, Bell P, His S. Using the Internet to enhancestudent understanding of science: the knowledge in-tegration environment. Interactive Learning Environ-ments 1998; 6:4–38.

13. Tsai C-C. “What is the Internet?”: Taiwanese highschool students’ perceptions. CyberPsychology & Be-havior 2006; 9:767–71.

14. Brown SW, Boyer MA, Mayall HJ, et al. The GlobalEdProject: gender differences in a problem-based learn-ing environment of international negotiations. In-structional Science 2003; 31;255–76.

15. Guan Y-H, Tsai C-C, Hwang F-K. Content analysis ofonline discussion on a senior-high-school discussionforum of a virtual physics laboratory. InstructionalScience 2006; 34:279–311.

16. Lee M-H, Tsai C-C. Exploring high school students’and teachers’ preferences toward the constructivist

Internet-based learning environments in Taiwan. Ed-ucational Studies 2005; 31:149–67.

17. Tsai C-C. The relationship between Internet percep-tions and preferences toward Internet-based learningenvironment. British Journal of Educational Technol-ogy 2007; 38:167–70.

18. Hakkarainen K, Palonen T. Patterns of female andmale students’ participation in peer interaction incomputer-supported learning. Computers & Educa-tion 2003; 40:327–42.

19. Whitelock D, Scanlon E. The roles of gaze, gesture andgender in CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn-ing 1998; 14:158–65.

20. Kahle JB, Meece J. (1994). Research on gender issuesin the classroom. In Gabel DL, ed., Handbook of researchon science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan,pp. 542–57.

21. Miller PH, Blessing JS, Schwartz S. Gender differencesin high-school students’ views about science. Inter-national Journal of Science Education 2006; 28:363–81.

22. Tsai C-C. A review and discussion of epistemologicalcommitments, metacognition, and critical thinkingwith suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-as-sisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Ed-ucation 2001; 78:970–74.

23. Hofer BK. Epistemological understanding as ametacognitive process: thinking aloud during onlinesearching. Educational Psychologist 2004; 9:43–55.

24. Tsai C-C. Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools:the use of the Internet as an “epistemological” tool forinstruction. British Journal of Educational Technology2004; 35:525–36.

Address reprint requests to:Prof. Chin-Chung Tsai

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

Graduate School of Technological and Vocational Education#43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd.

Taipei 106, Taiwan

E-mail: cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw

CHUANG ET AL.156