Analysis of Students' Understanding of Temperature Concepts Based on Diagnostic Test Results: A Discovery Learning Study
DOI:
10.29303/jossed.v7i1.14962Published:
2026-04-30Downloads
Abstract
This study highlights the low conceptual understanding of students in physics learning, which is often accompanied by misconceptions, especially in the topic of temperature and heat. The purpose of this study is to analyze the improvement of students' conceptual understanding through the application of the Discovery Learning (DL) model. The study used a qualitative descriptive design supported by quantitative data in the form of a pretest and posttest. The subjects were 30 students of class VII-A who were selected purposively. The instrument used was an essay test to measure students' conceptual understanding before and after learning. The results showed a significant increase in students' conceptual understanding, indicated by an increase in scores from the low category in the pretest to the high category in the posttest. The DL model has been proven to be able to increase student activeness, encourage critical thinking processes, and help students build concepts independently through systematic learning stages. In addition, student misconceptions were still found regarding the concepts of temperature and heat that stem from inaccurate initial understanding. The conclusion of this study shows that the application of the Discovery Learning model is effective in improving students' conceptual understanding and reducing misconceptions, making it suitable for use as an alternative for more meaningful learning in physics
Keywords:
Conceptual understanding Discovery learning Physics misconceptionsReferences
Ashley, S., Schaap, H., & Bruijn, E. de. (2021). Exploring differences between international business undergraduates’ conceptual understanding. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672642
Bicknell-Holmes, T., & Seth Hoffman, P. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320010359632
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2010). A framework for understanding physics instruction in secondary and college courses. Research Papers in Education, 25(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520802382904
Capriconia, J., & Mufit, F. (2022). Analysis of concept understanding and students ’ attitudes towards learning physics in material of straight motion. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(3), 1453–1461. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i3.1381
Chen, W. C., & Whitehead, R. (2009). Understanding physics in relation to working memory. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140902853624
Chiou, G. L., & Anderson, O. R. (2010). A multi-dimensional cognitive analysis of undergraduate physics students’ understanding of heat conduction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2113–2142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903258246
Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2012). Evaluation of students’ understanding of thermal concepts in everyday contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1509–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.657714
Dessie, E., Gebeyehu, D., & Eshetu, F. (2023). Enhancing critical thinking, metacognition, and conceptual understanding in introductory physics: The impact of direct and experiential instructional models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13273
Dilber, R., Karaman, I., & Duzgun, B. (2009). High school students’ understanding of projectile motion concepts. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610902899101
Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 173–191.
Gaigher, E., Rogan, J. M., & Braun, M. W. H. (2007). Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem-solving in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600930972
Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Danks, D., Glymour, C., Schulz, L. E., & Kushnir, T. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
Honomichl, R. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). The role of guidance in children’s discovery learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(6), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1199
Hung, W., & Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Conceptual understanding of causal reasoning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560902
Kim, M., & Song, J. (2009). The effects of dichotomous attitudes toward science on interest and conceptual understanding in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2385–2406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802563316
Mukherjee, A. (2015). Effective use of discovery learning to improve understanding of factors that affect quality. Journal of Education for Business, 90(8), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1081866
Ozkan, G., & Topsakal, U. U. (2020). Determining students’ conceptual understandings of physics concepts. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i3.2908
Phanphech, P., Tanitteerapan, T., & Murphy, E. (2019). Explaining and enacting for conceptual understanding in secondary school physics. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 180–204.
Prasad, K. S. (2011). Learning mathematics by discovery. Academic Voices: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 31–33.
Raab, M., Masters, R. S. W., Maxwell, J., Arnold, A., Schlapkohl, N., & Poolton, J. (2011). Discovery learning in sports : implicit or explicit processes ? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(4), 413–430.
Riaz, M., Marcinkowski, T. J., & Faisal, A. (2020). The Effects of a DLSCL approach on students conceptual understanding in an undergraduate introductory physics lab. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 16(2), 1–8.
Robinson, W. R. (2000). A view of the science education research literature : scientific discovery learning with computer simulations. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 17–18.
Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2009). The relation of learners’ motivation with the process of collaborative scientific discovery learning. Educational Studies, 35(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802470357
Schulz, L. E., & Bonawitz, E. B. (2007). Serious fun: preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1045–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1045
Shieh, C., & Yu, L. (2016). A study on information technology integrated guided discovery instruction towards students’ learning achievement and learning retention. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(15), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1554a
Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulou, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00216.x
Veermans, K., Van Joolingen, W., & De Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500277615
Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Knowles, J. M., & Smeeton, N. J. (2002). Anticipation skill in a real-world task: Measurement, training, and transfer in tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.4.259
Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<938::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S
License
Copyright (c) 2026 David Tuhurima, John Rafafy Batlolona
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Journal of Science and Science Education, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in Journal of Science and Science Education.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
