Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Developing a Phyphox E-Module with Rule-Based Feedback for Science Process Skills in Rotational Dynamics

Riska Adelia
Universitas Islam Negeri Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi ROR
Indonesia
Tanti Tanti
Universitas Islam Negeri Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi ROR
Indonesia
tanti@uinjambi.ac.id
Jerfi Jerfi
Universitas Islam Negeri Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: Science process skills are required outcomes of Indonesia's Kurikulum Merdeka, yet teachers often teach rotational dynamics without hands-on experiments. This study developed a practicum e-module that combines Phyphox experiments with rule-based formative feedback linked to science process skill indicators, and evaluated its validity, practicality, and associated changes in students’ scores.

    Methodology: The ADDIE model guided development. The product was trialed with 32 Grade XI students at Senior High School 5 Sarolangun using a one-group pretest-posttest design. We analyzed validity and practicality data descriptively. Pretest and posttest scores from a 15-item science process skills test were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, normalized gain, and effect size.

    Main Findings: The mean expert-validity score was 88.72%, and students rated the e-module practical (M = 4.13; 82.65%). Mean scores increased from 30.97 to 77.09 (Z = -4.643, p < .001), with a moderate normalized gain (g = 0.67) and a large within-group effect size (r = 0.82). The largest changes occurred in identifying variables, designing experiments, and analyzing data, whereas formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions changed least.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The e-module is therefore a valid and practical resource for supporting experimental work where laboratory equipment is limited. Because the study lacked a comparison group, the observed change cannot be attributed to the e-module alone; controlled and longer-term trials are recommended.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Developing a Phyphox E-Module with Rule-Based Feedback for Science Process Skills in Rotational Dynamics”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 796–806, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i4.3913.

    More Citation Formats

  • 43
    Abstract views
    11
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. [1] T. Tanti, D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, D. A. Kurniawan, and M. Iqbal, “Analysis of user responses to the application of web-based assessment on character assessment,” Journal of education technology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 356, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jet.v5 i3.33590.
    2. [2] S. Anggereni, S. Suhardiman, and R. Amaliah, “Analisis ketersediaan peralatan, bahan ajar, administrasi laboratorium, keterlaksanaan kegiatan praktikum di laboratorium fisika [Analysis of the availability of equipment, teaching materials, and laboratory administration, as well as the implementation of practical activities in the physics laboratory],” Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 414-423, 2021, doi: 10.20527/jipf.v5i3.3925.
    3. [3] N. Yunita and T. Nurita, “Analisis keterampilan proses sains siswa pada pembelajaran daring [Analysis of students’ science process skills during online learning],” Pensa E-Jurnal: Pendidikan Sains, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 378-385, 2021, doi: 10.26740/pensa.v9i3.41088.
    4. [4] L. G. Rimoldini and C. Singh, “Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts,” Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 010102, 2005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102.
    5. [5] R. Rafika and S. Syuhendri, “Students’ misconceptions on rotational and rolling motions,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1816, Art. no. 012016, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1816/1/012016.
    6. [6] S. Staacks, D. Dorsel, S. Hütz, F. Stallmach, T. Splith, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, "Collaborative smartphone experiments for large audiences with phyphox," European Journal of Physics, vol. 43, no. 5, Art. no. 055702, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1361-6404/ac7830.
    7. [7] T. Pierratos and H. M. Polatoglou, “Utilizing the phyphox app for measuring kinematics variables with a smartphone,” Physics Education, vol. 55, no. 2, , 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/ab6951.
    8. [8] R. Carroll and J. Lincoln, “Phyphox app in the physics classroom,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 606-607, 2020, doi: 10.1119/10.0002393.
    9. [9] N. Imtinan and H. Kuswanto, “The use of Phyphox application in physics experiments: A literature review,” JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 183-191, 2023, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v8i2.4167.
    10. [10] M. S. Ubben, F. E. Kremer, S. Heinicke, A. Marohn, and S. Heusler, “Smartphone usage in science education: A systematic literature review,” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 4, Art. no. 345, 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13040345.
    11. [11] J. Garzón and G. Lampropoulos, "Mobile learning for science education: Meta-analysis of K-12 research," Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 6735-6750, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2280973.
    12. [12] M. J. N. Revano and R. P. Antonio, “From pocket to physics: Unlocking the potential of smartphone sensor experiments to enhance science learning,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, pp. 1-19, 2026, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2025.2598247.
    13. [13] Y. Sirisathitkul and C. Sirisathitkul, “Smartphones as smart tools for science and engineering laboratory: A review,” Iraqi Journal of Science, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 2240-2249, 2023, doi: 10.24996/ijs.2023.64.5.12.
    14. [14] K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and A. Müller, “Using smartphones as experimental tools - effects on interest, curiosity, and learning in physics education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 385-403, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10956-018-9731-7.
    15. [15] K. Hochberg, S. Becker, M. Louis, P. Klein, and J. Kuhn, “Using smartphones as experimental tools - a follow-up: Cognitive effects by video analysis and reduction of cognitive load by multiple representations,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 303-317, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10956-020-09816-w.
    16. [16] A. Kaps and F. Stallmach, “Development and didactic analysis of smartphone-based experimental exercises for the smart physics lab,” Physics Education, vol. 57, no. 4, Art. no. 045038, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/ac68c0.
    17. [17] M. Monteiro, C. Stari, C. Cabeza, and A. C. Marti, “Using mobile-device sensors to teach students error analysis,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 477-481, 2021, doi: 10.1119/10.0002906.
    18. [18] T. Tanti, D. Deliza, and S. Hartina, “The effectiveness of using smartphones as mobile-mini labs in improving students’ beliefs in physics,” JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 387-394, 2024, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v9i3.5185.
    19. [19] D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, D. A. Kurniawan, H. Parasdila, I. Irdianti, S. Susbiyanto, K. Kuswanto, and M. Ikhlas, “E-module based problem solving in basic physics practicum for science process skills,” International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 15, no. 15, 2019, doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v15i15.10942.
    20. [20] T. Tanti, A. Astalini, D. Darmaji, D. A. Kurniawan, and R. Fitriani, “Student perception review from gender: Electronic Moduls of Mathematical Physics,” JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 125-132, 2022, doi: 10.23887/jpiundiksha.v11i1.35107.
    21. [21] A. Astalini, D. Darmaji, D. A. Kurniawan, and M. Z. Azzahra, “Comparative analysis and the influence of science process skills on students' digital literacy on measurement materials,” Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 131-145, 2024, doi: 10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v13i2.22986.
    22. [22] C. Liu, D. Zowghi, M. Kearney, and M. Bano, “Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary school science education: A systematic review,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2021, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12505.
    23. [23] H. Crompton, D. Burke, and Y.-C. Lin, “Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK-12 research using Bloom's Taxonomy,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 684-701, 2019, doi: 10.1111/bjet.12674.
    24. [24] D. Parsons, A. Palalas, S. A. Nikou, and S. Rodulfo, “Mobile learning frameworks and pedagogy: A systematic review,” European Journal of Education, vol. 59, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12601.
    25. [25] E. G. Galimova, O. V. Sergeeva, M. R. Zheltukhina, N. L. Sokolova, V. L. Zakharova, and N. N. Drobysheva, “Mobile learning in science education to improve higher-order thinking skills and communication skills: Scoping review,” Frontiers in Communication, vol. 10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1624012.
    26. [26] A. Meyer, T. Bleckmann, and G. Friege, “Automatic feedback on physics tasks using open-source generative artificial intelligence,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 48, no. 15, pp. 2396-2421, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2025.2499220.
    27. [27] W. Wang, Y. Wang, J. Chen, X. Wang, H. Zhang, C. Guo, and Y. Peng, “The effectiveness of AI-supported personalized feedback on students’ learning outcomes and motivation: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 724-755, 2026, doi: 10.1177/07356331251410020.
    28. [28] T. Tanti, W. Utami, D. Deliza, and M. Jahanifar, “Investigation in Vocation High School for Attitude and Motivation Students in Learning Physics Subject,” Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 479-490. 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452.
    29. [29] B. Wisniewski, K. Zierer, and J. Hattie, “The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, Art. no. 3087, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087.
    30. [30] R. M. Branch and İ. Varank, Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2009.
    31. [31] M. Pedaste et al., “Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle,” Educational Research Review, vol. 14, pp. 47-61, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
    32. [32] A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen, “Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 681-718, 2016, doi: 10.3102/0034654315627366.
    33. [33] N. M. Dah, M. S. A. Mat Noor, M. Z. Kamarudin, and S. S. Syed Abdul Azziz, “The impacts of open inquiry on students' learning in science: A systematic literature review,” Educational Research Review, vol. 43, Art. no. 100601, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100601.
    34. [34] T. T. S. Strat, E. K. Henriksen, and K. M. Jegstad, “Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 191-249, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148.
    35. [35] R. P. Antonio and M. S. Prudente, “Effects of inquiry-based approaches on students' higher-order thinking skills in science: A meta-analysis,” International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 251-281, 2024, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.3216.
    36. [36] S. J. Husnaini and S. Chen, “Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 15, no. 1, Art. no. 010119, 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010119.
    37. [37] K. Kurniahtunnisa, B. R. Wola, F. Harahap, W. A. Tumewu, and Z. W. M. Warouw, “Research trends of science process skills in Indonesian science education journals,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 668-687, 2024, doi: 10.36681/tused.2024.036.
    38. [38] N. Nurlaini, R. Asyhar, and T. Tanti, “Unlocking scientific potential: Using smartphones as mobile mini-labs to improve students' science process skills,” JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 175-181, 2025, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v10i1.6109.
    39. [39] A. R. Aththibby, H. Kuswanto, M. Mundilarto, and E. Prihandono, “Improving motivation and science process skills through a mobile laboratory-based learning model,” Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2292-2299, 2021, doi: 10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6333.
    40. [40] I. Wahyudi, V. A. Ashra, and E. Suyanto, “The effect of Phyphox application-assisted guided inquiry on students' creative-thinking ability,” Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA, vol. 13, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.26418/jpmipa.v13i1.42590.
    41. [41] E. Aregehagn, A. Lykknes, M. Febri, and M. Ayene, “The transformative effects of guided inquiry-based learning on scientific knowledge of vision,” African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 205-217, 2022, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2022.2135294.
    42. [42] K. S. Taber, “The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education,” Research in Science Education, vol. 48, pp. 1273-1296, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
    43. [43] D. Lakens, “Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 4, Art. no. 863, 2013, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
    44. [44] R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64-74, 1998, doi: 10.1119/1.18809.
    45. [45] A. Gasparini, F. Stern, M. Delaval, and A. Müller, “Using smartphones and tablets as experimental tools in the physics classroom: Effects on learning and motivation,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 22, no. 1, Art. no. 010129, 2026.
    46. [46] S. Staacks, S. Hütz, H. Heinke, and C. Stampfer, "Advanced tools for smartphone-based experiments: phyphox," Physics Education, vol. 53, no. 4, Art. no. 045009, 2018.
    47. [47] L. Bao, K. M. Koenig, Y. Xiao, J. C. Fritchman, S. Zhou, and C. Chen, “Theoretical model and quantitative assessment of scientific thinking and reasoning,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 18, no. 1, Art. no. 010115, 2022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010115.
    48. [48] N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, “Introductory physics labs: We can do better,” Physics Today, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 38-45, 2018.
    49. [49] A. Molz, J. Kühn, and A. Müller, “Effectiveness of science outreach labs with and without connection to classroom learning: Affective and cognitive outcomes,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 18, no. 2, Art. no. 020144, 2022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020144.
    50. [50] S.-Y. Lin, J. M. Aiken, D. T. Seaton, S. S. Douglas, E. F. Greco, B. D. Thoms, and M. F. Schatz, “Exploring physics students’ engagement with online instructional videos in an introductory mechanics course,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 13, no. 2, Art. no. 020138, 2017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020138.

Categories