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

Learning Obstacles in High School Physics and the Potential of Digital Assessment to Improve Learning Outcomes: A Qualitative Investigation

Fransiskus Andut
Nanga Pinoh 1 State Senior High School
Indonesia
fransiskusandut455@gmail.com
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to identify learning obstacles encountered in high school physics, examine teachers’ perceptions of digital assessment, and explore the potential application of a Nonequivalent Control Group Design framework to support improvements in physics learning outcomes and assessment practices.

    Methodology: A qualitative descriptive approach was employed in this study. Data were collected through classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, observation sheets, interview guides, and field notes. Participants consisted of physics teachers from five senior high schools in Jambi Province, Indonesia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes related to learning obstacles, assessment practices, and digital assessment implementation.

    Main Findings: The findings revealed that students experienced learning obstacles related to conceptual understanding, mathematical reasoning, abstract physics topics, and limited practical experiences. Low motivation, differences in student abilities, and inadequate learning resources were identified as factors affecting learning outcomes. Teachers perceived digital assessment positively because it increased assessment efficiency, provided immediate feedback, and enhanced student engagement. Internet connectivity and device availability remained the primary challenges during implementation.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes to the literature by integrating the analysis of learning obstacles with the exploration of digital assessment in high school physics education. Unlike previous studies that primarily focused on technology adoption, this research identifies specific instructional challenges and proposes a Nonequivalent Control Group Design framework as a practical basis for evaluating future digital assessment interventions in authentic classroom settings.

     

  • How to cite

    [1]
    F. Andut, “Learning Obstacles in High School Physics and the Potential of Digital Assessment to Improve Learning Outcomes: A Qualitative Investigation”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 215–221, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i4.3407.

    More Citation Formats

  • 6
    Abstract views
    4
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. S. M. Al-bahlani, P. Ecke, and S. M. Al-, “Assessment competence and practices including digital assessment literacy of postsecondary english language teachers in Oman,” Cogent Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2239535.
    2. E. Triani, M. Maison, and N. Nazarudin, “Diagnosing students’ misconceptions of direct current electrical circuits using a five-tier isomorphic instrument,” J. Ilm. Ilmu Terap. Univ. Jambi, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 71–86, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.22437/jiituj.v9i1.40469.
    3. D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, D. A. Kurniawan, and E. Triani, “The effect of science process skills of students argumentation skills,” J. Inov. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 78–88, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.21831/jipi.v8i1.49224.
    4. S. Atanasova, N. Robin, D. Brovelli, and N. Robin, “Interest learning opportunities and teaching experience as predictors of professional vision in gender-sensitive physics education,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2026, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2024.2406528.
    5. M. Hooda, C. Rana, O. Dahiya, A. Rizwan, and M. S. Hossain, “Artificial intelligence for assessment and feedback to enhance student success in higher education,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 5215722, Jan. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5215722.
    6. N. E. Winstone and D. Boud, “The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 656–667, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687.
    7. J. H. Nieminen, E. Haataja, P. J. Cobb, J. H. Nieminen, and P. J. Cobb, “From active learners to knowledge contributors: Authentic assessment as a catalyst for students’ epistemic agency,” Teach. High. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 970–990, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2024.2332252.
    8. S. Syahrial et al., “Content analysis of student learning videos for teacher professional education programs based on Gagne’s learning theory,” J. Ilm. Pendidik. Profesi Guru, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 552–563, 2024, doi: 10.23887/jippg.v7i3.84354.
    9. F. F. B. Pals, J. L. J. Tolboom, and C. J. M. Suhre, “Development of a formative assessment instrument to determine students’ need for corrective actions in physics: Identifying students’ functional level of understanding,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 50, p. 101387, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101387.
    10. D. Domínguez-figaredo, I. Gil-jaurena, and D. Domínguez-figaredo, “Effects of familiarity with digital assessment in online education education,” Distance Educ., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 301–317, 2025, doi: 10.1080/01587919.2024.2372260.
    11. D. Karnam, K. K. Mashood, and A. Sule, “Do student difficulties with vectors emerge partly from the limitations of static textbook media?,” Eur. J. Phys., vol. 41, no. 3, p. 35703, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6404/ab782e.
    12. A. H. Schoenfeld, “Why are learning and teaching mathematics so difficult? BT - Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics,” M. Danesi, Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 1–35. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_10-1.
    13. D. Rohimatunnisa, M. G. Jatisunda, and E. Santoso, “From learning obstacles to instructional design: Bridging theory and practice in algebra education through didactical design research,” Int. J. Educ. Innov. Res., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 308–322, 2025, doi: 10.31949/ijeir.v4i2.15308.
    14. M. Bearman, J. H. Nieminen, and R. Ajjawi, “Designing assessment in a digital world: An organising framework,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 291–304, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2069674.
    15. C. Lu and M. Cutumisu, “Online engagement and performance on formative assessments mediate the relationship between attendance and course performance,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 19, no. 1, p. 2, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00307-5.
    16. E. Iyamuremye and D. Burns, “Concrete-pictorial-abstract instruction: Enhancing students’ learning motivation and achievement in mathematics,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2558303.
    17. Z. Zainuddin, S. K. W. Chu, and C. J. Perera, “Gamification platforms for flipped learning implementation BT - gamification in a flipped classroom: Pedagogical methods and best Practices,” Z. Zainuddin, S. K. W. Chu, and C. J. Perera, Eds., Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 167–180. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-2219-8_5.
    18. J. Alderton, N. Pratt, and J. Alderton, “Filling gaps: Assessment software and the production of mathematics and its teaching and learning in primary schools,” Crit. Stud. Educ., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 501–515, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17508487.2021.1917435.
    19. M. Judge, “Covid 19 school closures and the uptake of a digital assessment for learning pilot project during Ireland’s national lockdown,” Irish Educ. Stud., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 419–429, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03323315.2021.1917443.
    20. N. Öztürk, F. Woltran, and S. Schwab, “Learning in segregated settings: Opportunities and barriers addressed in elementary students’ lived experiences,” Lang. Educ., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1416–1433, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09500782.2025.2468763.
    21. J. C. Castillo and N. S. Vonortas, “Interactions across innovation obstacles in emerging economies: Evidence from Chile,” Econ. Innov. New Technol., vol. 85, no. 99, pp. 1–22, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10438599.2025.2571629.
    22. Z. Akhtar and E. Perea-borobio, “Navigating the digital shift : Investigating the viability of digital assessments for electrical and electronic engineering students,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 714–733, 2026, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2025.2523549.
    23. P. Alstein, K. Krijtenburg-lewerissa, W. R. Van Joolingen, and K. Krijtenburg-lewerissa, “Supporting secondary school students’ understanding of time dilation through simulation-based inquiry,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1290–1310, 2026, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2025.2453953.
    24. F. Siddiq and D. Murchan, “Towards a code of ethics for using technology-enabled data and related analytic approaches in educational assessment,” Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract., vol. 31, no. 5–6, pp. 376–400, 2025, doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2025.2453138.
    25. D. Amanova, D. Matyushko, A. Bakytzhan, A. Bolatbekova, Y. Sharapatov, and D. Silischev, “Assessment of perceived objectivity of clinical evaluation methods in surgical education : An approach using a digital platform,” Futur. Sci. OA, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2026, doi: 10.1080/20565623.2025.2591440.
    26. A. Meyer, T. Bleckmann, G. Friege, and T. Bleckmann, “Automatic feedback on physics tasks using open-source generative artificial intelligence,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2025.2499220.
    27. Y. B. Bhakti, R. Arthur, and Y. Supriyati, “Development and validation of a complex true-false multiple-choice test for assessing critical thinking skills in physics,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2553008.
    28. Y. Ramma, A. Bholoa, and M. Watts, “In-service physics teachers ’ content knowledge: A critical reflection on the case of the upthrust concept,” Educ. Inq., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–31, 2024, doi: 10.1080/20004508.2024.2412878.
    29. J. Caspersen and J. Smeby, “Placement training and learning outcomes in social work education,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 2650–2663, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1750583.
    30. T. B. Moleko and N. Xulu-gama, “Learning disrupted through high school dropouts: Perceptions of access to education in the Eastern Cape of South Africa,” South African Rev. Sociol., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 464–482, 2024, doi: 10.1080/21528586.2024.2417795.
    31. Y. Karlen et al., “Teachers matter: Linking teachers and students’ self-regulated learning,” Res. Pap. Educ., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 414–441, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02671522.2024.2394059.
    32. B. M. Aktaş, A. Omwami, and P. Seitamaa-hakkarainen, “Obstacles, solutions and creative agencies: How forces and agencies shape the learning process of weaving,” Des. J., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 153–173, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14606925.2023.2280341.
    33. J. Uddling, A. R. Warren, and J. Uddling, “A newcomer’s spontaneous translanguaging in lower-secondary physics education,” Int. Multiling. Res. J., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 270–288, 2023, doi: 10.1080/19313152.2023.2208508.
    34. J. Beese, K. Haki, R. Schilling, M. Kraus, S. Aier, and R. Winter, “Strategic alignment of enterprise architecture management–how portfolios of control mechanisms track a decade of enterprise transformation at Commerzbank,” Eur. J. Inf. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 92–105, 2023, doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2022.2085200.
    35. M. Perez-alaniz et al., “Two birds with one stone: Can public financial support help firms to address financial and non-financial obstacles to research and innovation?,” Ind. Innov., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 243–280, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13662716.2024.2377702.
    36. R. Kjelsberg, “Physics students’ opposition to conspirituality a quantitative analysis of the‘ scientific skepticism’ of Norwegian physics students,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2410093.
    37. T. Bouchée, M. Thurlings, L. D. P. Smits, and B. Pepin, “Investigating teachers’ and students’ experiences of Quantum physics lessons: Opportunities and challenges,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 777–799, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1948826.
    38. M. Fteiha, M. Al-rashaida, D. Elsori, and A. Khalil, “Obstacles for using assistive technology in centres of special needs in the UAE,” Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 2934–2944, 2024, doi: 10.1080/17483107.2024.2323698.
    39. X. Wang, J. Zhu, and H. Zheng, “Autonomous underwater vehicle obstacle avoidance using deep reinforcement learning,” Int. J. Parallel, Emergent Distrib. Syst., vol. 57, no. 60, pp. 1–32, 2026, doi: 10.1080/17445760.2025.2609141.
    40. H. H. Lotriet and P. M. Gouws, “Educational robotics in physics education: A systematic review,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 107–136, 2026, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2025.2455334.
    41. K. Mcdowell and K. Mcdowell, “Library data storytelling: Obstacles and paths forward,” Public Libr. Q., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 202–222, 2024, doi: 10.1080/01616846.2023.2241514.