Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Students' Lexical Difficulties in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics Vocabulary: A Survey Analysis

Athfatullaila Falakh
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
rakyozu@gmail.com
Sausan Nada Widana
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
Muhamad Raka Arya Sidik
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
Wahyunengsih Wahyunengsih
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: The aim of this study is to map undergraduate students’ physics vocabulary needs in classical mechanics and modern physics by identifying their levels of familiarity, frequency of use, and perceived difficulty of scientific terms across different physics domains.

    Methodology: This study employed a descriptive quantitative survey method. The instrument was a researcher-developed structured questionnaire containing physics vocabulary items, validated by expert review. Data were collected online using Google Forms. Responses were measured with a three-point Likert scale and analyzed descriptively using Microsoft Excel software.

    Main Findings: The results show that students demonstrate high vocabulary recognition in classical mechanics and energy-related terms. Moderate recognition appears in laboratory and academic vocabulary. Low recognition is found in thermodynamics and modern physics terms, especially abstract and theoretical concepts. Overall vocabulary familiarity decreases as conceptual abstraction increases across physics domains.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study introduces a systematic, domain-based mapping of physics vocabulary by integrating familiarity, frequency of use, and perceived difficulty across multiple physics fields. It advances existing research by providing comparative evidence between classical mechanics and modern physics, offering empirical insights that support targeted vocabulary instruction in higher education physics learning.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    A. Falakh, S. N. Widana, M. R. A. Sidik, and W. Wahyunengsih, “Students’ Lexical Difficulties in Classical Mechanics and Modern Physics Vocabulary: A Survey Analysis ”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 269–276, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i4.2384.

    More Citation Formats

  • 150
    Abstract views
    128
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. K. T. Kotsis, “The language of physics : shaping conceptual understanding and scientific communication,” Bull. Lang. Lit. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.59652/blls.v2i2.581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59652/blls.v2i2.581
    2. G. N. Cervetti, E. H. Hiebert, P. D. Pearson, and N. A. McClung, “Factors that influence the difficulty of science words,” J. Lit. Res., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 153–185, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1177/1086296X15615363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15615363
    3. N. Mansour, C. Aras, J. K. Staarman, and S. B. M. Alotaibi, “Embodied learning of science concepts through augmented reality technology,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 8245–8275, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13120-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13120-0
    4. K. I. Hossain, “Reviewing the role of culture in English language learning: challenges and opportunities for educators,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 9, p. 100781, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100781
    5. G. Liu and N. Fang, “The effects of enhanced hands-on experimentation on correcting student misconceptions about work and energy in engineering mechanics,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 462–481, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1909555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1909555
    6. Y. F. H. Silaban and J. Jumadi, “Concept understanding profile of high school students on doppler effect and sound intensity levels,” Momentum Phys. Educ. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2022, doi: 10.21067/mpej.v6i1.5664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v6i1.5664
    7. T. Hackemann, L. Heine, and D. Höttecke, “Challenging to read, easy to comprehend? effects of linguistic demands on secondary students’ text comprehension in physics,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 20, pp. 43–68, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10763-022-10306-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10306-1
    8. D. Ribeiro dos Santos, “Data collection methods and tools for research; a step-by-step guide to choose data collection technique for academic and business research projects,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 10–38, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://hal.science/hal-03741847%0Ahttps://hal.science/hal-03741847/document
    9. K. Vuola and M. Nousiainen, “Scientific Vocabulary in Argumentative Elements,” no. September, 2024. doi: 10.23988/sats.1009.c1404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23988/sats.1009.c1404
    10. P. Wulff, “Physics language and language use in physics—what do we know and how AI might enhance language-related research and instruction,” Eur. J. Phys., vol. 45, no. 2, p. 23001, 2024, doi: 10.1088/1361-6404/ad0f9c. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ad0f9c
    11. A. Bejan and G. Tsatsaronis, “Purpose in Thermodynamics,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/en14020408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020408
    12. S. Blaber and D. A. Sivak, “Optimal control in stochastic thermodynamics,” J. Phys. Commun., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 33001, 2023, doi: 10.1088/2399-6528/acbf04. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/acbf04
    13. N. Munfaridah, L. Avraamidou, and M. Goedhart, “The use of multiple representations in undergraduate physics education: what do we know and where do we go from here?,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2021, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/9577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9577
    14. M. Brang, F. Greinert, M. S. Ubben, H. Franke, and P. Bitzenbauer, “Quantum terminology in pseudoscience: exploration of pre-service physics teachers’ reasonings,” EPJ Quantum Technol., vol. 12, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00403-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-025-00403-9
    15. A. Janesick et al., “High resolution mapping of the tumor microenvironment using integrated single-cell, spatial and in situ analysis,” Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 8353, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-43458-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43458-x
    16. R. Bentivoglio, E. Isufi, S. N. Jonkman, and R. Taormina, “Deep learning methods for flood mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions,” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 4345–4378, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.5194/hess-26-4345-2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4345-2022
    17. B. N. Abbasi, Y. Wu, and Z. Luo, “Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on curriculum development in global higher education institutions,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 547–581, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13113-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13113-z
    18. A. Hakim, “Investigating the challenges of clinical education from the viewpoint of nursing educators and students: a cross-sectional study,” Sage Open Med., vol. 11, p. 20503121221143576, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1177/20503121221143578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121221143578
    19. T. S. Dlodlo, “Translating scientific terms across European and African languages — physics in Nguni II,” WINHEC Int. J. Indig. Educ. Scholarsh., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 91–112, 2021, doi: 10.18357/wj161202120276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18357/wj161202120276
    20. P. Cruchinho et al., “Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: a practical guideline for novice researchers,” J. Multidiscip. Healthc., vol. Volume 17, no. null, pp. 2701–2728, May 2024, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S419714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
    21. A. Buzzell, T. J. Atherton, and R. Barthelemy, “Modern physics courses: understanding the content taught in the U.S.,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 10139, 2025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.21.010139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.21.010139
    22. D. Sethi and S. Agarwal, “Lexical approach : revisiting english language teaching by putting theories into practice,” Res. Humanit. Soc. Sci., vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 6–8, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/6074
    23. P. Ranganathan and C. Caduff, “Designing and validating a research questionnaire ‑ Part 1,” pp. 1–4, 2023, doi: 10.4103/picr.picr. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_140_23
    24. D. Kaltakci-Gurel, A. Eryilmaz, and L. C. McDermott, “Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 238–260, 2017, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094
    25. S. Khalid, “How to choose a sampling technique and determine sample size for research : a simplified guide for researchers,” Oral Oncol. Reports, vol. 12, no. September, p. 100662, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.oor.2024.100662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oor.2024.100662
    26. Y. Kurniawan, “Motivation of class XI students towards learning physical education sports and health,” Multidiscip. J. Tour. Hosp. Sport Phys. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 16–20, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.37251/jthpe.v1i1.1038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jthpe.v1i1.1038
    27. I. Kusmaryono, D. Wijayanti, and H. R. Maharani, “Number of response options, reliability, validity, and potential bias in the use of the likert scale education and social science research: a literature review,” Int. J. Educ. Methodol., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 625–637, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.12973/ijem.8.4.625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.625
    28. R. B. Sitepu, A. Rusilowati, B. Subali, and A. S. Khafifi, “Analysis of vocational school students ’ ability in conceptual understanding,” JIPF (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidik. Fis., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 28, 2019, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v4i1.843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26737/jipf.v4i1.843
    29. K. Vuola, M. Nousiainen, and I. T. Koponen, “Pre-service teachers’ vocabularies of the language of science in the context of learning about electrons and photons,” LUMAT Int. J. Math, Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 11, no. 2 SE-Articles, pp. 1–34, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.31129/LUMAT.11.2.1924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.11.2.1924
    30. Y. Ardasheva, K. J. Carbonneau, A. K. Roo, and Z. Wang, “Relationships among prior learning, anxiety, self-efficacy, and science vocabulary learning of middle school students with varied English language proficiency,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 61, pp. 21–30, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.008