Alleviating Students’ Naive Theory on Newton’s Laws of Motion through Problem Optimization and Scaffolding Discussion

Suwasono, Purbo; Sutopo, Sutopo; Handayanto, Supriyono Koes; Mufti, Nandang; Sunaryono, Sunaryono; Taufiq, Ahmad

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2283455

Education Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Results and Discussion Conclusion Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 2283455 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2283455

Alleviating Students’ Naive Theory on Newton’s Laws of Motion through Problem Optimization and Scaffolding Discussion

Purbo Suwasono,¹Sutopo Sutopo,¹Supriyono Koes Handayanto,¹Nandang Mufti,¹Sunaryono Sunaryono,¹and Ahmad Taufiq¹

Academic Editor: Mehdi Nasri

Received03 Aug 2022

Revised11 Oct 2022

Accepted13 Oct 2022

Published09 Jan 2023

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find out what types of problems and scaffolding should be set in problem-based learning to alleviate students’ naive theories. This study employed a sample of three classes with a problem-based learning process using three variations of problems and scaffolding. The findings suggested that there were significant differences among the three groups of students. The highest reduction in students’ naive theories occurred in classes that used open problems equipped with discussion scaffolding. Based on the interpretation of the video results of student discussions and the average posttest class using open problems equipped with discussion scaffolding, students’ naive theories were mostly reduced. Problems in problem-based learning are open-ended, which encourage students to use their naive theories to solve problems. With the scaffolding that has been designed, students’ character grows as scientists. Based on the interview results, the class that used closed problems equipped with scaffolding tended to use their notes while in high school, which he was not clear about, except for doing exam questions. However, in a classroom that uses open problems equipped with discussion scaffolding and in classes that use open problems without discussion scaffolding, it is stated that students like to solve problems in their real lives. Thus, open problems in problem-based learning are the key to successful learning, whereas discussion scaffolding strengthens the implementation of these open problems.

1. Introduction

Newton’s laws of motion are the central idea in mechanics and form the conceptual foundation of nearly all other physics topics [1, 2]. However, research in physics education revealed many students’ naive theory or misconception even after the instruction of Newton’s laws. By naive theory, we mean a belief or knowledge that students develop from their interaction with nature without sufficient abstraction. Students’ naive theory is usually only true in a very specific context, but student tends to use it in a wider context. As a result, students’ naive theory is often contradicted with scientific knowledge. Because the naive theory was built from a long-time effort and consistent with experiences (according to the student), the theory tends to be difficult to change and will interfere with the scientific knowledge being studied. Therefore, remediating students’ naive theory needs to be a concern in physics instruction. It needs to note that students’ naive theory has been given several terms in literature, including preconception, alternative conception, naive belief, or misconception [3]. In this paper, we use the term naive theory, but acknowledge others that have a preference for other terms.

An example of students’ naive theory related to Newton’s first law is that any object’s natural state of motion is at rest [4], not including moving with constant velocity as stated by the first law. The theory is constructed based on daily experiences that if an object is initially at rest, it remains at rest, and if it is in moving first, it always slows down and gets rest again [5]. Students with this theory will develop another naive theory such as “no object moves continuously at a constant speed without a constant force pushing it [5],” and “if we want to move an object, we need to puss it with a constant force [4–6].”

An example of a students’ naive theory regarding Newton’s second law is that a constant force produces a constant velocity [7–10], not a constant acceleration. This belief is constructed based on student experiences with moving objects, which show that a constant force is needed to keep any object moving at a constant speed. For example, to keep a car moving at a higher constant speed on the highway, the driver must push the gas pedal harder than that for a lower speed, but with a relatively constant pushing [11]. Most students with this naive theory do not believe that all falling objects have the same acceleration [9, 11].

An example of students’ naive theory related to Newton’s third law is that the forces exerted by two interacting objects do not always equal in magnitude, but depend on other factors, such as mass, speed, and state of motion of the objects [12]. For example, if the two interacting objects have different masses, the more massive object must exert more force than the less massive one [8, 13]; if the two interacting objects have different speeds then the object with higher speed will exert greater force [8, 14, 15]; when one object pushes another object, the pushing object must exert more force than the object being pushed [16]. Students with this naive theory will argue that, in the war-tug game, the winner must be the more powerful person [17].

Most research on students’ naive theory of Newton’s laws of motion is more focused on the identification and/or understanding of the existence of the naive theory. Studies on how to remediate or change student naive theory into more scientific theory still less attention. This paper is intended to fill the gap, namely, trying to overcome the naive theory by applying problem-based learning (PBL), which is one of the learning approaches that are currently widely applied in science education [18–20].

The most crucial aspect of the PBL is the problem that students need to solve. The problem should be open, ill-structured, complex, real-world problem and could serve the basis for developing knowledge and problem-solving skills [18, 21–25]. Another important aspect of the PBL is scaffolding to help the student solve the problem meaningfully [26–35]. By providing the appropriate problems and scaffolding, the students’ naïve theory on Newton’s law theory might be restructured to become more coherent-scientific theory. The purpose of the study is to find out how much alleviating students’ naive theory on Newton’s laws of motion through problem optimization and scaffolding discussion.

In an effort to find out the combination of problems and scaffolding in PBL, three models were tested. The first group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using open problems equipped with scaffolding (Y₁). The second group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using open problems without scaffolding (Y₂). The third group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using closed problems equipped with scaffolding (Y₃). The best model describes its effectiveness in alleviating the students’ naive theory on Newton’s laws.

2. Method

2.1. Research Design

This research procedure was conducted using a mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design. Quantitative and qualitative methods are used together and are balanced [36–39]. To find out the best strategy, quantitative data analysis was needed while to explore students’ naive theory, qualitative data analysis was needed. Mixed methods can contribute new insights about the wide range of topics, populations, settings, and contexts of interest to the field. Further, researchers can continue to expand the kinds of integrated knowledge that is sought using mixed methods [40]. The quantitative method was used to determine the difference in the average understanding of concepts between students taught with PBL using open problems equipped with scaffolding, PBL using open problems without scaffolding, and PBL using closed problems equipped with scaffolding followed by t-test to see differences between classes. The qualitative method was used to analyze the reasons for each answer and to analyze the results of interviews, to get students’ epistemic games. The results of the quantitative and qualitative methods are used together and in a balanced manner to determine the percentage of degradation of Newton’s law of naive theory by application of three PBL models and percentage of Newton’s law of naive theory that survives in students’ brain construction after three PBL models are applied. This study was conducted on a group of students using six experimental classes without a control class. This stage was a qualitative integrated quantitative study divided into three groups of students. The first group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using open problems equipped with scaffolding (Y₁). The second group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using open problems without scaffolding (Y₂). The third group studied Newton’s law with PBL, using closed problems equipped with scaffolding (Y₃). In the early stages of the research, students were given a pretest in the form of a force concept inventory (FCI) [41] 30 items that have been validated and have been field-tested. This was used to determine how much the students’ initial naive theory of Newton’s law material before receiving treatment. At this stage, interviews were conducted to confirm the students naive theory. The second stage is learning implementation. During learning, students were treated with PBL, which is equipped with computer-based scaffolding in Newton’s law of learning. During learning, students were given problems that were solved in groups on student worksheets to determine their understanding, after which they were discussed together. In the third stage, students were given FCI questions as a posttest in the form of multiple-choice questions and interviews.

The quantitative and qualitative data were then reanalyzed using meta-analysis so that the data groups could be grouped, differentiated, and searched for correlation relationships between one data and other data so that the data can be categorized as data groups that strengthen, weaken, or contradict each other [42, 43]. The interview instrument was arranged based on the results of the cross-tabulation tests. Interviews were directed at exploring the students’ mindsets regarding the answers they chose. This interview stage was used to analyze why students are still in their naive theory or to ensure that students’ naive theory has turned into a correct theory.

2.2. Instruments and Data Analysis

The treatment instrument used in this study was the semester lesson plan for basic physics courses. The quantitative and qualitative measurement instruments used in this research were the FCI [41] and interview guidelines. During the discussion process, the observer was equipped with an interview instrument with scaffolding status. Thus, the nature of the instrument is open, meaning that it can change depending on the student’s discussion situation. The scaffolding applied to help students erode their naive theory is composite scaffolding. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in this study. The data were collected through observations, tests, and interviews.

The three groups were tested for differences using the ANOVA statistics [44]. From the results of the ANOVA statistics, the variables Ho and Ha were obtained. Ho: there is no difference in the average understanding of concepts among students who are taught PBL with open problems equipped with scaffolding, PBL with open problems without scaffolding, and PBL with closed problems equipped with scaffolding. Ha: there is a difference in the average understanding of concepts among students who are taught PBL with open problems equipped with scaffolding, PBL with open problems without scaffolding, and PBL with closed problems equipped with scaffolding.

The criteria for accepting or rejecting Ho are as follows:(1)Ho is rejected, if Sig. < 0.05(2)Ho is accepted, if Sig. > 0.05

Each Newton’s law was represented by one question, and the answer shift was analyzed and evaluated to obtain recommendations related to applied learning.

The qualitative data obtained in this study were simplified. Data reduction was carried out by the researchers so that the data analyzed were truly accurate and relevant. The results of the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in detail in the form of students’ naive conceptions of Newton’s law material. From the results of the analysis of quantitative data obtained from the pretest and posttest analyses of students, several questions were taken from questions that had been considered to be indicators of students’ naive conceptions and separated into one question each for Newton’s first law, Newton’s second law, and Newton’s third law. All data were feasible and approved by the ethics committee with a certificate number: KEPK/046/ STIKes-HPZH/ VI/ 2021.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Results

This research procedure was conducted using concurrent mixed methods. A summary of the results of the hypothesis testing for the difference between the three experimental classes is presented in Table 1. Based on the results of the testing, the hypothesis obtained a significance of 0.000 < 0.05, or Ho was rejected. This shows that there is a difference in the average understanding of concepts among students who are taught PBL with open problems equipped with scaffolding, PBL with open problems without scaffolding, and PBL with closed problems equipped with scaffolding.

The statistical results of the t-test, which is a further test of the hypothesis testing of the difference between the three experimental classes with the F-test at significant ANOVA, are presented in Table 2. Based on the data in Table 2, there was no significant difference in the pretest scores between Y₁ and Y₃, Y₂ and Y₃, and Y₁ and Y₂, so it can be concluded that the initial abilities of the three observation classes were the same. Thus, the posttest data are the main data to be analyzed in the next stage.

Further hypothesis testing with t-test statistics on the posttest data is presented in Table 3. Based on Table 3, the mean of Y₁ = 75.3 and Y₃ = 50.0 are the largest and smallest posttest scores obtained by students, respectively. It can be concluded that students’ understanding of concepts will increase if they receive material through PBL with a mixture of open problems and scaffolding.

3.1.1. Elimination of Conceptual Errors Related to Conceptual Errors in Newton’s First Law

Further analysis related to the degradation of students’ conceptual errors toward understanding Newton’s first law was conducted in the process of testing the effectiveness of students’ pre- and post-test answer options for all learning methods with the case example of “Two metal balls of the same size but one weighing twice the weight of the other, rolling off the table horizontally at the same speed.” The distribution of the answer options is presented in Table 4.

Based on Table 4, it appears that students are challenged to jack up their understanding of the error that “the heavier ball hits the floor about half the horizontal distance from the table base than the lighter ball.” Likewise, the misconception is that “a lighter ball hits the floor about half the horizontal distance from the table mat than a heavier ball.” The heavier ball hits the floor closer to the bottom of the table than the lighter ball, but not necessarily half the horizontal distance. It is challenging for students to avoid the misconception that heavier objects must hit the floor closer. There were still 20 students (37.0%) who did not understand that when an object was released from the table, in the horizontal direction, the object was relatively unaffected by a force, so that the object would return to its natural state, namely, moving at a constant speed. In the vertical direction, both objects have the same gravitational field strength of about 9.8 N/kg or have the same acceleration of 9.8 m/s². Because the two objects have a constant velocity in the horizontal direction and the same acceleration in the vertical direction, “both balls strike the floor at approximately the same horizontal distance from the base of the table.” Sixteen students answered correctly during the pretest, with one student who did not have the right reason, and only 34 people answered correctly during the posttest (63.0%). Thirty students defended their original opinions, although 14 students defended the correct concept. The PBL learning model with closed problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 20 students (37.0%) but also able to change the understanding of three students. Although it still led to incorrect understanding, it also changed the correct understanding of one student to the wrong understanding. Thus, 20 (34.0%) students still experienced naive theory.

Twenty students who were still experiencing naive theory were interviewed with the results in Table 5.

Based on the interview above, the scaffolding built by the lecturer does not seem to have any further impact because the questions are not complex or only have a single correct answer [20, 45]. Scaffolding is useful if the problems involved in learning are complex or unstructured [19, 20, 46, 47]. Students stated that the problem at the beginning of learning did not provide knowledge on how to solve Problem 2. This means that the problem is not able to build the right mindset to solve Problem 2. A good problem is that it can provoke a high-level mindset [48]. PBL is learning that is supported by unstructured and open problems and is equipped with scaffolding at every stage of discussion [19, 26]. If problems at the beginning of PBL are not open or unstructured, PBL will not build students’ higher-order thinking skills [49]. The skill to analyze a problem is a higher-order thinking skill [50]. If higher-order thinking skills are not developed, students will not be able to analyze new problems [51].

There is a question “Two metal balls of the same size but one weighing twice the weight of the other roll off a horizontal table at the same speed.” In this situation, based on Table 6, it appears that the student is still difficult to jack up his misconception that “the heavier ball hits the floor about half the horizontal distance from the table mat than the lighter ball hits the floor.” Likewise, the misconception of “a heavier ball hitting the floor is closer to the bottom of the table than a lighter ball, but not necessarily half the horizontal distance.” It is very difficult for students to eliminate the misconception that heavier objects must hit the floor closer. Sixteen students (26.7%) still did not understand that when an object is released from the table, in a horizontal direction, the object is relatively unaffected by a force, so the object will return to its natural state, namely, moving at a constant speed. In the vertical direction, both objects have the same gravitational field strength of about 9.8 N/kg or the same acceleration of 9.8 m/s². Because the two objects have a constant velocity in the horizontal direction and the same acceleration in the vertical direction, “both balls strike the floor at approximately the same horizontal distance from the base of the table.” Sixteen students answered correctly during the pretest, with two students who did not have the right reason, and only 44 answered correctly during the posttest (73.3%). Fourteen students defended their original opinions while 10 students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems without scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 34 students (56.7%) but also able to change the understanding of eight students. Although it still led to incorrect understanding, it also changed the correct understanding of four students to incorrect understanding. Thus, 16 (26.7%) students still experienced naive theories.

Sixteen students who were still experiencing naive theory were interviewed, with the following conclusions. Students feel that the problems that arise at the beginning of learning are difficult. The problems found are everyday problems that can be approached from all sides, producing different correct answers; however, the student worksheets given are very difficult to fill. Students conclude that the problem is difficult because that is an open problem that must be discussed in PBL [18–20]. From PBL elements of small-group learning [52], solution to problem [53], active learning [54], see the problem in context [55, 56], tutoring [57], write reflection [53], and use technology [58], students are stuck for a long time in the elements of small-group learning and problem solving. This occurred because the student worksheets provided was not accompanied by written scaffolding in the form of procedural and conceptual. In PBL, there are open or complex problems and directions are required to discuss these problems [19, 26, 59]. High-level thinking skills are required to solve open and unstructured problems [60, 61]. Meanwhile, students must have Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) [62, 63]. If the problem is in the highest range in the student ZPD, then help is required to solve the problem [47]. Because the PBL problem is open, the problem will be in the highest area of student ZPD. As it requires a level of thinking in the top area of the student’s ZPD, there must be scaffolding. Thus, it is natural for the results of the interviews to show that students find it difficult to solve problems. The process of solving a problem is needed to instill a student’s mindset. The student’s mindset was used to solve Problem 2. Based on the data in Table 6 and the results of the interviews, it can be concluded that PBL will be less successful if the problem is open and not accompanied by scaffolding in the discussion process [19, 20].

There is a question “Two metal balls of the same size but one weighing twice the weight of the other roll off a horizontal table at the same speed.” In this situation, based on Table 7, it appears that there are still students who cannot be jacked up their misconception that “the heavier ball hits the floor about half the horizontal distance from the table mat than the lighter ball hits the floor.” Likewise, the misconception of “a heavier ball hitting the floor is closer to the bottom of the table than a lighter ball, but not necessarily half the horizontal distance.” Some students still find it difficult to lift their misconceptions that heavier objects must hit the floor closer. There were still 10 students (12.50%) who did not understand that when an object was released from the table, in the horizontal direction, the object was relatively unaffected by a force, so that the object would return to its natural state, namely, moving at a constant speed. In the vertical direction, both objects are in the same gravitational field strength of about 9.8 N/kg or have the same acceleration of 9.8 m/s². Because the two objects have a constant velocity in the horizontal direction and the same acceleration in the vertical direction, “both balls strike the floor at approximately the same horizontal distance from the base of the table.” There were 26 students who answered correctly during the pretest, 13 students who did not have the right reason and 70 answered correctly during the posttest (87.50%). Twelve students defended their original opinions, and all of them defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 58 students (72.5%) but also able to change the understanding of four (5.00%) students, even though it still led to incorrect understanding and changed the correct understanding of one (1.25%) students lead to wrong understanding. There are no students who change their understanding, even though it still leads to an incorrect understanding. Thus, 10 (12.5%) students still experienced naive theory.

Of the 58 students who were able to change their incorrect understanding, 12 students changed their choice from incorrect answer option B to correct answer option A, 12 students changed their choice from incorrect answer option C to correct answer option A, 10 students changed their choice from wrong answer option B to correct answer option A, 8 students changed their choice from the wrong answer option D to the correct answer option A, 3 students did not answer and then changed their answer to the correct answer option A, and 13 students chose the correct answer option A, but did not give a reason or the reason was wrong, but when posttest still chose A by giving the correct reason. On average, 12 students who at the pretest chose the wrong answer option B had the reason that heavier objects will fall first than lighter objects depending on the ratio of their weight because the Coulomb force of heavier objects is greater than lighter objects. Twelve students were interviewed based on the results in Table 8.

Based on the interviews above, prior to the implementation of the lesson, their mindset was based on their daily experiences and mistakes in applying the knowledge they had previously acquired. Problem-solving strategies (epistemic games) are known as physical mechanism games. Students also use their knowledge of Newton’s second law, but it is applied without regard to context, so that it becomes wrong. One of the parts of epistemic games that found by students is recursive plug-and-chug [64, 65]. Based on the above interview, the students stated that the change in mindset so that they chose the correct answer option, namely A, was caused by the direction they were discussing and the existence of open problems. Open problems lead students to build a mindset based on context [46] and foster the active role of students in stimulating curiosity [66]. In addition, the students also stated that their fluency in building a mindset was based on good scaffolding. Good scaffolding will help students overcome conceptual, metacognitive, and strategic challenges [67, 68].

There were 12 students who changed their choice from the wrong answer option C to the correct answer option A. On average, 12 students who during the pretest chose the wrong answer option C had the reason “the lighter object will fall first than the heavier object depending on the weight ratio, because if an object is subjected to the same force, then an object with a small mass will have a greater acceleration than an object with a large mass.” Based on the interviews, 12 students were interviewed and the following results were obtained. The students used their daily experiences. If they push a light table, they will reach their destination quickly, whereas if they are heavier, they will take longer to reach their destination. If it weighs twice, the heavier object will reach its destination twice as long. Students use a physical mechanism game problem-solving strategy [65, 69, 70]. Students also use Newton’s second law to analyze the problem. If the force is the same, the mass is inversely proportional to the acceleration. If the mass is large, then the acceleration is small. Students start with physics equations and then develop conceptual stories known as mathematic to meaning mapping strategies [65]. However, their understanding was applied in a recursive plug-and-chug method to Problem 2 [71]. A ball that has twice the mass/weight will take twice as long to reach the ground because its acceleration is half that of a lighter ball. Based on the interviews, students were greatly assisted with scaffolding during discussions and open problems in student learning. Not only was it helped by scaffolding but also scaffolding awakened the mindset. When there are complex problems, students can use the scaffolding they created. Students no longer need direction or scaffolding during discussions because they have mastered the mindset that was carried out during the first discussion. Thus, because students no longer need direction in the next discussion, the direction given by the lecturer during the discussion is scaffolding [72, 73]. Open problems can shape students’ mindsets, so they are not recursive plug-and-chugs but are always analyzed according to the context of the problem. Open problems in PBL can build a mindset to analyze complex everyday events [18, 60, 74].

There were 10 students who changed their choice from the wrong answer option D to the correct answer option A. On average, 10 students who during the pretest chose the wrong answer option D had the reason “the heavier ball hits the floor faster than the lighter ball, but because it has the same shape, the friction is the same; therefore, it does not have to be half the horizontal distance.” Based on the interviews, 10 students were interviewed, and the following results were obtained: students apply their experiences in their daily lives. When the rubber and iron balls have the same volume, but the weight of the iron is two times, it turns out that the iron, which is heavier than the rubber, falls first, but the time difference is not too long. Students use a physical mechanism game problem-solving strategy [65, 69, 70]. Students also use Newton’s second law to analyze the problem. The students also answered the free-body diagrams for each object. There is a downward gravitational force, an upward frictional force, and an upward Archimedes force. Students use pictorial analysis to solve strategies [65, 75]. From the simulation of the numbers entered, it turns out that the accelerations do not double each other. They forget that the objects are in a gravitational field. The equation used is the equation for the acceleration of gravity or the strength of a gravitational field with the same magnitude. Their understanding was applied in a recursive plug-and-chug method to Problem 2 [71]. Based on the interview, from the interview, there were five students who said “woo, that’s the procedure for the discussion, then I don’t need help anymore, I can do it.” The comments stated that students began to absorb the direction of the lecturer as a pattern of learning and subsequently no longer needed the direction of the lecturer. Thus, because students no longer need direction in the next discussion, the direction given by the lecturer during the discussion is scaffolding [72, 73]. Open problems are able to bridge the students’ thinking flow, so that the problem-solving strategy is not recursive plug-and-chug but always analyzed according to the context of the problem. Open problems in PBL can build a mindset to analyze complex everyday events [18, 60, 74].

There were eight students who changed their choice from the wrong answer option E to the correct answer option A. On average, eight students who during the pretest chose the wrong answer option E had the reason “the lighter ball hits the floor much faster to the bottom of the table than the heavier ball, but because the accelerations are different, it doesn’t have to be half the horizontal distance.” Based on the interviews, interviews were conducted with these eight students obtained the same results as the discussion above. Students initially used a physical mechanism game and recursive plug-and-chug problem-solving strategies. They also created a free-body diagram of an object subjected to the same force but with different masses, demonstrating a pictorial analysis problem-solving strategy [65, 75]. From the free-body diagram, students illustrated that a small mass would have a large acceleration. However, because there is still friction and Archimedes’ force, the time it takes to fall from a smaller object is less than half the time it takes to fall from a larger object. Recursive plug-and-chug applies such student understanding to Problem 2 [71]. Students ignore the context; if they are in a gravitational field, then everything must obey the acceleration of gravity around 9.8 m/s². Based on the interviews, the students also went through a process similar to that of a student who originally answered D. In essence, the change in the answer to correct answer A was due to the scaffolding of discussions and open problems in PBL.

Four students were still wrong, even though the answer options chosen during the pretest and posttest were different. Based on the interviews with these four students, in general, there must be some who do not follow one of the stages of learning. The identified themes related to PBL elements are small group learning [52], solution to problem [53], active learning [54], see the problem in context [55, 56], tutoring [57], writing a reflection [64], and using technology [58]. One student did not participate in the discussion during the small-group learning stage. One student did not participate in the discussion during the problem-solving stage. One student did not participate in the discussion while seeing the problem in context. One student did not participate in the discussion during the reflection-writing stage. PBL is cyclical learning; therefore, each step must be followed. Not following one of the PBL stages has an impact on different interpretations of real symptoms. Every discussion is always accompanied by oral scaffolding to guide students in achieving their goals. If you do not participate in one of the discussion stages, the PBL cycle will be interrupted, and students will have difficulty solving complex problems [19].

There was one student who answered correctly for the correct reason when the posttest answered incorrectly (D). After the interview, it turned out that during the pretest, the student cheated on his friend, and during the lesson, he did not participate in two discussions, namely, writing reflection and seeing the problem in context.

The percentages of the three learning models in changing students’ naive theories and the percentage of naive theories that still persist in constructing students’ brains after applying the three learning models in each classroom are presented in Figure 1.

Based on Figure 1, there is an increase in the percentage of naive theory degradation and a decrease in the percentage of naive theory that still persists in the brain construction of Newton’s first law students by the application of three PBL models in grades Y₃ to Y₂ and Y₁. Thus, the PBL model with open problems accompanied by scaffolding (Y₁) is the most effective PBL model in degrading the naive theory of Newton’s first law and the smallest number of students who still hold on to naive theory [19].

3.1.2. Elimination of Conceptual Errors Related to Conceptual Errors in Newton’s Second Law

Further analysis related to the degradation of students’ misconceptions toward understanding Newton’s second law, a process of testing the effectiveness of the student’s pretest–posttest answer options for all learning methods was carried out with the case example “If the woman in the previous question doubled the constant horizontal force she exerted on the box to push it on the floor. Same horizontal line, the box then moves.” Previous question “A woman exerts a constant horizontal force on a large box. As a result, the box moves across the horizontal floor at a constant speed ‘v_o’.” The distribution of answer options is presented in Table 9.

Based on Table 9, it appears that students are very difficult to jack up their understanding of the error that “for a while with a constant speed and greater than the speed of ‘v_o’ in the previous question, after that the speed continues to increase.” Likewise, the misconception of “at a constant speed that doubles the speed of ‘v_o’ in the previous question.” And “for a while at an ever-increasing speed, after that at a constant speed.” It is very difficult for students to push up their misconceptions that an object that is given more force will produce a constant velocity that is higher. There are still 26 students (48.2%) who did not understand that when an object was subjected to a greater force, the acceleration was greater while the velocity continued to increase. Because the object’s acceleration increases, it is “at a continuously increasing speed.” There were 14 students who answered correctly during the pretest, with three students who did not have the right reason, and only 28 people answered correctly during the posttest (51.9%). There were 34 students who defended their original opinions, although 11 students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with closed problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 17 students (31.5%) but also able to change the understanding of 17 students even though it still led to wrong understanding, and no student changed the correct understanding into wrong understanding. Thus, 26 (48.2%) students still experienced naive theories.

There is a question “If the woman in the previous question doubled the constant horizontal force she exerted on the box to push it on the same horizontal floor, the box then moves.” Previous question “A woman exerts a constant horizontal force on a large box. As a result, the box moves across the horizontal floor at a constant speed ‘v_o’.” Based on Table 10, it appears that students still find it difficult to jack up their understanding that “with a constant speed greater than the speed ‘v_o’ in the previous question, but not necessarily twice as large.” Likewise, the wrong understanding of “for a while at an ever-increasing speed, after that at a constant speed.” It is very difficult for students to push up their misconceptions that an object that is given more force will produce a constant velocity that is higher. There were 28 students (46.7%) who did not understand that when an object was subjected to a greater force, the acceleration was greater while the velocity increased. Because the acceleration of the object changes to a large, then “with a speed that continues to increase continuously.” Fourteen students answered correctly during the pretest, with three students who did not have the right reason, and only 32 students answered correctly during the posttest (53.3%). Sixteen students defended their original opinions, although 10 students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems without scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 22 students (36.7%) but also change the understanding of 19 students even though it still led to wrong understanding, and changed one student’s correct understanding to wrong understanding. Thus, 28 (46.7%) students still experienced naive theories.

There is a question “If the woman in the previous question doubled the constant horizontal force she exerted on the box to push it on the same horizontal floor, the box then moves.” Previous question “A woman exerts a constant horizontal force on a large box. As a result, the box moves across the horizontal floor at a constant speed ‘v_o’.” Based on Table 11, it appears that students have changed their understanding, but the direction of change is still toward wrong understanding, namely, “with a constant speed that is greater than the speed of ‘v_o’ in the previous question, but not necessarily twice as large.” Likewise, toward a wrong understanding, namely, “for a while with a constant speed and greater than the speed of ‘v_o’ in the previous question, after that the speed continues to increase.” There are still students who find it difficult to jack up their misconceptions that objects that are given more force will produce a more constant velocity. There are still 25 students (31.3%) who did not understand that when an object was subjected to a greater force, the acceleration was greater while the velocity continued to increase. Because the acceleration of the object changes to a large, then “with a speed that continues to increase continuously.” Eleven students answered correctly during the pretest, with two students who did not have the right reason, and 55 people (68.8%) answered correctly during the posttest. Nine students defended their original opinions, and all defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 46 students (57.5%) but also change the understanding of 16 students even though it still led to wrong understanding, and no student changed the correct understanding into wrong understanding. Thus, 25 (31.3%) students still experienced naive theories.

The percentages of the three learning models in changing students’ naive theories and the percentage of naive theories that still persist in constructing students’ brains after applying the three learning models in each classroom are presented in Figure 2.

Based on Figure 2, there is an increase in the percentage of naive theory degradation and a decrease in the percentage of naive theory that still persists in the brain construction of Newton’s second law students by the application of the three PBL models in grades Y₃ to Y₂ and Y₁. Thus, the PBL model with open problems and scaffolding (Y₁) is the best PBL model for degrading the naive theory of Newton’s second law and the smallest number of students who still hold on to the naive theory [19].

3.1.3. Elimination of Conceptual Errors Related to Conceptual Errors in Newton’s Third Law

There is a question “In the picture on the right, student ‘a’ has a mass of 95 kg and student ‘b’ has a mass of 77 kg. They sat in identical office chairs, facing each other. Student ‘a’ places his bare feet on student ‘b’s’ knees, as shown. Student ‘a’ then suddenly pushed out with his feet, causing both chairs to move.” Based on Table 12, it appears that students find it very difficult to jack up their understanding; the error is that “no student uses one style against another.” Likewise, the wrong understanding of “student ‘a’ gives force to student ‘b,’ but ‘b’ does not give any force to ‘a’.” It is very difficult for students to understand that taking the initiative and having a large mass will give them a larger force. There were still 26 students (48.2%) who did not understand that when two objects interact, the interaction force must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. When two objects interact, the interaction forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so “each student applies the same amount of force to the other student.” Fifteen students answered correctly during the pretest, with three students who did not have the right reason, and only 28 people answered correctly during the posttest (51.9%). There were 38 students who defended their original opinions, although 12 students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with closed problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 16 students (29.6%) but also change the understanding of 13 students even though it still led to wrong understanding, and no student changed the correct understanding into wrong understanding. Thus, 26 (45.2%) students still experienced naive theories.

There is a question “In the picture on the right, student ‘a’ has a mass of 95 kg and student ‘b’ has a mass of 77 kg. They sat in identical office chairs, facing each other. Student ‘a’ places his bare feet on student ‘b’s’ knees, as shown. Student ‘a’ then suddenly pushed out with his feet, causing both chairs to move.” Based on Table 13, it appears that there are still students who find it difficult to jack up their understanding, the error is that “every student uses one style against another, but student ‘b’ gives a bigger style.” There were still 26 students (43.3%) who did not understand, and when two objects interacted, the interaction force had to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. When two objects interact, the interaction forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so “each student uses the same amount of force on the other student.” Twelve students answered correctly during the pretest, two students did not have the right reason, and only 34 answered correctly during the posttest (56.7%). Seven students defended their original opinions, although six students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems without scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 28 students (46.7%) but also change the understanding of 22 students. Although it still led to incorrect understanding also changed the correct understanding of four students to incorrect understanding. Thus, 26 (43.3%) students still experienced naive theories.

There is a question “In the picture on the right, student ‘a’ has a mass of 95 kg and student ‘b’ has a mass of 77 kg. They sat in identical office chairs, facing each other. Student ‘a’ places his bare feet on student ‘b’s’ knees, as shown. Student ‘a’ then suddenly pushed out with his feet, causing both chairs to move.” Based on Table 13, it appears that there are still students who find it difficult to improve their understanding. The error is that “every student uses one style against another, but student ‘b’ gives a greater force.” And “every student uses one force against the other, but student ‘a’ gives the greater force.” There were still 29 students (36.3%) who did not understand, and when two objects interacted, the interaction force had to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. When two objects interact, the interaction forces must be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so “each student applies the same amount of force to the other student.” Fourteen students answered correctly during the pretest, with three students who did not have the right reason, and 51 answered correctly during the posttest (63.8%). Twelve students defended their original opinions, although 10 students defended the correct concept. The PBL model with open problems accompanied by scaffolding was not only able to change the wrong understanding of 41 students (51.3%) but also change the understanding of 27 students. Although it still led to incorrect understanding, it also changed one student’s correct understanding to wrong understanding. Thus, 29 (36.3%) students still experienced naive theories.

The percentages of the three learning models in changing students’ naive theories and the percentage of naive theories that still persists in constructing students’ brains after applying the three learning models in each classroom are presented in Figure 3.

Based on Figure 3, there is an increase in the percentage of naive theory degradation and a decrease in the percentage of naive theory that still persists in the brain construction of Newton’s second law students by the application of the three PBL models in grades Y₃ to Y₂ and Y₁. Thus, the PBL model with open problems accompanied by scaffolding (Y₁) is the best PBL model for degrading the naive theory of Newton’s third law and the smallest number of students who still hold on to naive theory [19].

3.2. Discussion

3.2.1. Meta-Analysis of Quantitative Data with Qualitative

Tables 4, 9, and 12 show the distribution of pre- and post-test answer options from class Y₃, taught using the PBL model with closed problems accompanied by scaffolding. The interesting aspect that can be seen from the impact of this learning is the persistence of students’ understanding of concepts before and after learning. Is it a false conception or a correct conception? This is because the problems used in PBL are closed [76, 77]. The nature of closed problems is that there is only one correct answer [48, 78]. Problems arise in textbooks that have one correct answer. This causes students to memorize how to solve these problems. Although computer-based scaffolding, a mixture of procedural scaffolding and conceptual scaffolding, has been provided, the effect is not significant in changing students’ understanding of concepts. Scaffolding will have a big impact if problems that provoke higher thinking skills are presented [79, 80]. If the problems presented do not require high-thinking skills, then the existence of scaffolding is not optimal because without scaffolding, they are conditioned to memorize the old way of solving problems. This is also supported by qualitative data in the form of their reasons when answering the pretest and posttest questions, as well as the results of the interviews. During the pretest, the students provided the same rationale/reason as during the posttest. Based on the interviews before learning, the students also provided the same rationale as after learning.

Slightly different conditions occurred in class Y₂, related to changes in students’ concept understanding. The characteristics listed in Tables 6, 10, and 13 show the same attenuation of answers at the pretest and posttest. The characteristic that is informed by the data from the table is that the same answers were depleted during the pretest and posttest. The answer from the relative pretest was not the same as that in the posttest. This is because the problems in learning are already open. The hallmark of an open problem is that it has no single correct answer. For example, related to Newton’s first law, given the problem “If we want to make a stationary car move continuously in a straight line at a constant speed, we have to push it or pull it constantly. If the car is already moving, then we stop pushing or pulling, the car slows down, and one day, the car stops again. In reality, an object will not move in a straight line at a constant speed if no continuous force acts on the object. This statement was incorrect. Using experiments, prove that the statement is false and analyze why it happens in everyday life.” Students can be creative in solving problems [19, 81]. What happens is that there are students who solve problems through experiments with reference to F = 0, thus proving the truth that if the car is pushed, then there is a frictional force equal to the thrust such that F = 0 and the car moves in a straight line. There are also those who solve the problem using a direct experiment where the frictional force is zero; thus, when an object is pushed, the acceleration remains constant but the speed continues to increase continuously. When the thrust is released, the acceleration is zero and the object moves at a constant speed. Because it also triggers different thinking, students tend to use new thinking patterns [18, 82]. However, because it is not accompanied by scaffolding, students’ thinking patterns tend to be undirected, so there are still many students whose answers are different from the pretest, but are still wrong [83]. Open problems in PBL tend to free students to be creative in solving problems [19]. If it is not accompanied by scaffolding, then the creation becomes wild [84], and many lead students to new naive conceptions.

In line with the condition of class Y₂, the characteristics of changes in the understanding of concepts in class Y₁, as shown in Tables 7, 11, and 14, indicate that there is a degradation of the same answers when students answer the pretest and posttest questions. The answer from the relative pretest was not the same as that in the posttest. This is because the problems in learning are already open. The hallmark of an open problem is that it has no single correct answer. As it also triggers different thoughts, students tend to use new patterns of thinking when working on posttest questions. The use of scaffolding causes students’ mindsets to tend to be focused [85, 86], so there are not many students whose answers are different from the pretest, but are still wrong. Open problems in PBL tend to free students to be creative in problem solving. Accompanied by scaffolding, the creation is not wild, so only a few lead students to new naive conceptions.

Based on the pre- and post-test scores of each student, each student was obtained. The average N_gain class was obtained by evening out of N_gain students in each class. Based on the N_gain data, the average N_gains for classes Y₃, class Y₂ is 0.50, and Y₁ are 0.30, 0.50, and 0.65, respectively. These data prove that the PBL model using open problems with scaffolding is the most effective in eradicating naive theory.

3.2.2. New Findings Related to Learning Model for Naive Theory Degradation Newton’s Laws

Based on Table 15, the first stage of PBL, namely, “Identification of Problems,” must use open problems, and during discussions, it is necessary to provide written scaffolding in procedural and conceptual form to the student worksheet, and during discussions, oral scaffolding is given. In the second stage, “Proofing Hypotheses” when conducting experiments, procedural scaffolds, and conceptual scaffolds are given in the form of an expert to a novice scaffold.

The crucial findings of this research are related to the problem base, application of scaffolding, and discussion patterns. The basis of the PBL problem in this research is an open problem, whereas other studies are closed [21–25] and mixed problems, but according to the curriculum [87–92]. Open problems allow students to use different ways of solving but produce the same correct solution. Open problems are characterized by unstructured problems. Closed problems are characterized by structured problems. Scaffolding in this study is procedural and conceptual scaffolding contained in student worksheets, whereas other researchers apply scaffolding incidentally [47, 87, 89–94]. As discussed in this paper, each answer option is based on students’ epistemic games while other studies are based on data reported in the previous works [47, 87–90, 92, 94–98].

The main finding in this study is students’ alleviated naive theory through PBL accompanied by open problems or students’ daily problems and supported by scaffolding. As the implication, physics education should do PBL. The problems presented are problems experienced by students in daily life, which are the foundation of students in defending their naive theory. Because, meaningful learning is learning that is closely related to the daily events of students. Teachers must know the relevance of the material to be studied with students’ daily problems that are relevant to the material. These problems must be experienced by students in everyday life. Thus, teachers must be very familiar with the daily life of their students. Teachers must design PBL by using problems experienced by students in everyday life. For example, when teaching Newton’s third law, the teacher must present a problem related to the impact of students pushing their friends. To strengthen this learning, scaffolding is needed as an effort to ease the complexities that arise in the PBL. Scaffolding must be packaged procedurally and conceptually so as to return the concept of Newton’s laws to students to their central idea. Procedural and conceptual scaffolding is effective and efficient when computer-assisted. Thus, the learning scenarios created by the teacher must be computer-assisted.

4. Conclusion

The most effective PBL model for eradicating naive theories related to Newton’s laws is PBL, which uses open problems accompanied by scaffolding. In its application, it is recommended that teachers complete this lesson with Moodle’s knowledge. With open problems, students were invited to think about solving everyday problems with the right mindset. This activity guarantees that students use the concepts of scientists to solve their daily problems. Scaffolding stimulates procedural and conceptual abilities for every time-solving problem. Thus, open problems and scaffolding in PBL will ensure that students always use the correct theory to solve their daily problems. Future learning based on Science, Technology, Engineeing, and Mathematics will be effortless using PBL with open problems accompanied by scaffolding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a 2021 research grant from the Universitas Negeri Malang for Purbo Suwasono.

References

J. Gates, “Experimentally building a qualitative understanding of Newton’s second law,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 52, no. 9, Article ID 542, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Wilson, “Mechanics: force, mass, acceleration energy, work, power,” Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 256–260, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, “Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics,” Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 10, no. 2, Article ID 020119, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Hecht, “Origins of Newton’s first law,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 53, no. 2, Article ID 80, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Lee and A. Leegwater, “Resolving dilemmas in acquiring knowledge of Newton’s first law: is the history of science helpful?” in Adapting Historical Knowledge Production to the Classroom, P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, and A. A. Rizaki, Eds., pp. 249–258, SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. U. Rahmawati, Jumadi, H. Kuswanto, and I. A. Oktaba, “Identification of students’ misconception with isomorphic multiple choices test on the force and Newton’s law material,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1440, no. 1, Article ID 012052, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. Itza-Ortiz, S. Rebello, and D. Zollman, “Students models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism,” European Journal of Physics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 81–89, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sujarittham and J. Tanamatayarat, “A case study of a teaching and learning sequence for Newton’s third law of motion designed by a pre-service teacher,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1380, no. 1, Article ID 012102, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Fratiwi, A. Samsudin, T. R. Ramalis, and B. Costu, “Changing students’ conceptions of Newton’s second law through express-refute-investigate-clarify (ERIC) text,” Universal Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2701–2709, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Aksit and E. N. Wiebe, “Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: a classroom intervention study,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 29, pp. 65–82, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Furwati, S. Sutopo, and S. Zubaidah, “Conceptual understanding and representation quality on Newton’s laws through multi-representation learning,” Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 80–88, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Savinainen, A. Mäkynen, P. Nieminen, and J. Viiri, “The effect of using a visual representation tool in a teaching-learning sequence for teaching Newton’s third law,” Research in Science Education, vol. 47, pp. 119–135, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, “Model analysis of fine structures of student models: an example with Newton’s third law,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 766–778, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, “Comparing three methods for teaching Newton’s third law,” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, vol. 3, no. 2, Article ID 020105, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Sujarwanto and I. A. Putra, “Conception of motion as Newton law implementation among students of physics education,” Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 110–119, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Mansyur, S. N. Kaharu, and J. Holdsworth, “A simple approach to teach Newton’s third law,” Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 79–90, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, “Learning about forces using multiple representations,” in Multiple Representations in Physics Education, D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer, Eds., vol. 10, pp. 163–182, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Y.-H. Chung, “Facilitating learning of community-based rehabilitation through problem-based learning in higher education,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 19, Article ID 433, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Raine, Problem-Based Approaches to Physics: Changing Perspectives in Higher Education, IOP Publishing, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site
R. Sawyer, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site
F. Bakri, S. Sunaryo, V. F. Irawan, and D. Muliyati, “E-learning model for problem based learning on heat and thermodynamic topics in high school,” Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 101–112, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. İnel and A. G. Balım, “Concept cartoons assisted problem based learning method in science and technology teaching and students’ views,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 93, pp. 376–380, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sahin, “Effects of problem-based learning on university students’ epistemological beliefs about physics and physics learning and conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 19, pp. 266–275, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Z. Saka and A. Kumaş, “Implementation of problem based learning in cooperative learning groups: an example of movement of vertical shooting,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1327–1336, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Serevina, “Development of e-module based on problem based learning (PBL) on heat and temperature to improve student’s science process skill,” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 11, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
V. F. C. Servant-Miklos, “The Harvard connection: how the case method spawned problem-based learning at McMaster University,” Health Professions Education, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 163–171, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Benli and M. Sarikaya, “The investigation of the effect of problem based learning to the academic achievement and the permanence of knowledge of prospective science teacher: the problem of the boiler stone,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 46, pp. 4317–4322, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Celik, F. Onder, and I. Silay, “The effects of problem-based learning on the students’ success in physics course,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 28, pp. 656–660, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gorghiu, L. M. Drăghicescu, S. Cristea, A.-M. Petrescu, and L. M. Gorghiu, “Problem-based learningan an efficient learning strategy in the science lessons context,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 191, pp. 1865–1870, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gurses, C. Dogar, and E. Geyik, “Teaching of the concept of enthalpy using problem based learning approach,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 197, pp. 2390–2394, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Louw and Q. Deacon, “Teaching Industrie 4.0 technologies in a learning factory through problem-based learning: case study of a semi-automated robotic cell design,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 45, pp. 265–270, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Morgado and L. Leite, “Science and geography teachers’ conceptions regarding problem-based learning related concepts,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 106, pp. 2343–2347, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. S. Selçuk and S. Çalışkan, “A small-scale study comparing the impacts of problem-based learning and traditional methods on student satisfaction in the introductory physics course,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 809–813, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Sulaiman, “Students’ perceptions of implementing problem-based learning in a physics course,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 355–362, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Taşoğlu and M. Bakaç, “The effects of problem based learning and traditional teaching methods on students’ academic achievements, conceptual developments and scientific process skills according to their graduated high school types,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2409–2413, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ding, “Theoretical perspectives of quantitative physics education research,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 15, no. 2, Article ID 020101, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Folberg and S. Kaboli-Nejad, “A mixed method examination of gender differences in perceptions of STEM among Iranian Americans,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 543–576, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Eykelenboom, M. M. van Stralen, M. R. Olthof et al., “Political and public acceptability of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax: a mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis,” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, vol. 16, Article ID 78, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Schoonenboom and R. B. Johnson, “How to construct a mixed methods research design,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 69, no. S2, pp. 107–131, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. L. Plano Clark, “Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: identifying why, what, when, and how,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 57, pp. 106–111, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Savinainen and J. Viiri, “The force concept inventory as a measure of students conceptual coherence,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 6, pp. 719–740, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sonoo, H. Iijima, and N. Kanemura, “Altered sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics during sit-to-stand in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 96, Article ID 109331, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Vermeer, M. H. van IJzendoorn, R. A. Cárcamo, and L. J. Harrison, “Quality of child care using the environment rating scales: a meta-analysis of international studies,” International Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 48, pp. 33–60, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Wright, “Gain scores, ANCOVA, and propensity matching procedures for evaluating treatments in education,” Open Education Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45–65, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Thistlethwaite, D. Davies, S. Ekeocha et al., “The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: A BEME Guide No. 23,” Medical Teacher, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. e421–e444, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Lu, S. Bridges, and C. E. Hmelo-Silver, “Problem-based learning,” in The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. K. Sawyer, Ed., pp. 298–318, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Xi and J. P. Lantolf, “Scaffolding and the zone of proximal development: a problematic relationship,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 25–48, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pawlak, P. W. Irving, and M. D. Caballero, “Learning assistant approaches to teaching computational physics problems in a problem-based learning course,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 16, no. 1, Article ID 010139, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Lu, H. H. Yang, Y. Shi, and X. Wang, “Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 18, Article ID 1, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Lu, H. H. Yang, Y. Shi, and X. Wang, “Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, Article ID 1, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hosein and N. Rao, “The Acculturation and engagement of undergraduate students in Scientific thinking through research methods,” in Redefining Scientific Thinking for Higher Education, M. Murtonen and K. Balloo, Eds., pp. 157–175, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Kalaian and R. M. Kasim, “Effectiveness of various innovative learning methods in health science classrooms: a meta-analysis,” Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 22, pp. 1151–1167, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. S. R. P. Carvalho, I. C. Azevedo, G. K. P. Cruz et al., “Strategies used for the promotion of critical thinking in nursing undergraduate education: a systematic review,” Nurse Education Today, vol. 57, pp. 103–107, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Stankunas, K. Czabanowska, M. Avery, R. Kalediene, and S. M. Babich, “The implementation of problem-based learning in health service management training programs: experience from Lithuanian University of Health Sciences,” Leadership in Health Services, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 392–401, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Gibson, C. Dickson, B. Lawson, A. McMillan, and H. Kelly, “Learning to deal with crisis in the home: part 1—developing community simulation scenarios,” British Journal of Community Nursing, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 536–540, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Zarea Gavgani, H. Hazrati, and M. Ghojazadeh, “The efficacy of digital case scenario versus paper case scenario on clinical reasoning in problem based learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Research and Development in Medical Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Prosser and D. Sze, “Problem-based learning: student learning experiences and outcomes,” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, vol. 28, no. 1-2, pp. 131–142, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Jin and S. M. Bridges, “Educational technologies in problem-based learning in health sciences education: a systematic review,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 16, no. 12, Article ID e251, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Burgess, C. Roberts, T. Ayton, and C. Mellis, “Implementation of modified team-based learning within a problem based learning medical curriculum: a focus group study,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 18, no. 1, Article ID 74, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Oog-Seng, Problem-Based Learning Innovation: Using Problem to Power Learning in 21st Century, Thomson/Learning, Australia, 2003.
G. S. Subia, M. C. Marcos, L. E. Pascual, A. V. Tomas, and M. M. Liangco, “Cognitive levels as measure of higher-order thinking skills in senior high school mathematics of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) graduates,” Technology Reports of Kansai University, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 261–268, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Groot, G. Jonker, M. Rinia, O. ten Cate, and R. G. Hoff, “Simulation at the frontier of the zone of proximal development: a test in acute care for inexperienced learners,” Academic Medicine, vol. 95, no. 7, pp. 1098–1105, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cole, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Nachdr.; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1981.
Y. Chen, P. W. Irving, and E. C. Sayre, “Epistemic game for answer making in learning about hydrostatics,” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, vol. 9, no. 1, Article ID 010108, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, “Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: epistemic games,” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, vol. 3, no. 2, Article ID 020101, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Sena-Esteves, C. Morais, A. Guedes et al., “Student’s perceptions regarding assessment changes in a fluid mechanics course,” Education Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, Article ID 152, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Chusinkunawut, C. Henderson, K. Nugultham, T. Wannagatesiri, and W. Fakcharoenphol, “Design-based science with communication scaffolding results in productive conversations and improved learning for secondary students,” Research in Science Education, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1123–1140, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Kim, C. R. Vicentini, and B. R. Belland, “Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 215–236, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bontinge, A. Sutopo, and A. Taufiq, “Epistemic games of students grade X IPA SMAN 5 Malang in solving Newton law problems,” in The 4th International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICoMSE) 2020, Volume 2330, AIP Publishing, March 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Maries, S.-Y. Lin, and C. Singh, “The impact of students’ epistemological framing on a task requiring representational consistency,” in 2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 212–215, American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Yoder and S. Chenoweth, “Reflection for recovery: exam wrappers in an object-oriented software development course help struggling students improve future exam scores,” in 2020 IEEE 32nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE & T), pp. 1–9, Germany, November 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Belland, “Scaffolding: definition, current debates, and future directions,” in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. J. Bishop, Eds., pp. 505–518, Springer, New York, NY, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Y. Doo, C. J. Bonk, and H. Heo, “A meta-analysis of scaffolding effects in online learning in higher education,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 60–80, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-W. Han, S.-Y. Choi, and I. M. Choi, “Developing measurement of problem-based learning effectiveness: applying Rasch analysis,” Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 115–125, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-M. G. Rodriguez, K. Bain, and M. H. Towns, “The role of epistemology and epistemic games in mediating the use of mathematics in chemistry: implications for mathematics instruction and research on undergraduate mathematics education,” International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 279–301, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Fettahlıoğlu and M. Aydoğdu, “Developing environmentally responsible behaviours through the implementation of argumentation- and problem-based learning models,” Research in Science Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 987–1025, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hung, “All PBL starts here: the problem,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, vol. 10, no. 2, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Belland, K. D. Glazewski, and P. A. Ertmer, “Inclusion and problem-based learning: roles of students in a mixed-ability group,” RMLE Online, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1–19, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-A. Jarvis and O. B. Baloyi, “Scaffolding in reflective journaling: a means to develop higher order thinking skills in undergraduate learners,” International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, vol. 12, Article ID 100195, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Quintana, B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis et al., “A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 337–386, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. K. Sawyer, “Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 802, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
J. R. Savery, “Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Kim, B. R. Belland, M. Lefler, L. Andreasen, A. Walker, and D. Axelrod, “Computer-based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: meta-analysis,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, pp. 415–461, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Kim, B. R. Belland, and A. E. Walker, “Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for stem education: Bayesian meta-analysis,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 30, pp. 397–429, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. R. Belland, D. M. Weiss, N. J. Kim, J. Piland, and J. Gu, “An examination of credit recovery students’ use of computer-based scaffolding in a problem-based, scientific inquiry unit,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 273–293, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Saye and T. Brush, “Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 50, pp. 77–96, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Baran and M. Sozbilir, “An application of context- and problem-based learning (C-PBL) into teaching thermodynamics,” Research in Science Education, vol. 48, pp. 663–689, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Diani, Y. Yuberti, and M. R. Syarlisjiswan, “Web-enhanced course based on problem-based learning (PBL): development of interactive learning media for basic physics II,” Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, vol. 7, no. 1, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Drăghicescu, A.-M. Petrescu, G. C. Cristea, L. M. Gorghiu, and G. Gorghiu, “Application of problem-based learning strategy in science lessons—examples of good practice,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 149, pp. 297–301, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hussain, S. Sahudin, N. H. Abu Samah, and N. K. Anuar, “Students perception of an industry based approach problem based learning (PBL) and their performance in drug delivery courses,” Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 274–282, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Jatmiko, B. K. Prahani, S. Munasir et al., “The comparison of or-Ipa teaching model and problem based learning model effectiveness to improve critical thinking skills of pre-service physics teachers,” Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 300–319, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Yuliati, R. Fauziah, and A. Hidayat, “Student’s critical thinking skills in authentic problem based learning,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1013, Article ID 012025, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Diani, H. Khotimah, U. Khasanah, and M. R. Syarlisjiswan, “Scaffolding dalam pembelajaran fisika berbasis problem based instruction (PBL): efeknya terhadap pemahaman konsep dan self efficacy,” Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 2, no. 3, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mustofa and A. Asmichatin, “Modeling instruction to promote student’s understanding of system and model of system of mechanical energy,” Abjadia, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ershadnia, M. A. Amooie, R. Shams et al., “Non-Newtonian fluid flow dynamics in rotating annular media: physics-based and data-driven modeling,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 185, Article ID 106641, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Xu, A. Naserpour, A. Rezai, E. Namaziandost, and Z. Azizi, “Exploring EFL learners’ metaphorical conceptions of language learning: a multimodal analysis,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 323–339, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Rezai, E. Namaziandost, and S. Rahimi, “Developmental potential of self-assessment reports for high school students’ writing skills: a qualitative study,” Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 163–203, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Azizi, E. Namaziandost, and A. Rezai, “Potential of podcasting and blogging in cultivating Iranian advanced EFL learners’ reading comprehension,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, Article ID e09473, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Purbo Suwasono et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1056

Downloads

507

Citations