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

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Scopus

54

Citation

Dimension

413

Citation

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

How Can Hypermedia Improve Students’ Learning of Newton’s Law of Gravitation?

Andriyani Andriyani
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
andriyani12@gmail.com
John Abiola Amamewon
University of Benin
Nigeria
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to examine the effect of hypermedia-supported learning on Grade 11 students’ physics learning outcomes in Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and to identify differences in achievement across remembering, understanding, applying, and analyzing cognitive levels, as well as students’ responses to the hypermedia learning environment.

    Methodology: A quantitative quasi-experimental method with a nonequivalent control group design was employed. The participants were 61 Grade 11 students selected through purposive sampling from two existing classes. The experimental group used hypermedia developed with XAMPP and Adobe Flash, while the control group received conventional instruction. Data were collected using a 40-item multiple-choice achievement test and a 14-item Likert questionnaire and analyzed using chi-square, Fisher’s test, and independent-samples t-test.

    Main Findings: The experimental group achieved a higher posttest mean than the control group (78.07 vs. 68.50). The posttest difference was statistically significant (t = 4.57 > t-critical = 2.00). The experimental group outperformed the control group across C1–C4, with the largest difference at C3 (12.32 percentage points) and the smallest at C4 (3.12 percentage points). Students’ overall response to the hypermedia was positive (73.00%).

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributes empirical evidence on hypermedia-supported physics learning by examining achievement not only as an overall outcome but also across four cognitive levels. The findings show that the learning benefit was strongest for applying concepts (C3) and comparatively weaker for analyzing concepts (C4), providing a more specific perspective on how integrated hypermedia supports different cognitive processes in abstract physics learning.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    A. Andriyani and J. A. Amamewon, “How Can Hypermedia Improve Students’ Learning of Newton’s Law of Gravitation?”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 256–266, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i5.3896.

    More Citation Formats

  • 3
    Abstract views
    2
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. U. Bergmark, “Teachers’ professional learning when building a research-based education: context-specific, collaborative and teacher-driven professional development,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 210–224, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1827011.
    2. K. Niemi, “‘The best guess for the future?’ Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland,” Educ.
    3. L. R. Ginsburg, M. Hoben, A. Easterbrook, R. A. Anderson, C. A. Estabrooks, and P. G. Norton, “Fidelity is not easy! Challenges and guidelines for assessing fidelity in complex interventions,” Trials, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 372, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05322-5.
    4. M. Spurio, “Newton’s Law of Gravitation BT - The Fundamentals of Newtonian Mechanics: For an Introductory Approach to Modern Physics,” M. Spurio, Ed., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 241–271. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-47289-3_10.
    5. M. Chaichian, H. Perez Rojas, and A. Tureanu, “Gravitation and Newton’s Laws BT - Basic Concepts in Physics: From the Cosmos to Quarks,” M. Chaichian, H. Perez Rojas, and A. Tureanu, Eds., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021, pp. 1–61. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62313-8_1.
    6. E. F. M. Jr, “Enhancing Student Learning Motivation in Physics Through Interactive Physics Education Technology ( PhET ) Simulation,” SchrödingerJournal Phys. Educ., vol. 5, no. 3, 2024, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v5i3.1025.
    7. T. Kokkonen, A. Lichtenberger, and L. Schalk, “Concreteness fading in learning secondary school physics concepts,” Learn. Instr., vol. 77, no. 101524, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101524.
    8. J. Yeo and J. K. Gilbert, “Producing scientific explanations in physics—A multimodal account,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 819–852, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11165-021-10039-1.
    9. 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, 2021.
    10. J.-Y. Chang, M.-F. Cheng, S.-Y. Lin, and J.-L. Lin, “Exploring students’ translation performance and use of intermediary representations among multiple representations: Example from torque and rotation,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 97, p. 103209, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103209.
    11. T. Niyomufasha, C. Ntivuguruzwa, and L. R. Mugabo, “The engineering students’ use of multiple representations in mechanics problems solving at a selected public university in Rwanda,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2372941, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2372941.
    12. V. Ruf, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and P. Klein, “Comparison of written and spoken instruction to foster coordination between diagram and equation in undergraduate physics education,” Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., vol. 2022, no. 1, p. 5860936,
    13. E. Hecht, “The true story of Newtonian gravity,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 683–692, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1119/10.0003535.
    14. A. Vidak, I. Movre Šapić, and V. Mešić, “An augmented reality approach to learning about the force of gravity,” Phys. Educ., vol. 56, no. 6, p. 65026, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/ac21a3.
    15. R. Montecinos et al., “Analyzing new planetary systems at school: Applications of Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Kepler’s third law,” Phys. Teach., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 543–547, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1119/5.0192450.
    16. E. Rexigel, J. Kuhn, S. Becker, and S. Malone, “The more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of more than two external representations in STEM education,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 36, no. 4, p. 124, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10648-024-09958-y.
    17. J. C. Castro-Alonso, B. B. de Koning, L. Fiorella, and F. Paas, “Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor-and learner-managed cognitive load,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1379–1407, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9.
    18. C. Citra, I. W. Distrik, and K. Herlina, “The practicality and effectiveness of multiple representations based teaching material to improve student’s self-efficacy and ability of physics problem solving,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1467, no. 1, p. 12029, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1467/1/012029.
    19. 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.
    20. L. Darling-Hammond, L. Flook, C. Cook-Harvey, B. Barron, and D. Osher, “Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development,” Appl. Dev. Sci., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 97–140, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791.
    21. O. McGarr, “The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice,” J. Educ. Teach., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 274–286, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1733398.
    22. C.-Y. Hsu, T.-C. Liu, Y.-C. Lin, C.-Y. Hsu, and F. Paas, “Learning from different multimedia representation formats: Effects of prior knowledge,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 644–658, May 2025, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2023.2288393.
    23. R. Ploetzner, S. Berney, and M. Bétrancourt, “A review of learning demands in instructional animations: The educational effectiveness of animations unfolds if the features of change need to be learned,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 838–860, Dec. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12476.
    24. 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.
    25. Y. Cho and K. S. Park, “Designing immersive virtual reality simulation for environmental science education,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/electronics12020315.
    26. S. Pang, G. Lv, Y. Zhang, and Y. Yang, “Enhancing students’ science learning using virtual simulation technologies: A systematic review,” Asia Pacific J. Educ., pp. 1–21, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2024.2441676.
    27. S. Flegr, J. Kuhn, and K. Scheiter, “How to foster STEM learning during Covid-19 remote schooling: Combining virtual and video experiments,” Learn. Instr., vol. 86, p. 101778, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101778.
    28. Y. Liu, Z. Ji, and K. Guo, “Are all domains the same? The effectiveness of multiple representation design in mathematics achievement: A quantitative systematic review with three-level meta-analysis,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 38, no. 1, p. 27, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10648-025-10109-0.
    29. S. Burns et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis of approaches to teaching problem-solving skills in early childhood education and care settings: A focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics activities,” Rev. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, p. e70079, Aug. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70079.
    30. M. Munasir, D. S. Ervana, R. Raharjo, E. Hariyono, and J. A. Utama, “3D Model’s online modules effectiveness in practicing mastery of solar system conceptual knowledge,” Turkish Online J. Distance Educ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 76–96, 2024, doi: 10.17718/tojde.1333975.
    31. M. H. R. Zh, C. M. Sari, Z. Z. At Thaariq, I. Sumalee, and A. N. Kamilah, “Enhancing conceptual understanding in Islamic education through a hypercontent digital flipbook in blended learning: Evidence from Indonesian madrasah,” Educ. Technol. Dev. Ctries., vol. 1, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 1–22, May 2026, doi: 10.64929/etdc.v1i1.60.
    32. N. Kohan, N. Navabi, M. K. Motlagh, and F. Ahmadinia, “Designing and evaluating ECG interpretation software for undergraduate nursing students in Iran: A non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design,” BMC Nurs., vol. 23, no. 1, p. 827, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02472-0.
    33. H. J. Lee et al., “Effects of scenario-based e-simulation on learning motivation and clinical reasoning in emergency nursing education: A nonequivalent control group pretest–posttest design,” Clin. Simul. Nurs., vol. 119, p. 102057, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2026.102057.
    34. S. E. and A. E. W. Benjamin, “Studying the student’s perceptions of engagement and problem-solving skills for academic achievement in chemistry at the higher secondary level,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 8347–8368, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12165-x.
    35. D. Hillmayr, L. Ziernwald, F. Reinhold, S. I. Hofer, and K. M. Reiss, “The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis,” Comput. Educ., vol. 153, p. 103897, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897.
    36. X.-Y. Wu, “Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: A meta-analysis,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 425–458, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12307-1.
    37. R. Girwidz and A. Kohnle, “Multimedia and Digital Media in Physics Instruction BT - Physics Education,” H. E. Fischer and R. Girwidz, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 297–336. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-87391-2_11.
    38. M. M. Msafiri, D. Kangwa, and L. Cai, “A systematic literature review of ICT integration in secondary education: what works, what does not, and what next?,” Discov. Educ., vol. 2, no. 1, p. 44, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s44217-023-00070-x.
    39. G. Brod, N. Kucirkova, J. Shepherd, D. Jolles, and I. Molenaar, “Agency in educational technology: Interdisciplinary perspectives and implications for learning design,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 35, no. 1, p. 25, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09749-x.
    40. E. A. Abedi, “Tensions between technology integration practices of teachers and ICT in education policy expectations: implications for change in teacher knowledge, beliefs and teaching practices,” J. Comput. Educ., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1215–1234, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40692-023-00296-6.
    41. J. He and Q. Huang, “Effects of digital context-shift learning tasks grounded in quantum context dependence on EFL students’ goal orientation motivation: A mixed-methods inquiry,” Learn. Motiv., vol. 94, p. 102267, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2026.102267.