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

Enhancing Preservice Physics Teachers’ Optics Understanding Through PEK-Supported 7E Inquiry Using Educational Design Research

Cynthia Jebuni-Adanu
University of Education, Winneba ROR
Ghana
cjadanu@uew.edu.gh
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to design, refine, and evaluate Photonics Explorer Kit (PEK)-supported inquiry activities for enhancing preservice physics teachers’ conceptual understanding of optics, particularly in reflection, refraction, and diffraction.

    Methodology: The study employed Educational Design Research (EDR) involving two iterative cycles with 89 level 200 preservice physics teachers at the University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. Cycle 1 involved 51 participants, while Cycle 2 involved 38 participants. Data were collected using a validated two-tier diagnostic test and analysed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-tests, effect sizes, and comparison of learners’ correct conceptions, partial conceptions, misconceptions, and no-explanation responses.

    Main Findings: The findings showed significant improvement in participants’ conceptual understanding in both cycles. In Cycle 1, mean scores increased from 7.75 to 11.14, t(50) = 25.78, p < .001, d = 1.95. In Cycle 2, mean scores increased from 8.10 to 12.46, t(37) = 29.84, p < .001, d = 2.34. Cycle 2 also recorded higher correct conceptions and fewer misconceptions across the assessed optics concepts.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The study presents an Educational Design Research-based approach for refining PEK-supported 7E inquiry activities in optics. It shows how iterative refinement of instructional support, diagrams, inquiry questions, and multimedia can strengthen preservice physics teachers’ conceptual understanding in optics, especially in resource-constrained physics teacher education contexts.

     

  • How to cite

    [1]
    C. Jebuni-Adanu, “Enhancing Preservice Physics Teachers’ Optics Understanding Through PEK-Supported 7E Inquiry Using Educational Design Research”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 197–207, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i4.3434.

    More Citation Formats

  • 0
    Abstract views
    0
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. K. Fliegauf, J. Sebald, J. M. Veith, H. Spiecker, and P. Bitzenbauer, “Improving early optics instruction using a phenomenological approach: A field study,” Optics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 409–429, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/optics3040035.
    2. S. Wangchuk and T. Penjor, “Effect of group work in addressing the misconceptions of light,” Asian J. Res. Rev. Phys., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 11–34, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.9734/AJR2P/2020/v3i430126.
    3. J. Sebald, K. Fliegauf, J. M. Veith, H. Spiecker, and P. Bitzenbauer, “The world through my eyes: Fostering students’ understanding of basic optics concepts related to vision and image formation,” Physics, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1117–1134, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3390/physics4040073.
    4. A. S. A. Wahyuni, N. Rustaman, D. Rusdiana, and M. Muslim, “Conceptions and misconceptions of pre-service teacher about light,” pp. 56–61, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.2991/ICAMR-18.2019.15.
    5. J. D. Ricafort, “Effectiveness of active learning strategy in improving students’ conceptual understanding in light and optics,” Puissant, vol. 5, pp. 1300–1317, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://puissant.stepacademic.net/puissant/article/view/252
    6. R. A. H. Putri, A. Widodo, and L. Rusyati, “Diagnosis of students’ conception on light and optic topics with four-tier test,” pp. 177–190, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.2991/978-2-38476-283-5_18.
    7. R. A. H. Putri, A. Widodo, and L. Rusyati, “Developing a four-tier diagnostic test to identify students’ conception on light and optic topic,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2098, no. 1, Art. no. 012008, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2098/1/012008.
    8. F. Hennig, M. Lipps, M. S. Ubben, and P. Bitzenbauer, “From the Big Bang to life beyond Earth: German preservice physics teachers’ conceptions of astronomy and the nature of science,” Educ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 5, Art. no. 475, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13050475.
    9. A.-M. Suduc, M. Bizoi, and G. Gorghiu, “Inquiry based science learning in primary education,” Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 205, pp. 474–479, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.044.
    10. J. Dusabimana and L. R. Mugabo, “Physics teachers’ implementation of competence-based curriculum through the use of inquiry-based teaching and learning: A case of lower secondary schools in Gakenke District,” Afr. J. Educ. Stud. Math. Sci., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–15, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.4314/ajesms.v18i2.1.
    11. M. K. Cvenic et al., “Probing high school students’ understanding of interference and diffraction of light using standard wave optics experiments,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 2, Art. no. 020118, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020118.
    12. A. W. Lazonder and R. Harmsen, “Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 681–718, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.3102/0034654315627366.
    13. D. A. Urdanivia Alarcon, F. Talavera-Mendoza, F. H. Rucano Paucar, K. S. Cayani Caceres, and R. Machaca Viza, “Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: A systematic review,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, Art. no. 1170487, May 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1170487.
    14. M. Pedaste et al., “Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 14, pp. 47–61, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
    15. X. Li et al., “Effects of 6E-based learning on students’ academic achievement, higher-order thinking skills, and attitudes towards STEM,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1303–1327, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11165-024-10220-2.
    16. U. K. Okeke and S. Ramaila, “Adaptable cognitively guided inquiry-based instructional approach and its impact on students’ academic achievement in physics: A quasi-experimental study,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 24, no. 9, p. 26, 2025, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.24.9.26.
    17. S. A. Sari and M. A. Oransa, “Qualitative analysis of the implementation of inquiry-based physics learning tools on strengthening character and improving learning outcomes,” Sch. J. Phys. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34–42, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i1.1469.
    18. N. M. Dah, M. S. A. M. Noor, M. Z. Kamarudin, and S. S. S. A. Azziz, “The impacts of open inquiry on students’ learning in science: A systematic literature review,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 43, Art. no. 100601, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100601.
    19. H.-H. Wang, H. Lin, Y.-C. Chen, Y.-T. Pan, and Z.-R. Hong, “Modelling relationships among students’ inquiry-related learning activities, enjoyment of learning, and their intended choice of a future STEM career,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 157–178, 2021, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1860266.
    20. N. Cords, R. Fischer, M. Euler, and A. Prasad, “Teaching optics with an intra-curricular kit designed for inquiry-based learning,” Phys. Educ., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 69–72, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/47/1/69.
    21. T. B. Wardani, A. Widodo, and N. Winarno, “Using inquiry-based laboratory activities in light and optics topic to improve students’ conceptual understanding,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 895, no. 1, Art. no. 012152, 2017, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012152.
    22. N. Gericke, P. Högström, and J. Wallin, “A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 245–285, 2023, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125.
    23. A. Chalyan, T. De Pauw, N. Debaes, and H. Thienpont, “10 years of Photonics Explorer Kit and the future,” in Proc. 17th Conf. Educ. Training Opt. Photon. (ETOP 2023), 2023, doi: 10.1117/12.2672540.
    24. A. Magaji, M. Adjani, and S. Coombes, “A systematic review of preservice science teachers’ experience of problem-based learning and implementing it in the classroom,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, Art. no. 301, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14030301.
    25. G. Jiménez-Valverde and I. Marchán-Carvajal, “Baseline views of preservice physics teachers on inquiry-based approaches and their connection with nature of science conceptions,” Educ. Sci., vol. 16, no. 2, Art. no. 292, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.3390/educsci16020292.
    26. S. McKenney and T. C. Reeves, Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge, 2018, doi: 10.4324/9781315105642.
    27. T. Plomp, “Educational design research: An introduction,” in Educational Design Research, vol. 1, 2013.
    28. J. Bhattacharjee, “Constructivist approach to learning—An effective approach of teaching learning,” Int. Res. J. Interdiscip. Multidiscip. Stud., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 65–74, 2015.
    29. S. Jaleel and A. M. Verghis, “Knowledge creation in constructivist learning,” Universal J. Educ. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2015, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2015.030102.
    30. L. S. Vygotsky, “Readings on the development of children,” Harvard Univ. Press, pp. 79–91, 1997.
    31. M. Rodriguez and G. Potvin, “Frequent small group interactions improve student learning gains in physics: Results from a nationally representative pre-post study of four-year colleges,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 17, no. 2, Art. no. 020131, 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020131.
    32. S. Bada and S. Olusegun, “Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning,” J. Res. Method Educ., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 66–70, 2015, doi: 10.9790/7388-05616670.
    33. R. W. Bybee, “The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications,” Sci. Child., vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 10–13, 2014, doi: 10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10.
    34. A. Eisenkraft, “5E model,” 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.umb.edu/media/umassboston/content-assets/cosmic/publications/eisenkraft-7e-article.pdf
    35. H. Komikesari, W. Anggraini, N. Asiah, P. S. Dewi, R. Diani, and M. N. Yulianto, “Effect size test of 7E learning cycle model: Conceptual understanding and science process skills on senior high school students,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1572, no. 1, Art. no. 012023, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1572/1/012023.
    36. Z. B. Mekonnen, D. D. Yehualaw, S. M. Mengistie, and B. S. Mersha, “The effect of 7E learning cycle enriched with computer animations on students’ conceptual understanding and overcoming misconceptions,” J. Pedagog. Res., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 325–356, 2024, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202425017.
    37. H. Ruiz-Martín and R. W. Bybee, “The cognitive principles of learning underlying the 5E model of instruction,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 9, Art. no. 21, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z.
    38. T. de Jong et al., “Understanding teacher design practices for digital inquiry-based science learning: The case of Go-Lab,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 417–444, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09904-z.
    39. S. McKenney and T. C. Reeves, “Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship,” Med. Educ., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 82–92, 2021, doi: 10.1111/medu.14280.
    40. K. S. Taber, “The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1273–1296, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
    41. S. H. M. Saboy, M. K. U. B. K., S. Amalia, and E. A. A. Udit, “Application of the adaptive inquiry-based learning model assisted by PhET media in improving understanding of light concepts,” Horizon Prim. Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 22–30, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.61142/hope.v1i2.308.
    42. R. P. Antonio and M. S. Prudente, “Effects of inquiry-based approaches on students’ higher-order thinking skills in science: A meta-analysis,” Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 251–281, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.3216.
    43. 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,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 15, no. 1, Art. no. 010119, 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010119.
    44. N. Papalazarou, I. Lefkos, and N. Fachantidis, “The effect of physical and virtual inquiry-based experiments on students’ attitudes and learning,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 33, pp. 349–364, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10956-023-10088-3.
    45. H. O. Kapici, H. Akcay, and T. de Jong, “Using hands-on and virtual laboratories alone or together—Which works better for acquiring knowledge and skills?” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 231–250, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0.
    46. I. K. Acquah, “Enhancing conceptual understanding of electric circuit analysis through the jigsaw method: A quasi-experimental study in senior high schools,” Sch. J. Phys. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–18, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i1.1348.
    47. M. S. C. Cabal and R.-M. G. Basagre, “3D-printed projectile demonstrator and its implications on students’ conceptual understanding and attitudes toward physics,” Sch. J. Phys. Educ., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 161–174, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i3.2036.
    48. T. de Jong et al., “Let’s talk evidence—The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 39, Art. no. 100536, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536.
    49. M. Rahayu, A. Asyhari, and A. V. Anjani, “Scaffolding in guided inquiry learning with Google Classroom: Effect on physics conceptual understanding,” J. Inov. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 174–184, 2022, doi: 10.21831/jipi.v8i2.48365.
    50. K. Ndihokubwayo, J. Uwamahoro, and I. Ndayambaje, “Effectiveness of PhET simulations and YouTube videos to improve the learning of optics in Rwandan secondary schools,” Afr. J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 253–265, 2020, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2020.1818042.
    51. C.-T. Wen et al., “Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy,” Comput. Educ., vol. 149, Art. no. 103830, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830.
    52. M. E. Peffer and N. Ramezani, “Assessing epistemological beliefs of experts and novices via practices in authentic science inquiry,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 3, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0157-9.
    53. T. T. S. Strat, E. K. Henriksen, and K. M. Jegstad, “Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: A systematic review,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 191–249, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148.
    54. Z. Zulfiani and Y. Herlanti, “Scientific inquiry perception and ability of pre-service teachers,” J. Turk. Sci. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 128–140, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.12973/tused.10225a.
    55. S. McKenney and T. C. Reeves, “Educational design research for relevant & robust scholarship,” J. Comput. High. Educ., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 614–638, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s12528-025-09456-2.