Simulation-Based Learning Packet Embedded with Metacognitive Scaffolding in Teaching Projectile Motion
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20252211Keywords:
Conceptual Understanding, Metacognitive Development, Physics Education, Projectile Motion, Simulation-based LearningAbstract
This study addresses the challenges that Grade 9 students’ face with projectile motion due to its abstract nature and mathematical complexity. Traditional teaching methods often fall short in addressing misconceptions and fostering deep conceptual understanding, underscoring the importance of innovative strategies in teaching. To bridge this gap, an innovative learning packet was developed and evaluated, incorporating a virtual guided-inquiry laboratory activity via the Physics Education Technology (PhET) platform with embedded metacognitive scaffolding. The learning packet underwent iterative refinement using the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) and was structured following the 7E Learning Cycle, a guided inquiry framework, and was validated by 16 experienced physics educators. The study was implemented with 41 Grade 9 students in a quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design. A needs assessment of 35 DepEd teachers confirmed projectile motion as the most challenging topic (Kendall’s W = 0.37). Experts rated the packet “Very Satisfactory” in terms of content, format, presentation, and accuracy. The results showed a significant improvement in achievement from pretest (M = 7.07) to posttest (M = 14.34), t(40) = 23.41, p < .001, reflecting a very large effect size (d = 3.66) and a moderate average normalized gain〈g= 0.56). Metacognitive analysis revealed frequent evaluation (34.63%) and monitoring (27.64%), whereas planning (8.46%) was the least evident. The results suggest that simulation-based guided inquiry with embedded metacognitive prompts enhances conceptual understanding and reflective thinking among students. Such approaches are recommended for physics instruction to improve problem-solving skills and support inclusive quality education in line with SDG 4.
References
1. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics today, 37(7), 24-32.
2. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The physics teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
3. Celestino-Salcedo, R. K. M., Salic-Hairulla, M. A., Castro, E. J., & Mordeno, I. C. V. (2024). Vodcast Embedded with Physics Education Technology Simulation in Learning Projectile Motion. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(3), 1047-1055. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i3.21434
4. San Juan, M. J. A. (2025). Parabolic instructional device: Its effectiveness in teaching concepts of projectile motion.
5. Chinaka, T. W. (2021). The Effect of PhET Simulation vs. Phenomenon-based Experiential Learning on Students’ Integration of Motion Along Two Independent Axes in Projectile Motion. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2021.1969739
6. Changjan, A., & Mueanploy, W. (2015, May). Projectile motion in real-life situations: Kinematics of basketball shooting. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 622(1), 012008. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/622/1/012008
7. Verawati, N. N. S. P., & Nisrina, N. (2025). Reimagining physics education: Addressing student engagement, curriculum reform, and technology integration for learning. International Journal of Ethnoscience and Technology in Education, 2(1), 158–181. https://doi.org/10.33394/ijete.v2i1.14058
8. Triyani, G., Danawan, A., Suyana, I., & Kaniawati, I. (2019). An investigation of students’ misconceptions about momentum and impulse through interactive conceptual instruction (ICI) with computer simulation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(5), 052008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/5/052008
9. Moser, S., Zumbach, J., & Deibl, I. (2017). The effect of metacognitive training and prompting on learning success in simulation‐based physics learning. Science Education, 101(6), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21295
10. Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The science teacher, 70(6), 56.
11. Arboiz, K. M., & Malayao, S. O. (2024). A simulation-based guided inquiry laboratory package in teaching mirrors and lenses for Grade 10 learners. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(6), 2558–2567. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.806195
12. Wen, C. T., Liu, C. C., Chang, H. Y., Chang, C. J., Chang, M. H., Chiang, S. H. F., … Hwang, F. K. (2020). Students’ guided inquiry with simulation and its relation to school science achievement and scientific literacy. Computers & Education, 149, 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103830
13. Fan, X. (2015). Effectiveness of an inquiry-based learning using interactive simulations for enhancing students’ conceptual understanding in physics (Doctoral dissertation). School of Education, The University of Queensland. https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2015.1005
14. Saadi, P., Clarita, D., & Sholahuddin, A. (2021). Guided inquiry assisted by metacognitive questions to improve metacognitive skills and students' conceptual understanding of chemistry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1760(1), 012023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1760/1/012023
15. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020, December). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science.
16. Day, R. (2025, April 2). Math and science woes: Why Filipino students are falling behind and how we can fix it. Upgrade InnoLab. https://upgradeinnolab.com/2025/04/math-and-science-woes-why-filipino-students-are-falling-behind-and-how-we-can-fix-it/
17. Goal 4 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
18. Andoy, E. J. B., & Rebuera, A. J. G. (2024, December). Boosting Physics Engagement in The Philippine Countryside: The Impact of Digital Modules on Understanding of Projectile Motion. In 2024 International Conference on TVET Excellence & Development (ICTeD) (pp. 250-255). IEEE.
19. Torrevillas, M., Malayao Jr, S., Paylaga, G., Sayson, N. L., Arrogancia, D., & Castro, E. (2025). Development and Evaluation of Simulation-Based Guided Inquiry Learning Packet on Projectile Motion Embedded with Metacognitive Scaffolding. International Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (IJRSS) ISSN: 2582-6220, DOI: 10.47505/IJRSS, 6(4), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.47505/IJRSS.2025.4.5
20. Guden, J. M., Alguno, A. C., Sayson, N. L. B., Magsayo, J. R., & Malayao Jr, S. O. (2024). Vodcast as ideating medium in STEM lesson plan in teaching heat transfer. Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN, 2252(8822), 2563. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.28362
21. Redish, E. F., & Burciaga, J. R. (2003). Teaching physics: with the physics suite (Vol. 1, p. 216). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Kraftwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1967). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals: Handbook II: Affective domain.
23. Nuangchalerm, P., Prachagool, V., Nuangchalerm, A., Chimphali, K., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2024). Framing citizen science and sustainable education development. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 7(2). https://10.31893/multirev.2024028
24. Banda, H. J., & Nzabahimana, J. (2021). Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature. Physical review physics education research, 17(2), 023108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.023108
25. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225-227. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3361987
26. Pranata, O. D. (2023). Enhancing conceptual understanding and concept acquisition of gravitational force through guided inquiry utilizing PhET simulation. Sainstek: Jurnal Sains dan Teknologi, 15(1), 44-52.
27. Drastisianti.A, Dewi.A.K, Aligiri.D (2024). Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry Learning With PhET Simulation to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Ability And Understanding of Reaction Rate Concepts. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 8(2), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v8i2.93924
28. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
29. Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics today, 58(11), 36-41.
30. Stratman, E., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2022, August). Impact of differently worded reflection prompts on engineering students’ metacognitive strategies. In 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--40572
31. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
32. Andrade, H. L. (2019, August). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. In Frontiers in education (Vol. 4, p. 87). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
33. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance: Stanford university press.
34. Espinoza, F. (2020). Impact of guided inquiry with simulations on knowledge of electricity and wave phenomena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05826. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05826
35. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
36. Learn, H. P. (2000). Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, 14-15.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Meldren P. Torrevillas, Giovanni J. Paylaga, Noel Lito B. Sayson, Dennis C. Arogancia, Ellen J. Castro, Sotero O. Malayao Jr. (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
