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

Promoting Analytical Thinking in Physics Learning: The Integration of a Scientific Approach and Flying Water Apparatus in Projectile Motion Instruction

Mayuriko Olivia Pertiwi
Madrasah Aliyah Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Indonesia
Asay Gidena
Adwa College of Teacher Education
Ethiopia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a Scientific Approach assisted by the Flying Water Apparatus on students’ analytical skills in projectile motion learning, specifically examining whether integrating inquiry-oriented activities with a physical visualization tool could effectively enhance students’ analytical thinking abilities.

    Methodology: This study employed a quasi-experimental design using a non-equivalent control group design. Participants consisted of Grade 10 science students at Madrasah Aliyah Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using an analytical skills test and a Student Response Questionnaire. Statistical analyses included Shapiro–Wilk normality tests, Levene’s and Bartlett’s homogeneity tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, independent-samples t-tests, and N-gain analysis.

    Main Findings: The experimental group achieved a higher posttest mean score (6.21) than the control group (4.57). Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between groups (p = 0.001). The experimental group obtained a medium N-gain score (0.60), while the control group achieved a low N-gain score (0.23). The findings indicate that the scientific approach assisted by the Flying Water Apparatus significantly improved students’ analytical skills in projectile motion learning.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study integrates the Scientific Approach and a low-cost Flying Water Apparatus within a single instructional intervention to enhance analytical skills in projectile motion learning. Unlike previous studies that focused on conceptual understanding or learning achievement, this research specifically examines analytical skills based on the dimensions of differentiating, organizing, and attributing, thereby extending evidence regarding inquiry-based physics instruction and higher-order thinking development.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    M. O. Pertiwi and A. Gidena, “Promoting Analytical Thinking in Physics Learning: The Integration of a Scientific Approach and Flying Water Apparatus in Projectile Motion Instruction”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 128–137, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i3.3394.

    More Citation Formats

  • 38
    Abstract views
    23
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. K. S. Taber, “Science Education as a Field of Scholarship BT - Science Education: An International Course Companion,” K. S. Taber and B. Akpan, Eds., Rotterdam: SensePublishers, 2017, pp. 3–19. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_1
    2. OECD, PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. 2023.
    3. T. Tanti, W. Utami, D. Deliza, and M. Jahanifar, “Investigation in vocation high school for attitude and motivation students in learning physics subject,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 479–490, 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452
    4. K. L. Seeratan, K. W. McElhaney, J. Mislevy, R. McGhee Jr, D. Conger, and M. C. Long, “Measuring students’ ability to engage in scientific inquiry: A new instrument to assess data analysis, explanation, and argumentation,” Educ. Assess., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 112–135, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10627197.2020.1756253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1756253
    5. D. A. Kurniawan, A. Astalini, D. Darmaji, T. Tanti, and S. Maryani, “Innovative learning: Gender perception of e-module linear equations in mathematics and physics,” Indones. J. Learn. Adv. Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 92–106, 2022, doi: 10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.16610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.16610
    6. G. M. Sinatra and D. Lombardi, “Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 120–131, Jul. 2020, doi: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
    7. H. M. I. Zafeer, S. Maqbool, Y. Rong, and S. Maqbool, “Mapping the relationship and influence of school internal factors with an eye towards students’ science academic outcomes,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 19, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38696
    8. B. E. Tijani and A. M. Adeduyigbe, “Relevance of science education for self-reliance and economic growth in Nigeria: a systematic literature review,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 92, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00504-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00504-8
    9. T. Tanti, D. A. Kurniawan, N. Kurniawan, and L. Anggraini, “Attitudes toward science based on analysis and correlation: Learning enjoyment & leisure interest on science,” Form. J. Ilm. Pendidik. MIPA, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.30998/formatif.v11i1.5142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v11i1.5142
    10. R. Hidayat, I. Nugroho, Z. Zainuddin, and T. A. Ingai, “A systematic review of analytical thinking skills in STEM education settings,” Inf. Learn. Sci., vol. 125, no. 7–8, pp. 565–586, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2023-0070
    11. J. West, “Utilizing Bloom’s taxonomy and authentic learning principles to promote preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 100620, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100620
    12. A. Awouda, E. Traini, M. Asranov, and P. Chiabert, “Bloom’s IoT taxonomy towards an effective Industry 4.0 education: Case study on Open-source IoT laboratory,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 15043–15065, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12468-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12468-7
    13. S. Van den Eynde, B. P. Schermerhorn, J. Deprez, M. Goedhart, J. R. Thompson, and M. De Cock, “Dynamic conceptual blending analysis to model student reasoning processes while integrating mathematics and physics: A case study in the context of the heat equation,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 10114, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010114
    14. J. Fielding and K. Makar, “Challenging conceptual understanding in a complex system: supporting young students to address extended mathematical inquiry problems,” Instr. Sci., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 35–61, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11251-021-09564-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09564-3
    15. J. A. McLaughlin and J. M. Bailey, “Students need more practice with spatial thinking in geoscience education: a systematic review of the literature,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 147–204, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2022.2029305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2029305
    16. L. Mason and S. Zaccoletti, “Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: A review of studies,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 181–212, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09529-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09529-x
    17. M. Luo, D. Sun, L. Zhu, and Y. Yang, “Evaluating scientific reasoning ability: Student performance and the interaction effects between grade level, gender, and academic achievement level,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 41, p. 100899, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100899
    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 Pendidik. Fis. Vol 9, No 3 Sept. 2024, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 387–394, 2024, doi: 10.26737/jipf.v9i3.5185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26737/jipf.v9i3.5185
    19. S. Piten, S. Rakkapao, and S. Prasitpong, “Cambodian students’ prior knowledge of projectile motion,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 901, p. 12116, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012116
    20. R. Dilber, I. Karaman, and B. Duzgun, “High school students’ understanding of projectile motion concepts,” Educ. Res. Eval., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 203–222, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.1080/13803610902899101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610902899101
    21. J. Jufrida et al., “Student responses to the application of the number head together learning model in physics subjects,” J. Pendidik. Fis. Indones., vol. 17, no. 2, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.15294/jpfi.v17i2.24083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v17i2.24083
    22. C. Cirkony, “Flexible, creative, constructive, and collaborative: the makings of an authentic science inquiry task,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 45, no. 17, pp. 1440–1462, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2023.2213384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2213384
    23. D. T. Brookes, E. Ektina, and G. Planinsic, “Implementing an epistemologically authentic approach to student-centered inquiry learning,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 16, no. 2, p. 20148, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020148
    24. N. T. Arega and T. S. Hunde, “Constructivist instructional approaches: A systematic review of evaluation-based evidence for effectiveness,” Rev. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, p. e70040, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1002/rev3.70040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70040
    25. N. Shin, J. Bowers, J. Krajcik, and D. Damelin, “Promoting computational thinking through project-based learning,” Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 7, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s43031-021-00033-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00033-y
    26. J. Kranz, A. Baur, and A. Möller, “Learners’ challenges in understanding and performing experiments: A systematic review of the literature,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 321–367, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2022.2138151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2138151
    27. P. Kwangmuang, S. Jarutkamolpong, W. Sangboonraung, and S. Daungtod, “The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 6, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309
    28. Maison, T. Tant, D. A. Kurniawan, W. Sukarni, Erika, and R. Hoyi, “Assessing students’ attitudes towards physics through the application of inquiry and jigsaw cooperative learning models in high schools,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 439–450, 2021, doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14426a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14426a
    29. R. L. Gómez and A. M. Suárez, “Do inquiry-based teaching and school climate influence science achievement and critical thinking? Evidence from PISA 2015,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 43, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00240-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00240-5
    30. A. A. Alanazi, K. Osman, and L. Halim, “Development of technology-enhanced higher order thinking learning module based on scaffolding and guided discovery approaches,” in Auer, M.E., May, D. (eds) 2024 Yearbook Emerging Technologies in Learning. Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems, M. E. Auer and D. May, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 485–509. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-80388-8_26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80388-8_26
    31. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100661
    32. H. J. Banda and J. Nzabahimana, “Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 17, no. 2, p. 23108, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108
    33. F. B. Wadsworth et al., “Projectile motion: Experimental datasets and classroom exercises,” Phys. Educ., vol. 60, no. 4, p. 45024, 2025, doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/add2c5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/add2c5
    34. Y. Wang, L. Zhang, and M. Pang, “Virtual experiments in physics education: A systematic literature review,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 633–655, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2024.2327995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2327995
    35. P. R. Hunter, F. J. Colón-González, J. Brainard, and S. Rushton, “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe in 2020: A quasi-experimental non-equivalent group and time series design study.,” Euro Surveill, vol. 26, no. 28, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.28.2001401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.28.2001401
    36. C. J. Miller, S. N. Smith, and M. Pugatch, “Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in implementation research,” Psychiatry Res., vol. 283, p. 112452, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.027
    37. M. Bulus, “Sample Size Determination and Optimal Design of Randomized/Non-equivalent Pretest-posttest Control-group Designs TT - Randomize/Eşdeğer Olmayan Öntest-Sontest Kontrol Gruplu Tasarımların Örneklem Büyüklüğünün Belirlenmesi ve Optimal Tasarımı,” Adıyaman Univ. J. Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 48–69, 2021, doi: 10.17984/adyuebd.941434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.941434
    38. J. Kang, “Interrelationship Between Inquiry-Based Learning and Instructional Quality in Predicting Science Literacy,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 339–355, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11165-020-09946-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09946-6
    39. H.-H. Wang, Z.-R. Hong, H.-C. She, T. J. Smith, J. Fielding, and H. Lin, “The role of structured inquiry, open inquiry, and epistemological beliefs in developing secondary students’ scientific and mathematical literacies,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 14, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00329-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00329-z
    40. Z. Ješková, S. Lukáč, Ľ. Šnajder, J. Guniš, D. Klein, and M. Kireš, “Active Learning in STEM Education with Regard to the Development of Inquiry Skills,” 2022. doi: 10.3390/educsci12100686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100686