EXPLORING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: A QUALITATIVE INVESTIGATION
Main Article Content
Rodika Utama
Okimustava
Moh. Toifur
Nurlailah
Newtonian mechanics remains a fundamental yet conceptually challenging domain for high school students. Numerous studies have shown that students consistently hold alternative conceptions that contradict scientific understanding, particularly in relation to Newton’s laws of motion. This study aimed to explore senior high school students’ misconceptions in Newtonian mechanics through a qualitative investigation. Data were collected from 28 Grade 11 students in an Indonesian high school using open-ended diagnostic tests, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observations. Thematic coding identified four major categories of misconceptions: inertia, force–motion relationships, action–reaction interactions, and free-body diagram representations. Among these, misconceptions of Newton’s third law were the most dominant, with the majority of students believing that the object with greater mass exerts a greater force during interaction. Inertia misconceptions, such as the belief that motion requires continuous force, were also widespread. The findings confirm that students’ misconceptions are robust cognitive frameworks reinforced by everyday experiences and traditional teaching practices. Pedagogically, the results highlight the importance of incorporating inquiry-based learning, multiple representations, and cognitive conflict strategies to promote conceptual change. This study contributes to the literature on physics education by providing context-specific insights into persistent misconceptions in Newtonian mechanics and suggesting implications for more effective teaching practices.
Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M., & Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations part I – Engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 397–419.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Bao, L., Hogg, K., & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 766–778.
Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 2(1), 010103.
Bevington, P. R., & Robinson, D. K. (2003). Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.
Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71.
CODATA. (2018). Recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018. NIST.Rakestraw, D., Higgins, D., Harris, D., Allen, M., Red, E., Lang, D., Gamez, M., & Strubbe, D. A. (2023). Exploring Newton’s Second Law and Kinetic Friction Using the Accelerometer Sensor in Smartphones. The Physics Teacher, 61(6), 473–476.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1994). Children’s Ideas in Science. Open University Press.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
Etkina, E., & Planinšič, G. (2014). Defining and developing “critical thinking” through the physics curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 82(7), 631–638.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.
Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Sahidu, H., & Herayanti, L. (2019). Virtual laboratory to improve students’ conceptual understanding in physics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1153, 012116.
Gunstone, R. F., & Watts, M. (1985). Force and motion: Some thoughts on preconceptions. Physics Education, 20(4), 162–169.Vincent, A. C., Furman, H., Slepian, R. C., Ammann, K. R., Maria, C. Di, Chien, J. H., Siu, K. C., & Slepian, M. J.
(2022). Smart Phone‐Based Motion Capture and Analysis: Importance of Operating Envelope Definition and Application to Clinical Use. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(12), 6–10.
Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2014). Fundamentals of Physics (10th ed.). Wiley.
Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77(3), 293–300.
Maloney, D. (1984). Rule-governed approaches to physics: Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 19(1), 37–42.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models (pp. 299–324). Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDermott, L. C. (1999). Students’ conceptions and problem solving in mechanics. Physics Education, 34(6), 424–432.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., & Wieman, C. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44(1), 18–23.
Podolefsky, N. S., Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). Student choices when learning with computer simulations. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020101.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. Wiley.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 31–56). Routledge.
Srisawasdi, N., & Kroothkeaw, S. (2014). Supporting students’ conceptual development of light refraction by simulation-based open inquiry with dual situated learning model. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 49–79.
Suparno, P. (2013). Miskonsepsi dan Perubahan Konsep dalam Pendidikan Fisika. Jakarta: Grasindo.
Taylor, J. R. (1997). An Introduction to Error Analysis (2nd ed.). University Science Books.
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352.
Tipler, P. A., & Mosca, P. A. (2008). Physics for Scientists and Engineers (6th ed.). W. H. Freeman.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1020–1028.
Trowbridge, D. E., & McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 49(3), 242–253.
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. Routledge.
Wieman, C., Adams, W., & Perkins, K. (2010). PhET simulations: Interactive science simulations for teaching and learning. Physics Today, 63(11), 36–41.
Yeo, J., Tan, S., & Lee, P. (2015). Virtual experiments in physics education: The role of computer simulations. European Journal of Physics Education, 6(1), 1–15.
W Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
W Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.
