Low-Cost Light Sensor-Based Physics Experiments: Enhancing Students’ Experimental Skills
Abstract
Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a simple light sensor-based experiment in improving students’ experimental skills in physics learning, particularly in the topic of optics, among eleventh-grade vocational high school students.
Methodology: This study used a quantitative experimental method with a one-group design. The tools included a simple light sensor based on an LDR, breadboard, resistors, LED, buzzer, and multimeter. Data were collected through observation sheets, product assessment, and student response questionnaires. Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software.
Main Findings: Students’ experimental skills reached a high level with a mean score of 81.61, significantly exceeding the Minimum Completeness Criteria score of 75 (p < 0.05). All students successfully completed the simple light sensor experiment. Skill indicators showed an overall average of 86.67. Student responses to the media and learning process were very positive, with mean percentages of 87.07% and 86.90%, while product evaluation by teachers and observers reached 100%.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides new empirical evidence on the effectiveness of low-cost, simple light sensor (light dependent resistor)-based experiments in real vocational classrooms, focusing on direct measurement of students’ science process skills. It advances existing knowledge by demonstrating that affordable, hands-on experimental media can significantly enhance practical skills and learning engagement in physics education contexts with limited laboratory resources.
References
M. G. Lavasani and F. Khandan, “Transformation model for character education of students,” Cypriot J. Educ., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 61–74, 2011.
K. Rebecchi, L. Todd, and H. Hagège, “Teaching responsible creativity: a path to ethical innovation,” Discov. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 103, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s44217-024-00164-0.
A. Malik, M. L. Khan, K. Hussain, J. Qadir, and A. Tarhini, “AI in higher education: unveiling academicians’ perspectives on teaching, research, and ethics in the age of ChatGPT,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 2390–2406, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2024.2409407.
M. G. Salimon, S. M. M. Sanuri, O. A. Aliyu, S. Perumal, and M. M. Yusr, “E-learning satisfaction and retention: a concurrent perspective of cognitive absorption, perceived social presence and technology acceptance model,” J. Syst. Inf. Technol., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 109–129, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1108/JSIT-02-2020-0029.
X. Cheng, W. Mo, and Y. Duan, “Factors contributing to learning satisfaction with blended learning teaching mode among higher education students in China,” Front. Psychol., vol. Volume 14-2023, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1193675
W. Zhao, L. He, W. Deng, J. Zhu, A. Su, and Y. Zhang, “The effectiveness of the combined problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching method in the clinical practical teaching of thyroid disease,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 381, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02306-y.
R. O’Dowd, “What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 109, p. 101804, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101804.
Y. Shi, Y. Ma, J. MacLeod, and H. H. Yang, “College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature,” J. Comput. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79–103, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40692-019-00142-8.
F. A. Hidajat, “A comparison between problem-based conventional learning and creative problem-based learning on self-regulation skills: Experimental study,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 9, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19512.
C. Müller, T. Mildenberger, and D. Steingruber, “Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: why are some courses more effective than others?,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 10, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x.
G. Falloon, “From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 2449–2472, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4.
W. Sass, J. Boeve-de Pauw, D. Olsson, N. Gericke, S. De Maeyer, and P. Van Petegem, “Redefining action competence: The case of sustainable development,” J. Environ. Educ., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 292–305, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1080/00958964.2020.1765132.
K. Mikołajczyk, “Changes in the approach to employee development in organisations as a result of the covid-19 pandemic,” Eur. J. Train. Dev., vol. 46, no. 5–6, pp. 544–562, 2022, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-12-2020-0171.
K. P. Waterman, L. Goldsmith, and M. Pasquale, “Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum: an examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09801-y.
C. Conradty and F. X. Bogner, “STEAM teaching professional development works: Effects on students’ creativity and motivation,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 26, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40561-020-00132-9.
E. Bahufite, S. Kasonde-Ng’andu, and A. Akakandelwa, “The relationships between learners’ academic achievement due to the use of constructivist methods in physical science and their self-esteem in zambian secondary schools,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 100632, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100632.
P. Pečiuliauskienė, “Instructional clarity in physics lessons: Students’ motivation and self-confidence,” Cogent Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236463.
H. S. Lee and J. Lee, “Applying Artificial Intelligence in Physical Education and Future Perspectives,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/su13010351.
E. Byusa, E. Kampire, and A. R. Mwesigye, “Game-based learning approach on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry concepts: A systematic review of literature,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09541.
J. Zajda, “Constructivist learning theory and creating effective learning environments bt - globalisation and education reforms: Creating effective learning environments,” J. Zajda, Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 35–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71575-5_3.
M. Martínez Casanovas, N. Ruíz-Munzón, and M. Buil-Fabregá, “Higher education: The best practices for fostering competences for sustainable development through the use of active learning methodologies,” Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 703–727, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-03-2021-0082.
J. Kim, “Learning and teaching online during covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education practicum,” Int. J. Early Child., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 145–158, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13158-020-00272-6.
S. Y. Chen and J.-H. Wang, “Individual differences and personalized learning: A review and appraisal,” Univers. Access Inf. Soc., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 833–849, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10209-020-00753-4.
C. Pendão and I. Silva, “Optical fiber sensors and sensing networks: Overview of the main principles and applications,” 2022. doi: 10.3390/s22197554.
H. S. Stokowski et al., “Integrated quantum optical phase sensor in thin film lithium niobate,” Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3355, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38246-6.
H. Bernstein, “Optical sensors BT - measuring electronics and sensors: Basics of measurement technology, sensors, analog and digital signal processing,” H. Bernstein, Ed., Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2022, pp. 259–308. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-35067-3_4.
J. Cao et al., “Optical design and fabrication of a common-aperture multispectral imaging system for integrated deep space navigation and detection,” Opt. Lasers Eng., vol. 167, p. 107619, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2023.107619.
A. B. Rahman, T. Li, and Y. Wang, “Recent advances in indoor localization via visible lights: A survey,” 2020. doi: 10.3390/s20051382.
K. Poboży, T. Poboży, P. Domański, M. Derczyński, W. Konarski, and J. Domańska-Poboża, “Evolution of Light-sensitive proteins in optogenetic approaches for vision restoration: A comprehensive review,” 2025. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13020429.
Y. Monsalve, A. F. Cruz-Pacheco, and J. Orozco, “Red and near-infrared light-activated photoelectrochemical nanobiosensors for biomedical target detection,” Microchim. Acta, vol. 191, no. 9, p. 535, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00604-024-06592-x.
D. S. Putri, K. Herlina, and A. Anggreini, “Development of practicum tools for learning the concept of light interference assisted by the ESP-32 camera sensor to practice science process skills,” Radiasi J. Berk. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 17, no. 2 SE-Articles, pp. 92–101, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.37729/radiasi.v17i2.3678.
H. Riyadi, M. Wati, and S. Annur, “Pengembangan alat peraga fisika materi cahaya untuk melatihkan keterampilan proses sains siswa SMP [Development of physics projects on light tools to train science process skills of junior high school students],” J. Ilm. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 42, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.20527/jipf.v2i1.1012.
A. N. Maemunah, S. Siswoyo, and F. C. Wibowo, “Pengembangan alat praktikum pembiasan cahaya menggunakan sensor photodioda sebagai media pembelajaran fisika [Development of a light refraction practical tool using a photodiode sensor as a physics learning medium],” in Joint Prosiding IPS dan Seminar Nasional Fisika, 2020. doi: 10.21009/03.SNF2020.02.PF.24.
L. Jiang et al., “How is the impact of ICT-Assisted experiments on students’ physics learning: A meta-analysis of K-12 research,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10956-025-10265-6.
X.-M. Wang, X.-H. Yu, D. Yu, G.-J. Hwang, and M. Lan, “Does combining real and virtual experiments improve learning achievement in physics? Evidence from a meta-analysis (2001–2021),” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 46, p. 100661, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100661.
J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.), Thousand O. CA: SAGE, 2014.
J. Creswell, Educational Research, 6th ed. 2015.
B. Swire-Thompson, J. DeGutis, and D. Lazer, “Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations,” J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 286–299, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006.
S. Flegr, J. Kuhn, and K. Scheiter, “When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: Combining real and virtual experiments in science education,” Comput. Educ., vol. 197, p. 104745, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104745.
V. Casamayou et al., “Pushing the boundaries of hands-on optics experiments with interactive digital simulation,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 280, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00718-w.
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Irzha Hadi, Wan Mohm Aimran, Singha Prasitpong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
