Top

Published in:

27-08-2021

Development and evaluation of granular simulation for integrating computational thinking into computational physics courses

Authors: Dewi Muliyati, Dadan Sumardani, Siswoyo Siswoyo, Fauzi Bakri, Handjoko Permana, Erfan Handoko, Ni Larasati Kartika Sari

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 2/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is an essential skill in the twenty-first century. The computational physics course (CPC) is one subject that is designed to support students in the practice of CT. Many studies show that the worksheets could be a solution in a CPC as a scaffold to achieve the CT objectives both online and offline. The study aims to develop the worksheet and integrate it with CT in a computational physics course. This study applied the research and development (R & D) method with the ADDIE model approach. In the results, the evaluation test from the experts reached a very good interpretation score based on the learning media expert (96%), the teaching material expert (95%), and the pedagogy experts (92%). So that this media is declared feasible to be used in the CPC. Furthermore, after the experimental study of students who took the computational physics course (n = 31), the study showed that the modified course could significantly improve student skills regarding overall CT (p value <0.05). However, this research also found that cooperative learning as part of CT had no improvement (p value >0.05). The experiment was conducted amid the COVID 19 pandemic wherein the students could only study at home for the whole semester. These findings indicate that the pandemic has impacted the collaborative skills of students on the course.

previous article Developing an innovator’s thinking in engineering education

next article An intelligent tutoring system architecture based on fuzzy neural network (FNN) for special education of learning disabled learners

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

https://s.id/ct-posttest

Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computers in human behavior computational thinking education : Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior journal, 105, 106185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185CrossRef

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018CrossRef

Astra, I. M., Raihanati, R., & Mujayanah, N. (2020). Development of electronic module using creative problem-solving model equipped with HOTS problems on the kinetic theory of gases material. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 6(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.06205

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students ’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics : A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008CrossRef

Bahrami, M., & Bahrami, M. (2012). A review of software architecture for collaborative software ‘s. Advanced Materials Research, 440, 2372–2376. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.433-440.2372CrossRef

Bakri, F., Permana, H., Wulandari, S., & Muliyati, D. (2020). Student worksheet with ar videos: Physics learning media in laboratory for senior high school students. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.3926/JOTSE.891CrossRef

Bakri, F., Sumardani, D., & Muliyati, D. (2019a). The 3D simulation of Lorentz force based on augmented reality technology. In journal of physics: Conference series (Vol. 1402, p. 66038). IOP publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066038

Bakri, F., Sumardani, D., & Muliyati, D. (2019b). The augmented reality application for simulating electromotive force concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1402(6), 66039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066039CrossRef

Bakri, F., Sumardani, D., & Muliyati, D. (2019c). Integrating augmented reality into worksheets: Unveil learning to support higher-order thinking skills. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2169, 020012. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132647CrossRef

Bakri, F., Sunaryo, S., Irawan, V. F., & Muliyati, D. (2018). E-learning model for problem based learning on heat and thermodynamic topics in high school. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 4(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.04207

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905CrossRef

Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0CrossRef

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering : Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020CrossRef

Borinskaya, S., Kang, N., Irish, T. E., Mulder, G., Bordeianu, C. C., Panoff, R. M., et al. (2013). Instances: Incorporating computational scientific thinking advances into Education & Science Courses. Biophysical Journal, 104(2), 532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2012.11.2942CrossRef

Borrego, C., Fernández, C., Blanes, I., & Robles, S. (2017). Room escape at class: Escape games activities to facilitate the motivation and learning in computer science. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(2), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.247CrossRef

Branch, R. M. (2010). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6CrossRef

Budi, A., & Muliyati, D. (2018). Discovering and understanding the vector field using simulation in android app. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013, 012062

Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005CrossRef

Chen, F. S., Ke, H. S., & Chen, Y. C. (2020). Online learning as a panacea?: An empirical study to discuss problem-based cooperative learning in Taiwan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(18), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i18.15079CrossRef

Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001

Chen, W., Looi, C., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.013CrossRef

da Silva, A. C., Bernardes, A., Evora, Y. D. M., Dalri, M. C. B., Silva, A. R. D., & Sampaio, C. S. J. C. (2016). Development of a virtual learning environment for cardiorespiratory arrest training. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem, 50(6), 988–995. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420160000700016CrossRef

Davis, A. L. (2013). Using instructional design principles to develop effective information literacy instruction: The ADDIE model. College and Research Libraries News, 74(4), 205–207. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.74.4.8934CrossRef

Denny, Y. R., Utami, I. S., Rohanah, S., & Muliyati, D. (2020). The development of blended learning model using Edmodo to train student critical thinking skills on impulse-momentum topic. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 6(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.06113

Dinica, M., Dinescu, L., & Miron, C. (2010). Developing the students’ creative potential by using visual methods while studying physics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3731–3736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.580CrossRef

Fraser, D. M., Pillay, R., Tjatindi, L., & Case, J. M. (2007). Enhancing the learning of fluid mechanics using computer simulations. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00946.xCrossRef

Gani, A., Safitri, R., & Mahyana, M. (2017). Improving the visual-spatial intelligence and results of learning of juniour high school students’ with multiple intelligences-based students worksheet learning on lens materials. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.9594

Gennari, R., Fatto, V. Del, Gashi, E., Sanin, J., & Ventura, A. (2016). Gamified technology probes for scaffolding computational thinking. COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_19

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051CrossRef

Guggemos, J. (2020). On the predictors of computational thinking and its growth at the high-school level. Computers & Education, 161, 104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104060CrossRef

Harangus, K., & Kátai, Z. (2020). Computational thinking in secondary and higher education. Procedia Manufacturing, 46, 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.03.088CrossRef

Hsu, T., Chang, S., & Hung, Y. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking : Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004CrossRef

Huang, H., Wu, C., & Chen, N. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education, 59(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015MathSciNetCrossRef

Hubalovsky, S. (2015). Processing of experimental data as educational method of development of algorithmic thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1876–1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.309CrossRef

Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2010). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309399CrossRef

Hussin, W. N. T. W., Harun, J., & Shukor, N. A. (2019). Online interaction in social learning environment towards critical thinking skill: A framework. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.544CrossRef

Ivone, F. M., Jacobs, G. M., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Far apart, yet close together: Cooperative learning in online education. Studies in English language and education, 7(2), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.17285

Khasanah, A. N., Sajidan, S., & Widoretno, S. (2017). Effectiveness of critical thinking indicator-based module in empowering student’s learning outcome in respiratory system study material. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i1.8490

Kim, M. C., & Hanna, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments ( TELEs ): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.024CrossRef

Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2016). Application of a software education program developed to improve computational thinking in elementary school girls. Indian journal of science and technology, 9(44), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i44/105102

Kong, C. S., & Wang, Y. Q. (2020). Formation of computational identity through computational thinking perspectives development in programming learning : A mediation analysis among primary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106230CrossRef

Kong, S., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872CrossRef

Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005CrossRef

Landau, R. H., Paez, M. J., Bordeianu, C., & Haerer, S. (2011). Making physics education more relevant and accessible via computation and eTextBooks. Computer Physics Communications, 182(9), 2071–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2010.11.006CrossRef

Lei, H., Ming, M., Li, F., Wang, X., & Geng, Y. (2020). Children and youth services review computational thinking and academic achievement : A meta-analysis among students. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105439CrossRef

Lin, S., Chien, S., Hsiao, C., Hsia, C., & Chao, K. (2020). Enhancing computational thinking capability of preschool children by game-based smart toys. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 44, 101011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.101011CrossRef

Lye, S. Y., Hwee, J., & Koh, L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming : What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012CrossRef

Mahtari, S., Wati, M., Hartini, S., Misbah, M., & Dewantara, D. (2020). The effectiveness of the student worksheet with PhET simulation used scaffolding question prompt. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1422, 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1422/1/012010CrossRef

Majid, N. A. A., Mohammed, H., & Sulaiman, R. (2015). Students’ perception of Mobile augmented reality applications in learning computer organization. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.450CrossRef

Malkawi, E., Alhadrami, S., & Aljabri, A. (2019). Building an interactive Mobile application to enhance students’ problem solving skills in higher education physics. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computer supported education (pp. 550–555). https://doi.org/10.5220/0007780105500555CrossRef

Manson, J. R., & Olsen, R. J. (2012). Assessing and refining an undergraduate computational science curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 1, 857–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.04.094CrossRef

Matuttis, H. (1998). Simulation of the pressure distribution under a two-dimensional heap of polygonal particles. Granular Matter, 1(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100350050013CrossRef

Muliyati, D., Firdaus, B., Ambarwulan, D., Fitriani, E., Siswoyo, B., & F., & Permana, H. (2018). Simulation of granular in two dimensions: The effect of particle velocity on rigid wall boundary. MATEC Web of Conferences, 197, 02001. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819702001CrossRef

Muliyati, D., Sumardani, D., Ambarwulan, D., Siswoyo, S., Handoko, E., Fitriani, E., & Viridi, S. (2019). The 3-D visualization of the granular particle on various diameter porous surfaces. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1402. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/7/077026

Mustami, M. K., Syamsudduha, S., & Safei, & Ismail, M. I. (2019). Validity, practicality, and effectiveness development of biology textbooks integrated with augmented reality on high school students. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2019.098789CrossRef

Ngan, S., & Law, K. M. Y. (2014). Exploratory network analysis of learning motivation factors in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0223-0CrossRef

Oktasari, D., Jumadi, W., Hariadi, M. H., & Syari, E. L. (2019). 3D Page-Flipped Worksheet on Impulse-Momentum To Develop Students’ Scientific Communication Skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.15737

Pitkänen, K., Iwata, M., & Laru, J. (2020). Exploring technology-oriented fab lab facilitators’ role as educators in K-12 education: Focus on scaffolding novice students’ learning in digital fabrication activities. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100207CrossRef

Prosperetti, A., & Tryggvason, G. (2003). Appendix 3: Report of study group on computational physics. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 29, 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(03)00081-8CrossRefMATH

Psycharis, S. (2011). The computational experiment and its effects on approach to learning and beliefs on physics. Computers & Education, 56, 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.011CrossRef

Raihanati, R., Fitri, U. R., & Fajrin, M. (2017). Integrated course for improve student competencies on school physics laboratory management. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 3(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.03112

Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: MUPPET. American Journal of Physics, 61, 222. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17295CrossRef

Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in CS unplugged activities. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, 501–506

Sánchez-carmona, A., Robles, S., & Pons, J. (2017). A Gamification experience to improve engineering students’ performance through motivation. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 7(2), 150–161CrossRef

Shah, A., Suhailiezana, K. C. G. C., & Khairudin, M. (2019). Effectiveness of m-learning applications for design and technology subject. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(10), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i10.11324CrossRef

Sulisworo, D., Ishafit, & Firdausy, K. (2016). The development of mobile learning application using jigsaw technique. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 10(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i3.5268CrossRef

Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798CrossRef

Taub, R., Armoni, M., Bagno, E., & Ben-ari, M. (2015). The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Computers & Education, 87, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.013CrossRef

Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 609–614

Tumanggor, A. M., Jumadi, J., Wilujeng, I., & Ringo, E. S. (2019). The profile of students’ physics problem solving ability in optical instruments. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 5(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.05104

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6CrossRef

Waiyakoon, S., Khlaisang, J., & Koraneekij, P. (2015). Development of an instructional learning object design model for tablets using game-based learning with scaffolding to enhance mathematical concepts for mathematic learning disability students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1489–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.779CrossRef

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communication of The ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215CrossRef

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.xCrossRef

Yao, Y. (2016). Granular Computing : Past , Present and Future. RSKT 2008: Rough Sets and Knowledge Technology, 5009, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79721-0

Ye, M., Jiang, X., Li, S., & Wang, L. (2021). Large-scale first-principles quantum transport simulations using plane wave basis set on high performance computing platforms. Computer Physics Communications, 260, 107737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107737MathSciNetCrossRef

Yulkifli, Y., Ningrum, M. V., & Indrasari, W. (2019). The validity of student worksheet using inquiry-based learning model with science process skill approach for physics learning of high school. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 5(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.05210

Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607CrossRef

Title: Development and evaluation of granular simulation for integrating computational thinking into computational physics courses
Authors: Dewi Muliyati
Dadan Sumardani
Siswoyo Siswoyo
Fauzi Bakri
Handjoko Permana
Erfan Handoko
Ni Larasati Kartika Sari
Publication date: 27-08-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Education and Information Technologies / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10724-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Student online communication skills: Enhancing the comparability of self-reports among different groups of students

Adoption of ICT as a pedagogical tool in community secondary schools in Tanzania: Possibilities and Constraints

Editorial for EAIT issue 2, 2022

Systemic model for technology integration in teaching

Disclosure of students’ mathematical reasoning through collaborative technology-enhanced learning environment

Web-based discussions in teaching and learning: Secondary school teachers’ and students’ perception and potentiality to enhance students’ performance in organic chemistry

Premium Partner