KnE Social Sciences

Published date: Jun 20 2025

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The International Conference on Teaching, Learning and Technology 2024 (ICTLT 2024)

Pages: 251 - 260

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v10i12.18909

Nury Yuniasihnuryyuniasih@upi.eduSchool of Postgraduates, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Wahyu SopandiSchool of Postgraduates, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Andi SuhandiFaculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Ernawulan SyaodihSchool of Postgraduates, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

This study explores the factors affecting elementary school students’ understanding of force concepts, particularly friction. Using a quantitative descriptive approach, 61 randomly-selected fifth-grade students participated in a concept understanding test, which covered seven indicators: explaining, comparing, inferring, summarizing, classifying, providing examples, and interpreting. Results showed that students performed well in explaining (70.49%) and inferring (77.05%), while comparing (26.23%), classifying (37.7%), providing examples (22.95%), and interpreting (26.23%) had lower success rates. The main challenges identified were limited hands-on activities, insufficient teaching tools, and a lack of contextual learning. The study suggests that incorporating more interactive and experiment-based teaching methods, tied to real-life contexts, could enhance students’ understanding. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of considering factors such as teaching methods, prior knowledge, real-world experiences, and individual differences in learning styles and motivation to improve conceptual understanding.

Keywords: conceptual understanding, force concepts, elementary student

[1] Ningsih AR, Afifah RN. Qonita, Gumala Y, Handayani H, Suhandi A, et al. A preliminary study: how is extent the fourth-grade students understanding of the magnetic force? J Phys Conf Ser [Internet]. 2019 Nov 1;1280(5):052048. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052048

[2] Cari C, Wulandari PS, Aminah NS, Handhika J, Nugraha DA. Students’ understanding level of friction force direction concept on rolling object [Internet]. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019 Feb;1153:012150. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742- 6596/1153/1/012150

[3] Aksit O, Wiebe EN. Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study [Internet]. J Sci Educ Technol. 2020;29(1):65–82.

[4] O’Neill RT, Boulatov R. The many flavours of mechanochemistry and its plausible conceptual underpinnings [Internet]. Nat Rev Chem. 2021 Mar;5(3):148–67.

[5] Yang X, Kuo LJ, Jiang L. Connecting theory and practice: A systematic review of K-5 science and math literacy instruction [Internet]. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2020;18(2):203– 19.

[6] Canlas IP. Using visual representations in identifying students’ preconceptions in friction [Internet]. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2021;39(2):156–84.

[7] Arenas Y. Does Cooperative Learning Impact the Understanding of STEM Content and Attitudes Towards Peers in a Special Education Classroom? [Internet]. Hofstra University; 2024. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/7882e8dfffeeed782b52859a5845964c/1?pqorigsite= gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

[8] Walsh Y, Magana AJ, Feng S. Investigating students’ explanations about friction concepts after interacting with a visuohaptic simulation with two different sequenced approaches [Internet]. J Sci Educ Technol. 2020;29(4):443–58. [cited 2025 Jan 1]

[9] Stoen SM, McDaniel MA, Frey RF, Hynes KM, Cahill MJ. Force Concept Inventory: more than just conceptual understanding [Internet]. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res. 2020;16(1):10105.

[10] Piyatissa S, Waduge L. Improving Secondary School Students’representational Competence in Force and Motion Concepts [Internet]. Eur J Educ Stud. 2023;10(10): https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v10i10.5003.

[11] Gnesdilow D, Puntambekar S. Comparing middle school students’ science explanations during physical and virtual laboratories [Internet]. J Sci Educ Technol. 2022;31(2):191–202.

[12] Kim SU. A Comparative Study on the Effects of Hands-on Robot and EPL Programming Activities on Creative Problem-Solving Ability in Children. Proc 2020 2nd Int Conf … [Internet]. 2020; Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/ 3401861.3401866https://doi.org/10.1145/3401861.3401866.

[13] Wang B, Han W, Zhang Y, Wang Q, Li D, Tang Z, et al. Assessment of Student Knowledge Integration in Learning Friction Force [Internet]. J Balt Sci Educ. 2024;23(4):767–85.

[14] Hong JC, Ye JH, Ho YJ, Ho HY. Developing an Inquiry and Hands-On Teaching Model to Guide STEAM Lesson Planning for Kindergarten Children [Internet]. J Balt Sci Educ. 2020;19(6):908–22.

[15] Saputri RA. The analysis of natural science learning misconceptions on force, motion, and energy materials in elementary schools. Int J Soc Serv Res [Internet]. 2021;1(4):418–23.

[16] Hokor EK, Sedofia J. Developing probabilistic reasoning in preservice teachers: comparing the learner-centered and teacher-centered approaches of teaching. Int J Stud Educ Sci [Internet]. 2021;2(2):120–45.

[17] Ha S, Kim M. Challenges of designing and carrying out laboratory experiments about Newton’s second law: the case of Korean gifted students [Internet]. Sci Educ. 2020;29(5):1389–416.

[18] Avni B. Primary school pupils’ responses to lessons that combine different teaching styles (Visual, Auditory, Reading/writing and Kinaesthetic) according to their own personal learning styles [Internet]. Anglia Ruskin Research Online (ARRO); 2023. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10779/aru.23757990.v1

[19] Sopandi W, Sutinah C. Optimize The Increase of Students’conceptual Understanding by Learning at The Zone of Proximal Development. The Proceeding International Seminar on Science Education. ISSE; 2016. pp. 52–9. [Internet], Available from https://shorturl.at/vbqwG

[20] Wijnia L, Noordzij G, Arends LR, Rikers RM, Loyens SM. The effects of problem-based, project-based, and case-based learning on students’ motivation: A meta-analysis [Internet]. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024;36(1):29.

[21] Lu G, Xie K, Liu Q. What influences student situational engagement in smart classrooms: perception of the learning environment and students’ motivation [Internet]. Br J Educ Technol. 2022 Nov;53(6):1665–87. Available from: https://berajournals. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13204

[22] Hogenboom SA, Hermans FF, Van der Maas HL. Computerized adaptive assessment of understanding of programming concepts in primary school children [Internet]. Comput Sci Educ. 2022 Oct;32(4):418–48. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08993408.2021.1914461

[23] Métioui A, Trudel L. Children and Preservice Teachers’ Misconceptions and Scientifically Acceptable Conceptions about Movement, Force, and Gravity. In: Modern Perspectives in Language, Literature and Education Vol 5. Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International); 2021. p. 26–42.

[24] Wang Y, Zhang L, Pang M. Virtual experiments in physics education: a systematic literature review [Internet]. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2024;:1–23.

[25] Putra H, Hermita N, Noviana E, Syaodih E, Suhandi A, Maftuh B, et al. Enhancing elementary school students’ critical thinking through audio visual media related to motion of object concept. In: MISEIC 2018 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://miseic.conference.unesa.ac.id/index.php/ocs/miseic2018/paper/view/788

[26] Berger N, Mackenzie E, Holmes K. Positive attitudes towards mathematics and science are mutually beneficial for student achievement: a latent profile analysis of TIMSS 2015 [Internet]. Aust Educ Res. 2020 Jul;47(3):409–44. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13384-020-00379-8

[27] Greeno JG. Some examples of cognitive task analysis with instructional implications. Aptitude, learning, and instruction [Internet]Routledge; 2021. pp. 1–22., Available from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003163145- 14/examples-cognitive-task-analysis-instructional-implications-james-greeno

[28] Plummer KJ, Kebritchi M, Leary HM, Halverson DM. Enhancing critical thinking skills through decision-based learning. Innovative High Educ. 2022;47(4):711–34.

[29] Alomari A, Idris N, Sabri AQ, Alsmadi I. Deep reinforcement and transfer learning for abstractive text summarization: A review [Internet]. Comput Speech Lang. 2022;71:101276.

[30] González-Salamanca JC, Agudelo OL, Salinas J. Key competences, education for sustainable development and strategies for the development of 21st century skills. A systematic literature review [Internet]. Sustainability (Basel). 2020;12(24):10366.

[31] Aditomo A, Klieme E. Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: evidence from high and low-performing education systems [Internet]. Int J Sci Educ. 2020;42(4):504–25.

[32] Liu G, Fang N. The effects of enhanced hands-on experimentation on correcting student misconceptions about work and energy in engineering mechanics [Internet]. Res Sci Technol Educ. 2023;41(2):462–81.

[33] Stevi S, Haryanto H. Need Analysis of Audio-Visual Media Development to Teach Science Materials for Young Learners. J Educ Technol Online Learn [Internet]. 2020;3(2):152–67.