A Significant Reducing Misconception on Newton’s Law Under Purposive Scaffolding and Problem-Based Misconception Supported Modeling Instruction

2.1 Research Design

In the initial phase of the study, a pretest was administered to ascertain the specific areas of misunderstanding that were prevalent among the students. FCI was utilized to identify students’ misconceptions (Hestenes et al., 1992). Students were required to select their preferred option on the FCI, along with the rationale. This approach was selected to ascertain the underlying conceptions that may be present in students’ cognitive frameworks. The second stage involved conducting an interview to gain further insight into the rationale behind students’ responses. This approach has been recommended as a means of gaining more comprehensive information (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Low & Wilson, 2017; Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). The interview was employed to further substantiate students’ conceptions pertaining to Newton’s law. This section focused on investigating students’ misconceptions and their underlying causes.

The third stage was designing the MI learning, which was tailored to the fundamental issues. The learning was also supported by scaffolding that had been designed from the outset of the learning process. MI is a student-centered learning approach that integrates real context into the classroom, as well as employing problem-based and project-based learning strategies (Dounas-Frazer & Lewandowski, 2018). MI is a pedagogical approach that integrates evidence-based reasoning with model-based reasoning to facilitate comprehension of everyday phenomena (Russ & Odden, 2017). The integration of real-world context into the classroom can be effectively facilitated through procedural and conceptual scaffolding. Meanwhile, the combination of evidence and model-based reasoning to understand everyday phenomena is likely to be more engaging for students if the problems presented are problems based on students’ naive theories. In the fourth stage, MI learning was conducted with the aid of scaffolding that had been meticulously designed. Besides, the learning also used problems based on students’ naive theories. The underlying principle of this learning is counter-cognitive, as it seeks to disassemble the naive theory of students. The essence of counter-cognitive lies in the stage of designing and conducting experiments to prove students’ misconceptions (Evangelou & Kotsis, 2019). In the fifth stage, a posttest with the FCI was conducted to gain students’ responses and the rationale. In the sixth stage, an interview was conducted to gain further insight into students’ selected options. This interview was used to examine the effectiveness and constraints of learning when students completed the pretest and posttest, particularly in relation to alterations in the students’ responses. Interviews were utilized to investigate the limitations of learning when they took pretests and posttests, yet still selected the same but wrong option, changed options that remained incorrect, or even changed options to be incorrect. All the process of research planning is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Research planning.

2.2 Research Instrument

The instrument utilized to obtain the quantitative data was the FCI with reasoning. The FCI is a 30-item instrument that has been validated and field tested (Savinainen & Viiri, 2008). FCI has been employed on 1,500 senior high school students and over 500 college students in the United States of America to discern their erroneous beliefs regarding motion and force material (Hestenes et al., 1992). In general, the FCI encompasses a variety of topics, including force, kinematics, Newton’s first law, Newton’s second law, Newton’s third law, the action–reaction principle, and types of forces (Poutot & Blandin, 2015; Wells et al., 2019). Each item on the FCI is accompanied by five answer options. Each answer option represents the student’s conception of the material. The correct answer options represent students’ accurate conceptual understanding, whereas incorrect answer options indicate the presence of misconceptions. Therefore, FCI has been employed for over two decades to identify students’ misconceptions and has remained a viable instrument for this purpose, as evidenced by its consistently high levels of validity and reliability (Hestenes et al., 1992; Oktarisa, Utami, & Denny, 2017). Furthermore, FCI can be employed for the assessment of learning outcomes (Hestenes et al., 1992; Lee, Connolly, Dancy, Henderson, & Christensen, 2018). It has been subjected to rigorous testing for validity in multiple studies (Coletta, Phillips, & Steinert, 2007; Munfaridah, Sutopo, Sulur, & Asim, 2018; Thornton, Kuhl, Cummings, & Marx, 2009). The initial test demonstrated a 0.9 reliability coefficient, while the final test exhibited a reliability coefficient of 0.81, with an overall reliability of 0.865 (Lasry, Rosenfield, Dedic, Dahan, & Reshef, 2011; Munfaridah et al., 2018). The results of the reliability test demonstrate that the FCI instrument exhibits consistency performance when utilized for assessment purposes. Consequently, the FCI instrument can be adopted to analyze the misconceptions pertaining to motion and force that are commonly encountered in physics learning.

2.3 Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data were obtained through the administration of pretests and posttests. A Wilcoxon signed rank was conducted to assess the differential between the pretest and posttest data, followed by the N-gain test (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The percentage of students whose misconceptions were reduced for each question was calculated using the following equation:

RM represents the percentage of students whose misconceptions are reduced for each question, A represents the number of students who answered correctly on the pretest, B represents the number of students who answered correctly on the posttest, C represents the number of students who answered correctly on the pretest and then answered incorrectly on the posttest, D represents the number of students who answered correctly during the pretest but provided an incorrect rationale, and N represents the total number of students (80)

The mean percentage of students exhibiting reduced misconceptions is calculated using the following equation:

RMT represents the average percentage of students whose misconception has been lowered S = total FCI. The FCI instrument consists of 30 items.

To ascertain whether students hold misconceptions, interviews were conducted with two participants (Gerke, 2020). A student was deemed to hold a misconception if both students were identified as such. In the event of a discrepancy, a discussion was held to determine whether the student held a misconception.

The FCI structure encompasses Newton’s law I in questions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 23, and 24; Newton’s law II in questions 1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27; Newton’s law III in questions 4, 5, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 28, 29, and 30. For the purposes of qualitative analysis, number 8 was selected as a representative of Newton’s law I, number 21 as a representative of Newton’s law II, and number 15 as a representative of Newton’s law III.

The quantitative data obtained through the pretest and posttest were presented in the form of percentages and statistical analysis. The presentation of percentage data was divided into three categories for each indicator: correct answers, incorrect answers, and no answers. The objective was to ascertain the extent of the percentage change in the number of students in each category between the pretest and posttest. A misunderstanding of Newton’s law was identified through the assumption that an object’s natural state is at a fixed speed. A misconception of Newton’s second law could be identified as a lack of understanding of the concept that a constant force produces a constant acceleration. A further misconception of Newton’s law III was identified through students’ dissimilar misunderstanding of the action–reaction force. The objective of the statistical data presentation was to ascertain the efficacy of MI with designed scaffolding and problems based on students’ conceptual understanding. The data processing was carried out employing statistical testing, which included the Wilcoxon signed-rank difference test followed by the N-gain test (Cohen et al., 2007). The category of N-gain score distribution and the category of N-gain score effectiveness interpretation are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

2.4 Qualitative Data Analysis

The interview results were classified into two distinct categories. The data from the initial interview with the entire student population were employed to ascertain whether the students were experiencing any misconceptions. The data from the second interview were employed to ascertain the rationale behind the persistence of the observed behavior, despite the implementation of a structured learning approach and the incorporation of misconception-based challenges. The subjects who were interviewed to ascertain the reasons for their lack of change were those who, during the pretest and posttest, provided incorrect responses, continuously provided incorrect responses, and originally provided correct responses, then changed into incorrect ones. The data from the first and second interviews were employed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of MI learning with designed scaffolding and misconception-based problems.

3.1 Reduced Misconception on Newton’s First Law

There is a question:

The figure depicts a hockey puck sliding with constant speed v _o in a straight line from point “a” to point “b” on a frictionless horizontal surface. Forces exerted by the air are negligible. You are looking down on the puck. When the puck reaches point “b,” it receives a swift horizontal kick in the direction of the heavy print arrow. Had the puck been at rest at point “b,” then the kick would have set the puck in horizontal motion with a speed v _k in the direction of the kick.

Which of the paths below would the puck most closely follow after receiving the kick?

Table 3 indicates that 46 students initially selected a particular option, but only 24 students maintained the answer. Besides, 36 students who participated in both the pretest and posttest provided the correct answer B. Further, between these 36 students, 14 provided the correct reason for their answer, while 22 students provided an incorrect reason but still identified the correct answer. On average, 14 students provided the rationale that “after being kicked to the north, there is no further force acting, so the velocity vector is the sum of the speed to the east and the speed to the north.” Twenty-two students provided an incorrect rationale, stating that “the kicking force to the north causes the object to be accelerated to the north, so the resultant velocity is the combination of the speed to the east and the speed to the north.” To ascertain the students’ cognitive processes. The example of an interview excerpt is presented in the following.

The results of the interview indicate that the students lack an accurate understanding of the graph representing the combination of fixed and accelerated speed. Consequently, they will not select answer option B but rather choose answer option D. Besides, they attempt to reason using intuitive mathematical principles and the Pictorial Analysis Game pattern (Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Therefore, the students were incorrect in their responses to question number 8.

As illustrated in Table 3, one student initially selected the incorrect answer option A. The rationale provided for this choice was that “the kick neutralizes everything, so the ball goes north.” To gain further insight into this student’s thought process, an interview was conducted, the results of which are presented below.

The results of the interview indicate that students utilize reasoning primitives. The cognitive model (resource model) is employed in conjunction with the physical mechanism game mindset. Students employ primitive reasoning, an abstraction of everyday experience, to solve problems. Their daily experiences are interpreted by students into their brain structure, which is referred to as naïve knowledge (Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). It is evident that students bring naïve prior knowledge into the physics classroom (Bigozzi, Tarchi, Fiorentini, Falsini, & Stefanelli, 2018; Vermeulen & Meyer, 2017).

The MI learning with a virtual Phet laboratory designed by students has been found to be unable to replace the case in the problem, thus failing to address the problems (Mufit, Festiyed, Fauzan, & Lufri, 2018). The learning in the virtual Phet laboratory is regarded as analogous to their typical daily experience when playing volleyball. Despite efforts to demonstrate the applicability of the material to their own experiences, students remain unable to reconcile their preconceptions with the presented information. Consequently, the cognitive conflict process is not initiated, and students tend to persist in their existing misconceptions (Vosniadou, 2019).

Table 3 indicates that two students initially selected answer C, which was identified as the incorrect response. The rationale provided for this choice is the assertion that the effect of the kick will dissipate, causing the object to revert to its initial state of motion eastward. To gain further insight into the students’ thought processes, interviews were conducted with the two students, the results of which are presented below.

Following the interview data, it can be inferred that students utilize their daily experiences to respond to question number 8. Students employ their initial, uninformed understanding of a subject matter (which, over time, may lead to the formation of erroneous beliefs) to assess a given problem. The two students interviewed asserted that “the effect of the pushing force runs out,” representing the impetus concept. The concept of impetus, as postulated by Drake (1975), states that in order to move an object continuously, a continuous force must be applied. If the force is applied for a moment, then the effect of the force will gradually diminish. In the concept of impetus, force is interpreted as energy (Jung, 2020; Robertson & Taczak, 2023). Therefore, it is evident that the two students brought misconceptions based on their previous daily experiences to solve the problem.

The results of interviews conducted after the posttest suggest that students still selected option C because they believed that MI learning using Phet was unable to replace the case in the problem. They also expressed skepticism about the results of experiments conducted in their groups, citing engineering toward the correct answer, namely B (Mufit et al., 2018; Vosniadou, 2019).

As illustrated in Table 3, five students initially selected the incorrect answer, option D. The rationale provided for this choice was that “the force will cause acceleration, so the result between the initial velocity and the speed to the north, if drawn, is D.” To gain further insight into the student’s thought process, interviews were conducted with the five students who had selected option D. The results of these interviews are presented in the following.

The interview data indicate that the five students also drew upon their daily experiences to respond to question number 8. The students employ the pictorial analysis game mindset to analyze the problem. The results of the interview indicate that the students’ epistemic game, as evidenced by their responses to question 8, is pictorial analysis (Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari, Wahyuniar, & Wardani, 2020; Puspitasari, 2023). Therefore, it is evident that the eight students employed misconceptions based on their previous daily experiences in order to solve pictorial-based problems. During the posttest, students continued to select option D, as they had during the experiment in MI learning because they had found that the trajectory was consistent with this answer. However, an error in the experimental procedure meant that the upward movement was accelerated due to the continuous application of force. This demonstrates that, if not managed properly, experiment-based learning can reinforce students’ misconceptions (Oma, 2021).

Table 3 indicates that two students initially selected answer E, which is incorrect. The rationale provided for this choice is that “the kicking force is only for a moment, so gradually the speed to the north also drops. When combined with the initial velocity, the matching graph is E.” To gain further insight into the student’s thought process, interviews were conducted with the two students in question. The results of these interviews are presented below.

As evidenced by the interview, both students drew upon their daily experiences to respond to question number 8. The results of the interview indicate that the students’ epistemic game, as evidenced by their responses to question 8, is the physical mechanism game (Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Puspitasari, 2023). In the physical mechanism game, students attempt to construct a physically coherent and descriptive story based on their intuitive sense of physical mechanisms. The knowledge base for this game consists of reasoning primitives (Chen, Irving, & Sayre, 2013; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). The students’ assumption that the absence of force equates to the absence of energy results in their prediction that the ball will gradually lose energy and then come to a standstill (Jung, 2020). In the posttest, the students maintained their original answer (E), citing the discrepancy between the experiment and reality as the reason. The air track, employed to eliminate friction during movement, represents an engineering solution that does not align with reality (Kelly, 2010).

Table 3 indicates that nine students altered their response from option A to the correct answer, B, providing a rationale for this change. Initially, the students’ responses were based on their daily experience of kicking a ball, which they asserted would travel in the direction of the kick regardless of the ball’s initial trajectory. Other students’ responses initially aligned with this perspective, citing examples such as hitting a baseball, striking a cock during badminton, or pushing their friends. To substantiate the rationale behind the shift toward the correct answer B, interviews were conducted with the nine students, while the interview excerpt is presented in the following section.

The interview data suggest that the directions provided by the lecturer, both in written form (worksheet) and orally, serve as a form of scaffolding. A defining feature of scaffolding is the provision of assistance, albeit not indefinitely. With sufficient guidance, students can effectively master the scaffolding pattern (Belland, 2017). The utility of scaffolding is contingent upon its initial design, ensuring that students are equipped with the requisite tools to navigate the learning process with optimal focus (Doo, Bonk, & Heo, 2020; Ertugruloglu, Mearns, & Admiraal, 2023). From the interview, it can be inferred that learning will be highly engaging if the problems presented are authentic and drawn from students’ daily lives (Raine, 2019). If the learning provides solutions or benefits for students’ real lives, then the learning will be perceived as highly interesting (Lee, 2020). Experiments, both real and virtual (Phet), are designed to challenge students’ naive conceptions or misconceptions. Experiments are designed to be similar to students’ daily experiences and then practiced if the uncontrollable variables are controlled. In virtual experiments, it is more straightforward to regulate the variables that influence the outcomes. In the initial stages of utilizing Phet, it is demonstrated that the outcomes were identical to those experienced by students in their everyday lives, provided that the variables are not subjected to control. Once the variables have been controlled, the result is answer B. This stage is crucial, as it allows students to gradually shift their misconceptions toward a more accurate understanding. If students are presented with problems that reflect their daily experiences and are encouraged to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, they will be better equipped to analyze these problems effectively (Haryono, Aini, Samsudin, & Siahaan, 2021; Mufit, Festiyed, Fauzan, & Lufri, 2023; Suhandi et al., 2020).

As evidenced in Table 3, seven individuals initially selected the incorrect answer option C but ultimately selected the correct answer option B. The typical student’s understanding is that the transient force exerts a mere shift in direction. Once the force’s effect dissipates, the object will resume its original trajectory. The student’s initial responses were informed by their daily experience of shifting the Tamia toy car. Once the effect of the push had run its course, the Tamia would resume its original trajectory. Other students’ original responses were also shaped by similar experiences, including the shifting of a rolling ball, the slipping of a box to avoid hitting a car, and the “bodying” of a friend during a chase. To ascertain whether these responses could be redirected toward the correct answer B, interviews were conducted with the seven students. The excerpt of the interview is also presented in the following section.

Student 7’s response indicates that this form of assistance can be classified as scaffolding. Scaffolding is designed to provide temporary assistance to students, after which they are expected to master the material independently (Belland, 2017). Effective scaffolding is a deliberate process that guides students from simple thinking patterns to critical thinking patterns (Jarvis & Baloyi, 2020). Additionally, interviews with students have revealed that learning that challenges their misconceptions can be beneficial. Contextualized learning is defined as learning based on students’ daily problems, as opposed to problems engineered by the curriculum (Nyabando & Evanshen, 2021; Riordan et al., 2023). When learning is contextualized and relevant to students’ real-life experiences, it is perceived as more interesting and useful (Lee, 2020). Based on the interview data, students also indicated that they are guided toward the correct answer option B. In addition to daily problems presented in class, the students can visualize them through the implementation of real experiments. The students designed the experiments themselves to demonstrate the events that occur in their daily lives. Furthermore, real experiments are employed to demonstrate the characteristics of the movement if the actual experimental setup is to be subjected to the conditions outlined in question number eight. It is revealed that the movement of objects is analogous to answer option B. Despite the utilization of virtual experiments with Phet, the experimental set is conditioned in a manner analogous to the circumstances of everyday life, resulting in analogous outcomes to answer C. This approach is crucial for fostering students’ confidence in the virtual experimental set. When the experimental set is conditioned in accordance with the parameters set forth in question number 8, the students testify that the motion of the object is identical to that described in answer option B. This stage, based on the findings of the interview, is capable of facilitating a shift in the student’s understanding from a state of misconception to one of accurate conceptualization. If the learning process presents or visualizes the events occurring in students’ daily lives and subsequently establishes the correct conception, it will become firmly established in their mindsets (Ha & Kim, 2020; Haryono et al., 2021; Suhandi et al., 2020).

Table 3 shows that 68 students provided the correct response during the posttest. Fourteen students (17.5%) provide correct responses from the outset, while 54 students (67.5%) exhibit a shift from initial misconceptions to more accurate conceptualizations. One student initially provides a correct response but then alters it to an incorrect one. Additionally, 12 students (15.00%) initially provided incorrect responses and subsequently maintained those responses despite continued learning. Eleven students maintain their incorrect responses, while one student changes his answer but remains incorrect. The 54 students, on average, indicated that the reason for changing to the correct answer was that the learning process was effectively guided in a way that made it straightforward to direct students toward the correct conceptual understanding. Additionally, students are provided with opportunities to challenge their existing ideas through tasks and experiments grounded in their daily experiences and reinforced through the use of both real and virtual laboratories (Fadhilah, Effendi, & Ridwan, 2021; Haryono et al., 2021).

The guidance provided to students represents an example of scaffolding (Belland, Weiss, Kim, Piland, & Gu, 2019; Belcher, 2017). In the initial discussion, which involves observing the phenomenon, students are guided by student worksheets online that include written scaffolding of procedural and conceptual types. At the initial stage of the discussion, the individual acting as a guide has been prepared to assist students in observing the phenomenon in a way that is conducive to achieving the desired outcome. A total of 12 students persisted in their misconceptions because they considered experiments conducted in virtual laboratories, such as Phet, to be unreal and engineered (Aşıksoy & Islek, 2017).

Figure 2 presents a comparison of the percentage of students whose misconceptions are reduced with the percentage of students whose misconceptions persist for Newton’s law I material for question number 8.

Figure 2

A comparison of the percentage of students whose misconceptions are reduced with the percentage of students who retain their misconceptions for Newton’s law material, question number 8.

Figure 3 presents a comparison of the percentage of students who reduced their misconceptions with the percentage of students who persisted in their misconceptions of Newton’s law I material across all questions.

Figure 3

A comparison of the percentage of students whose misconceptions are reduced with the percentage of students who retain their misconceptions for Newton’s law I material is presented herewith.

3.2 Decrease of Conceptual Error Concerning Misconception on Newton’s Second Law

There is question

A rocket drifts sideways in outer space from point “a” to point “b” as shown below. The rocket is subject to no outside forces. Starting at position “b,” the rocket’s engine is turned on and produces a constant thrust (force on the rocket) at right angles to the line “ab.” The constant thrust is maintained until the rocket reaches a point “c” in space.

21. Which path below best represents the path of the rocket between points “b” and “c”?

Table 4 indicates that 43 students maintained their initial choice, whereas only 33 students maintained their initial mindset. A total of 18 students, who participated in both the pretest and posttest, had retained the correct answer, designated as E. Of these 18 students, 8 provided the correct rationale for their responses, while 6 students did not provide a reason, and four provided an incorrect reason. On average, 8 students provided the rationale that “after the rocket engine starts, the upward thrust causes acceleration, so the result is the resultant between the sideways fixed speed and the upward fixed acceleration.” Four students who provided the incorrect rationale asserted that the thrust of the rocket causes a fixed speed that is higher than the sideways speed, resulting in the sideways speed being gradually dominated by the upward speed. To confirm the students’ understanding, interviews were conducted with four students.

The results of the interview indicate that, when students seek to enhance the stable speed, they apply their daily experience by accelerating the motor until it reaches a point of stability at a specific RPM. Consequently, the lateral velocity will decelerate when the ball is rolled. The cognitive model utilized by students is the physical mechanism game. Students employ a form of reasoning that is based on everyday experience and can be described as a primitive abstraction. This enables them to solve problems. Meanwhile, students themselves interpret their daily experience into their brain structure, thereby creating their own naïve knowledge (Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). It can be concluded that the four students were incorrect in their responses to question 21.

Based on Table 4, six students initially selected the incorrect answer choice A. The rationale provided for this choice was “the upward thrust will gradually slow down.” To gain further insight into the student’s thought process, interviews were conducted with six students. The interview results indicate that most students lack an understanding of the context of the problem in space, which leads them to believe that there is no other force at work besides the upward thrust of the rocket engine. The phenomenon of the rocket’s upward movement is still perceived as a reduction in speed, due to the continued influence of the students’ daily experiences. They continue to apply their daily experience on Earth to this situation. Therefore, students hypothesize that the rocket will initially ascend, but subsequently return to a lateral trajectory. Accordingly, the students’ epistemological approach to solving the problem is the physical mechanism game (Chen et al., 2013; Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Students attempt to employ the problem-solving strategy of mapping mathematics to meaning, specifically recalling the equation W = mg and then interpreting that the object will be decelerated by ascending (Rodriguez, Bain, & Towns, 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007).

As evidenced in Table 4, four students initially selected answer B, which was identified as the incorrect response. The rationale provided for this choice was based on the premise that “the engine thrust dominates the movement, so there is only upward movement at a fixed speed.” To gain further insight into the student’s thought process, interviews were conducted with these four students. During the interview, students described that they employ their daily experiences, such as kicking a ball, setting off firecrackers, and changing direction when the beam slips, when solving problems. The physical mechanism game problem-solving strategy is employed by students (Hunter, Rodriguez, & Becker, 2021; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Additionally, students posit that a residual gravitational force acts to counteract the rocket’s thrust, resulting in a net linear motion force that counteracts the rocket’s lateral motion. Students construct a free-body diagram of the rocket, wherein they identify a downward force of gravity and an upward force of rocket thrust of equal magnitude. In addressing the problem, students employ the pictorial analysis problem-solving strategy (Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007).

As evidenced in Table 4, seven students initially selected answer C, which was identified as the incorrect response. The rationale provided for this choice was based on the premise that “the thrust force of the machine causes a constant upward speed, so the resultant between the constant upward speed and the constant sideways speed is C.” To substantiate the hypothesis that the students were operating under a certain mindset, interviews were conducted with the seven students in question.

The interviews with these seven students indicate that they drew a parallel between this phenomenon and their everyday experience of attempting to accelerate their motorcycle. The assumption is that increasing the angle of the handlebar will result in a greater force being exerted by the motorcycle engine. In their experience, the motorcycle will travel at a fixed speed that is higher than that at which it was previously traveling. The student’s understanding of the relationship between force and speed remains that force is proportional to speed. In their everyday lives, students tend to grasp the concept of speed or velocity with greater ease than that of acceleration. A journey of 100 km is completed in 2 h at a speed of 50 km/h. The students’ epistemic game for solving the problems is a physical mechanism game, as described by Chen et al. (2013); Odden & Russ (2018); Puspitasari et al. (2020); Puspitasari (2023); Tuminaro & Redish (2007) was the method used to solve the problem. Three students are depicted in free-body diagrams, representing the forces acting on a rocket. The downward force of gravity and the upward force of rocket thrust are of equal magnitude. The students employed the pictorial analysis problem-solving strategy to address the problem (Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007).

Table 4 also shows that eight students persisted in selecting the incorrect response, option D. The rationale provided for this choice, on average, was that the initial push was weak and then gradually enlarged. To substantiate the hypothesis that the students’ responses were indicative of a specific cognitive process, interviews were conducted with the eight students who had selected answer D. From the interview students’ described that, as a rocket is a large object, they drew upon their experience of pushing a heavy object to inform their responses. In the initial stages of pushing a heavy object, such as a car, the object appears to be relatively stationary. However, after a brief interval, the car begins to move. The students’ epistemological approach to problem-solving is the physical mechanism game (Chen et al., 2013; Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). The students apply the concept of Newton’s first law, which states that the greater the mass, the greater the inertia. Therefore, it requires a considerable amount of time to overcome the inertia of an object with a large mass. During this period, students employ the strategy of mapping mathematics to meaning (Rodriguez et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Consequently, initially, the dominant movement is still the sideways movement of the rocket, followed by the emergence of only the upward acceleration.

As presented in Table 4, the remaining ten students changed their response from A to E. Initially, they based their answer on their daily experience of throwing objects upward, noting that the speed decreases with increasing height. To confirm the reason for this change, interviews were conducted with these students.

The instructions provided by the instructors, whether in written form as worksheets or orally as part of their lectures, serve as an invaluable form of scaffolding for students. The defining feature of scaffolding is the provision of assistance, albeit not indefinitely. This is because the scaffolding pattern can be mastered by students (Belland, 2017; Ertugruloglu et al., 2023). The usefulness of scaffolding is contingent upon its design at the outset of the learning process, enabling students to engage with the material in a focused manner (Doo et al., 2020). Additionally, the interview findings suggest that learning is more engaging when the problems presented are drawn from students’ real-life experiences (Raine, 2019). If the learning provides solutions or benefits for students’ real lives, then the learning will be perceived as highly engaging (Lee, 2020). Experiments, both in a real and virtual setting (Phet), are designed to challenge and alter students’ existing conceptions or misconceptions. The experiments are designed to emulate the students’ typical experiences, with any uncontrollable variables accounted for. The control of variables affecting the results is more straightforward in virtual experiments. In the initial stages of utilizing Phet, it has been demonstrated that the outcomes are identical to those experienced by students in their everyday lives, provided that the variables in question are not subjected to control. Once the variables have been controlled, the result is answer E. This stage is significant because it marks the gradual shift away from students’ misconceptions toward the correct conceptualization (Li, Chen, & Yang, 2021). If learning can present students’ daily problems and be cognitized in a way that fosters the development of a robust and well-founded understanding, then this understanding will inform a sound and constructive approach to problem-solving (Haryono et al., 2021; Perret-Clermont, 2022; Suhandi et al., 2020).

Table 4 indicates that 21 students who initially selected B, C, D, or did not answer ultimately selected the correct answer option E. To elucidate the rationale behind this shift, 21 students were interviewed.

A review of these 21 students’ responses indicates that this assistance is scaffolding. The scaffolding is only beneficial to students for a limited period of time, after which they are capable of mastering the material without assistance (Belland, 2017). Effective scaffolding is designed from the outset to facilitate a shift in students’ cognitive processes from simple to critical thinking (Jarvis & Baloyi, 2020). Based on the results of the interviews, the learning that can erode students’ misconceptions should be based on students’ daily problems, rather than problems that have been engineered by the curriculum (Nyabando & Evanshen, 2021). The learning that is connected to the real-life experiences of students is more engaging for them and offers more apparent benefits (Lee, 2020). In addition to the aforementioned factors, the students also provided testimony indicating that they were drawn toward the correct answer option E. They further testified that, in addition to the daily problems presented in class, they were able to visualize these problems through the lens of real experiments. The students designed authentic experiments to illustrate the events of their daily lives. It was revealed that the movement of objects was analogous to answer option E. Despite the utilization of a visual experiment in this instance, namely Phet, the experimental setup was structured in a manner analogous to that observed in everyday life. The outcomes were analogous to their initial response. This is a crucial aspect of the endeavor to instill confidence in students regarding the visual experimental apparatus. When the experimental set is conditioned in a manner analogous to that observed in response to question number 21, students report that the movement of objects is identical to that depicted in answer option E. This stage is capable of transforming students’ mindsets from a state of misconception to one of accurate understanding (Li et al., 2021). If the learning process presents or visualizes the events occurring in students’ daily lives, they ultimately facilitates the formation of a correct conception that will become firmly established in the students’ mindsets (Ha & Kim, 2020; Haryono et al., 2021; Suhandi et al., 2020).

The data also indicate that 49 students provided the correct rationale during the posttest. Eight students (10.00%) provide correct responses from the outset, while 41 students (51.25%) exhibit a shift from initial misconceptions to more accurate conceptualizations. Additionally, 31 students (38.75%) initially provided incorrect responses, and upon further learning, their responses remained erroneous. Twenty-five students maintain their initial incorrect responses, four students alter their answers but remain incorrect, and two students who initially provide correct responses with the appropriate reasons subsequently provide incorrect responses. The 36 students, on average, indicate that the reason for changing to the correct answer is due to the effective guidance provided, which facilitates the transition to the desired conception. Additionally, they highlight the value of the challenging tasks and experiments, which are anchored in their daily experiences and reinforced through both physical and virtual laboratories. The guidance provided to students is an example of scaffolding. During the initial discussion (observing phenomena), which is held online, students are guided by student worksheets that include written scaffolding of procedural and conceptual types. Every detail of the discussion at the “observing phenomena” stage has been prepared by a person acting as a guide to facilitate students’ understanding of the observation process.

Figure 4 presents a comparison between the total number of students whose misconceptions are reduced and students whose misconceptions persist for Newton’s law II material for question number 21.

Figure 4

Comparison between the number of Students with Reduced Misconceptions and Students who Still Retain Misconceptions for the Material of Newton’s law II, question number 21.

Figure 5 presents a comparison between the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and students who retained their misconceptions for the material of Newton’s law II for all questions.

Figure 5

Comparison between the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and students with retained misconceptions for the material of Newton’s second law.

3.3 Reduced Conceptual Error Related to Misconceptions on Newton’s Third Law

There is question

A large truck breaks down on the road and receives a push back into town by a small compact car as shown in Figure below.

15. While the car, still pushing the truck, is speeding up to get up to cruising speed:

1. The amount of force with which the car pushes on the truck is equal to that with which the truck pushes back on the car.

2. The amount of force with which the car pushes on the truck is smaller than that with which the truck pushes back on the car.

3. The amount of force with which the car pushes on the truck is greater than that with which the truck pushes back on the car.

4. The car’s engine is running so the car pushes against the truck, but the truck’s engine is not running so the truck cannot push back against the car. The truck is pushed forward simply because it is in the way of the car.

5. Neither the car nor the truck exerts any force on the other. The truck is pushed forward simply because it is in the way of the car.

Table 5 indicates that 45 students initially selected an option and maintained that choice. However, only 26 students demonstrated consistent cognitive processes, maintaining their initial mindset. Additionally, a total of 30 students provided the correct answer, designated as A. Among these students, 11 students provided the correct rationale from the outset, while 19 students offered an incorrect response during the pretest and subsequently provided the correct answer. From these 19 students who provided an incorrect response, 10 of them did not indicate the reason for their choice and 9 of them provided an incorrect rationale. On average, 11 students provided the correct reason, that “interaction between two objects always produces action-reaction pairs of equal magnitude and opposite direction.” In contrast, nine students provided incorrect responses, reasoning that “when accelerated, it means that there is a force exerted by the car on the truck because force is proportional to acceleration.” To confirm the students’ mindsets, interviews were conducted with nine students.

The results of the interview are discussed in the following.

The students’ daily experience is applied when they utilize their own motorcycle to assist a friend in moving their motorcycle, which is in a state of disrepair. This is carried out while they are also riding their own motorcycle. As the motorcycle transitions from a state of rest to a state of movement (acceleration), the students experience a force directed toward his feet from the motorcycle of his companion. However, when the speed is maintained, his foot does not receive a push from his friend’s motorcycle. Based on these observations, students conclude that action-reaction occurs exclusively when acceleration is present. The cognitive model utilized by the students is the physical mechanism game. The students employ rudimentary reasoning, an abstraction of everyday experience, to solve problems. Concurrently, their daily experiences are interpreted into their brain structure, forming their naïve knowledge (Kim, Kwon, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Bae, & Glazewski, 2023; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Therefore, these nine students were incorrect in their responses to question number 21.

Table 5 indicates that 15 students initially selected the incorrect response. To gain further insight into their thought process, interviews were conducted with these students. Among these students, seven students selected answer B, which was based on their daily experience with a variety of objects. The magnitude of the force exerted by a given object is directly proportional to its mass. When an insect contacts the glass of a car, the vehicle itself is not damaged, whereas the insect is destroyed. Consequently, students interpret that the car is not damaged because its mass is large, and therefore, the insect exerts a small force. Conversely, the insect is destroyed because the car exerts a greater force, given that its mass is small. Five students selected answer option C, reasoning that having the initiative requires exerting a greater force. In this scenario, the car assumed the role of the aggressor, exerting force upon the truck. The students drew upon their experience of pushing their friend into a swimming pool, noting that their friend was propelled into the pool while they remained largely unscathed. Two students selected answer option D, citing the everyday experience of a force (in this case, the engine) being the primary agent of motion. They reasoned that if the car lacked an engine, the truck would not accelerate. When the car’s engine is operational, a force is generated that ultimately propels the truck forward. The application of force to the car results in the acceleration of the truck. In the absence of an engine, the truck is devoid of any force and serves only as an impediment. According to the students, the car exerts a force on the truck, but the truck does not exert a force on the car. One student selected answer option E, citing daily experience as the rationale for this choice. The student posited that if the incident occurred without intention, there would be no force. As evidenced by the aforementioned information, it is evident that the students’ epistemic approach to problem-solving aligns with the physical mechanism game (Chen et al., 2013; Odden & Russ, 2018; Puspitasari et al., 2020; Puspitasari, 2023; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007). Some students employ the problem-solving strategy of mapping mathematics to meaning, specifically in the interpretation of F = ma. This entails the assumption that there is a direct correlation between mass and force, whereby a larger mass equates to a larger force. Conversely, a smaller mass results in a smaller force. Furthermore, if the acceleration is maintained at a constant rate, the force will also remain constant (Puspitasari, 2023; Rodriguez et al., 2020; Tuminaro & Redish, 2007).

Table 5 indicates that 53 students who initially selected option A, but whose rationale was deemed inadequate or absent, or who selected B, C, D, or E, or who did not respond, ultimately selected the correct answer, A. To ascertain the rationale behind this change, interviews were conducted with the 53 students. The results of the interview are presented in the following section.

A review of the students’ responses indicates that this assistance is an example of scaffolding. The benefits of scaffolding are limited in duration, after a period of time, students are capable of independent learning (Belland, 2017; Ertugruloglu et al., 2023). Effective scaffolding is designed from the outset of the learning process to facilitate a shift in students’ cognitive processes from simple to critical thinking (Jarvis & Baloyi, 2020). Based on the results of the interviews, learning that effectively challenges students’ misconceptions is the ones based on their daily problems, rather than problems designed by the curriculum (Nyabando & Evanshen, 2021). Once the learning is connected to students’ real-life experiences, it becomes highly engaging for them, as the benefits are evident (Lee, 2020). Additionally, the interviews revealed that students were guided toward the correct answer option A.

In addition to the daily problems presented in class, the students were able to visualize them through real experiments, as evidenced by their testimonies. The students designed the experiments themselves, with the objective of demonstrating the events that occur in their daily lives. The actual experiment was employed to demonstrate the consequences of conditioning the authentic series of experiments in a manner analogous to that observed in problem number 15. Therefore, their testimony aligned with response option A. Despite the utilization of a visual experiment through Phet, the experimental setup was conditioned in a manner analogous to that observed in everyday life, while the outcomes were analogous to their initial response. This is crucial for fostering students’ belief in the virtual experimental set. When the experimental set is conditioned in a manner analogous to that described in question number 15, students report that the event is identical to answer option A. Based on interviews, this stage is able to facilitate a shift in students’ mindsets from misconceptions to correct conceptions (Li et al., 2021). If the learning material is able to present or visualize what happens in students’ daily lives, then set it up like a problem and finally get the correct conception, then that conception will be firmly retained in students’ mindsets (Ha & Kim, 2020; Haryono et al., 2021; Suhandi et al., 2020).

As evidenced in Table 5, 64 students provided the correct rationale during the posttest. A total of 11 students (13.75%) provided correct responses from the outset, while 53 students (66.25%) exhibited a shift from initial misconceptions to more accurate conceptualizations. Additionally, 16 students (20.00%) initially provided incorrect responses, which remained unchanged following the learning period. Fifteen students maintained their initial incorrect responses, while one student who had initially provided a correct response with the appropriate rationale subsequently provided an incorrect response. On average, 53 students indicated that the reason for changing to the correct answer was due to the effective guidance provided, which facilitated the transition to the desired conception. Additionally, they highlighted the value of the challenging tasks and experiments, which were anchored in their daily experiences and reinforced through both physical and virtual laboratories. The guidance provided to students represents an example of scaffolding. During the initial discussion (observing phenomena) conducted online, students are guided by the worksheets that include written scaffolding of procedural and conceptual types. Every detail of the discussion at the “observing phenomena” stage has been prepared by a person acting as a guide to facilitate students’ understanding of the observation process.

Figure 6 presents a comparison of the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and students whose misconceptions persist for Newton’s law III material for question number 15.

Figure 6

Comparison between the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and the percentage of students who still retain misconceptions for Newton’s law III material in question number 15.

Figure 7 illustrates a comparison between the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and students with persistent misconceptions of the material of Newton’s law III for all questions.

Figure 7

Comparison between the percentage of students with reduced misconceptions and the percentage of students who retained misconceptions for Newton’s law III material.

Figure 8 displays a comparison between the mean percentage of students with reduced misconceptions regarding Newton’s laws with the mean percentage of students who retained their misconceptions.

Figure 8

Comparison between the average percentage of students with reduced misconceptions (65.42%) and the number of students who still retain misconceptions (24.75%) for the material of Newton’s laws.

According to Figure 8, the use of MI with conceptual and procedural scaffolding, supplemented with problems based on students’ daily misconceptions, was able to reduce misconceptions by 65.42%. Thus, whenever students encounter problems, 65.42% can be resolved in line with scientific perspectives, while there remains a potential for 24.75% of misconceptions to persist. Meanwhile, 4.92% represents the gap between reduced misconceptions and those that remain unresolved.

As previously discussed, the fundamental issue in the learning process is the misconceptions based on students’ daily experiences. It is evident that a significant number of lessons are unable to mitigate students’ misconceptions due to the lack of alignment between the problems presented and those encountered in their daily lives. Therefore, the integration of students’ real-world problems into the learning process is a crucial factor in ensuring the success and efficacy of the learning experience (Akerson, Carter, Pongsanon, & Nargund-Joshi, 2019; Alshurideh, Al Kurdi, Salloum, Arpaci, & Al-Emran, 2023; Zhang, Bae, & Broda, 2021).

Despite engaging in MI learning, some students continue to hold on to misconceptions. The underlying causes for this failure can be attributed to four key factors. First, the perception that the experimental design can be manipulated to suit specific outcomes. Second, the difficulty associated with designing experiments can potentially lead to design errors that reinforce existing misconceptions. Third, the inability of MI learning to effectively bridge the gap between students’ daily experiences and the concepts being taught. Fourth, a lack of clarity regarding the equipment and techniques used to control variables such as friction between objects and the floor.

In addition, Table 6 outlines the distinctive advantages of this study in comparison to other existing research.