Integrating PhET Simulations and ChatGPT within the 7E Learning Cycle: High School Students’ Understanding of Wave Concepts
Share article
- Published
- 2025-12-15
- Pages
- 155-180
- Section
- Original Research Article
Abstract
Understanding wave phenomena requires students to integrate physical representations, quantitative relationships, and scientific reasoning. This study investigated the integration of PhET simulations and ChatGPT within the 7E Learning Cycle to support high school students’ conceptual understanding of waves. A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design involved 71 Grade XI students, comprising 35 students in the experimental group and 36 in the control group. The experimental group received integrated 7E–PhET–ChatGPT instruction, while the control group received Direct Instruction. Conceptual understanding was assessed using ten validated essay items covering five conceptual-reasoning indicators and three higher-order cognitive dimensions. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and baseline-adjusted regression with HC3 robust standard errors. The experimental group demonstrated higher adjusted posttest performance, with a difference of 12.18 percentage points (95% CI [6.76, 17.60]). The largest differences occurred in quantitative application (38.76 points) and scientific reasoning and investigation (30.06 points). Written responses illustrated more explicit conceptual differentiation, quantitative justification, evidence evaluation, and independent investigation design. These findings suggest that integrating simulations and AI-supported clarification within structured learning activities is associated with stronger conceptual reasoning, although classroom-level confounding and the short intervention limit causal interpretation.
Keywords
How to Cite
Umar Al Haris, Syifa’ul Gummah, Laureano Leonel Sabatier. (2025). Integrating PhET Simulations and ChatGPT within the 7E Learning Cycle: High School Students’ Understanding of Wave Concepts. International Journal of Essential Competencies in Education, 4(2), 155-180. https://journal-center.litpam.com/index.php/ijece/article/view/6962
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Albadarin, Y., Saqr, M., Pope, N., & Tukiainen, M. (2024). A systematic literature review of empirical research on ChatGPT in education. Discover Education, 3(1), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00138-2
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Astuti, D., & Muzana, S. R. (2017). Penerapan pembelajaran berbasis simulasi PhET untuk meningkatkan pemahaman konsep fisika inti pada siswa SMA. Seminar Nasional Unaya, 409–417.
Aviyanti, L., Merlinda, D., & Gani, A. W. (2024). Enhancing students’ science process skills on sound waves through Learning Cycle 7E integrated with PhET. Syntax Idea, 6(7), 3226–3236. https://doi.org/10.46799/syntax-idea.v6i7.4103
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010103
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Bhaskar, P., Khan, M., & Bhaskar, P. (2025). Exploring educators’ perspectives on ChatGPT integration in engineering and management education. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-04-2025-0088
Bitzenbauer, P. (2023). ChatGPT in physics education: A pilot study on easy-to-implement activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep430. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13176
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025). Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Computers & Education, 227, 105224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Ding, L., Li, T., Jiang, S., & Gapud, A. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT in a physics class as a virtual tutor. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00434-1
Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59.
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, 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. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Haryanto, H., Ernawati, M. D. W., Fuldiaratman, F., Afrida, A., & Ekaputra, F. (2023). Implementasi aplikasi PhET Simulation dalam pembelajaran MIPA berbasis eksperimen. I-Com: Indonesian Community Journal, 3(3), 1372–1379.
Hasanah, D. I., & Wasis, W. (2021). Cognitive conflict strategy assisted by PhET simulation to remediate student's misconceptions on wave material. Asatiza: Jurnal Pendidikan, 2(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.46963/asatiza.v2i1.247
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
Indrawati, M. D., & Sunarti, T. (2018). Pengembangan instrumen penilaian literasi sains fisika peserta didik pada bahasan gelombang bunyi di SMA Negeri 1 Gedangan Sidoarjo. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika, 7(1), 14–20.
Kanyesigye, S. T., Uwamahoro, J., & Kemeza, I. (2022). Difficulties in understanding mechanical waves: Remediated by problem-based instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(1), 010140. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010140
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., ... Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Effects of representation on students solving physics problems: A fine-grained characterization. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 2(1), 010106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010106
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Liana, L., Kosim, K., & Taufik, M. (2023). Influence of the problem-based learning model assisted by PhET simulations on students’ problem-solving abilities and mastery of physics concepts. Amplitudo Journal of Science & Technology Innovation, 2(2), 101–107.
Lo, C. K. (2023). What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 13(4), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040410
Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its contributions to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.693353
Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549
Marwanti, K., Marina, D., & Astra, I. M. (2024). Increasing scientific literacy using a guided inquiry approach assisted by PhET simulations in wave material. Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika, 15(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.26877/jp2f.v15i4.715
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20201
Memarian, B., & Doleck, T. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Methods, potentials, and limitations. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1, 100022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100022
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nurdini, S. D., Husniyah, R., Chusni, M. M., & Mulyana, E. M. (2022). Penggunaan Physics Education Technology (PhET) dengan model inkuiri terbimbing untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar siswa pada materi fluida dinamis. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 6(1), 136.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Ramadhan, F. K., Faris, M. I., Wahyudi, I., & Sulaeman, M. K. (2023). Pemanfaatan ChatGPT dalam dunia pendidikan. Jurnal Ilmiah Flash, 9(1), 25–30.
Rasyid, F., Istiyono, E., Gunawan, C. W., & Kijambu, J. B. (2025). Developing and analyzing items of a physics conceptual understanding test on wave topics for high school students using the Rasch model. REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v11i1.75575
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Saputra, R., Susilawati, S., & Verawati, N. N. S. P. (2020). Pengaruh penggunaan media simulasi PhET terhadap hasil belajar fisika. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 15(2), 110–115.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
Van Breukelen, G. J. P. (2006). ANCOVA versus change from baseline: More power in randomized studies, more bias in nonrandomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(9), 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.007
Wieman, C., Adams, W., & Perkins, K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001