Enhancing students' data literacy through the hybrid creative problem-solving laboratory (HCP-Lab) in physics experiments courses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v18i1.50237Keywords:
Data literacy, digital learning, experiment model, HCP-lab, smartphone sensorAbstract
Physics learning is inherently grounded in inquiry-based processes, particularly through experimental activities that engage students in observing physical phenomena. These observations are subsequently analyzed and interpreted to develop conceptual understanding, making data literacy an essential competency in physics education. However, many schools face challenges in conducting laboratory activities due to the high costs associated with procuring and maintaining experimental equipment. Moreover, conventional laboratory practices often fail to explicitly integrate data literacy as a core component of the learning process. To address these challenges, this study proposes an alternative approach that utilizes readily available devices, such as smartphones, as experimental tools. As a pilot project, a Hybrid Creative Problem-Solving Laboratory (HCP-Lab) model was developed and implemented to enhance students’ data literacy skills in an introductory physics laboratory course. The study adopted Plomp’s Educational Design Research framework and involved 28 first-year physics students, divided into two classes (15 students in Class A and 13 students in Class B). Data was collected over an eight-week period using data literacy assessments, student development observation sheets, and portfolio evaluations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential non-parametric statistical techniques, while qualitative data were examined using NVivo software. The findings indicate that the HCP-Lab model effectively supported the development of students’ data literacy skills, with observable improvements throughout the intervention. Students demonstrated notable progress in data processing, interpretation, and evidence-based conclusion drawing. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between pre- and post-intervention data literacy performance (p < .05). In addition, students reported that the HCP-Lab model provided a novel, engaging, and comprehensive laboratory learning experience. These findings suggest that the HCP-Lab model offers a viable alternative for physics laboratory instruction, particularly in educational settings with limited access to conventional laboratory equipment, while simultaneously fostering essential data literacy competencies.
References
Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023). Evaluation of software engineering virtual laboratory in determining undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding: A blended learning model using collaborative-creative virtual learning environment employing critical pedagogy. In Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning: Proceedings of ICSADL 2022 (pp. 875–899). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5443-6_65
Bach, B., Keck, M., Rajabiyazdi, F., Losev, T., Meirelles, I., Dykes, J., Laramee, R. S., AlKadi, M., Stoiber, C., & Huron, S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in data visualization education: A call to action. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1), 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327378
Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019). Physics education research for 21st century learning. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8
Bogador, C. J., Camarao, M. K. G., Matunding, C. G., & Sombria, K. J. F. (2024). Challenges and benefits of inquiry-based learning in physics. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 5(7), 2716–2732. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.05.07.26
Byrd, V. L., & Asunda, P. A. (2020). Using evidence based practices and learning to enhance critical thinking skills in students through data visualization. 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274157
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007
Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455–472). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012174698-8/50045-X
Doherty, O. J. (2020). Data literacy in the digital age: experience design for a workplace learning solution. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Esparza, D., Wagler, A. E., & Olimpo, J. T. (2020). Characterization of instructor and student behaviors in CURE and non-CURE learning environments: Impacts on student motivation, science identity development, and perceptions of the laboratory experience. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-04-0082
Fani, T., & Ghaemi, F. (2011). Implications of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) in teacher education: ZPTD and self-scaffolding. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1549–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.396
Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00833.x
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
Geyer, K., Ellis, D. A., Shaw, H., & Davidson, B. I. (2022). Open-source smartphone app and tools for measuring, quantifying, and visualizing technology use. Behavior Research Methods, 54(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01585-7
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10013
Hamid, A. H. A., & Cui, Z. (2024). Data Analysis Skills in Teaching Leadership: A Strategic Study to Improve Student Learning Outcomes and Digital Literacy. International Journal of Instructional Cases, 8(1), 309–329.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Holmes, N. G., & Bonn, D. A. (2015). Quantitative comparisons to promote inquiry in the introductory physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 53(6), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4928350
Ibáñez, M.-B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Idris, N., Talib, O., & Razali, F. (2022). Strategies in mastering science process skills in science experiments: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 11(1), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i1.32969
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43, 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.
Kuhn, D. (2023). Defining and developing data literacy. Routledge Open Research, 2(44), 44. https://doi.org/10.12688/routledgeopenres.18015.1
Leon-Urrutia, M., Taibi, D., Pospelova, V., Splendore, S., Urbsiene, L., & Marjanovic, U. (2020). Data Literacy: An essential skill for the industry. In Industrial Innovation in Digital Age (pp. 326–331). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97947-8_43
Li, Z. (2024). Research on Simulation Experiment Teaching Strategies for High School Physics in Remote Areas. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(8), 442–455.
Malik, A., Mugiri, W. L., Zakwandi, R., Safitri, S., & Juliani, T. (2020). Simple Experiment of Doppler Effect Using Smartphone Microfon Sensor. Jurnal Penelitian Fisika Dan Aplikasinya (JPFA), 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.26740/jpfa.v10n1.p1-10
Mason, J. (2002). Linking qualitative and quantitative data analysis. In Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 89–110). Routledge.
Morris, D. L. (2025). Rethinking science education practices: Shifting from investigation-centric to comprehensive inquiry-based instruction. Education Sciences, 15(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091
Nuryantini, A. Y., Fajriah, H. N., Zakwandi, R., & Nuryadin, B. W. (2020). Simple harmonic motion experiments with the accelerometer sensor on a smartphone: Improving the problem solving-ability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1572(1), 12058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1572/1/012058
Nuryantini, A. Y., Sawitri, A., & Nuryadin, B. W. (2018). Constant speed motion analysis using a smartphone magnetometer. Physics Education, 53(6), 65021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aae26c
Nuryantini, A. Y., Zakwandi, R., & Ariayuda, M. A. (2021). Home-Made Simple Experiment to Measure Sound Intensity using Smartphones. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 10(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v10i1.8180
Nuryantini, A. Y., Zakwandi, R., & Ariayuda, M. A. (2022). Smartphone for physics practicum in momentum and impulse. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 7(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v7i1.6687
Nuryantini, A. Y., Zakwandi, R., & Ariayuda, M. A. (2023). Using pendulum oscillation as Doppler effect experiment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2646(March). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0113172
Nzabahimana, J., Ndihokubwayo, K., & Mugabo, L. R. (2024). Teachers’ Experiences with the Use of Virtual Laboratories in the Teaching of Physics in Rwandan Secondary Schools: A Survey Design. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/18117295.2024.2361546
Obilor, E. I. (2023). Convenience and purposive sampling techniques: Are they the same. International Journal of Innovative Social & Science Education Research, 11(1), 1–7.
Odenwald, S. (2020). Smartphone Sensors for Citizen Science Applications: Light and Sound. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 5(1). https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.254
Phillips, P. P., & Stawarski, C. A. (2008). Data collection: Planning for and collecting all types of data. John Wiley & Sons.
Pili, U., Violanda, R., & Ceniza, C. (2018). Measurement of g using a magnetic pendulum and a smartphone magnetometer . The Physics Teacher, 56(4), 258–259. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5028247
Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. Educational Design Research, 11–50.
Rahman, F., Khalil, J. K., Jumani, N. B., Ajmal, M., Malik, S., & Sharif, M. (2011). Impact of discussion method on students performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(7), 84–94.
Rey, D., & Neuhäuser, M. (2011). Wilcoxon-signed-rank test. In International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 1658–1659). Springer.
Safkolam, R., Madahae, S., & Saleah, P. (2024). The effects of inquiry-based learning activities to understand the nature of science of science student teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 17(1), 479–496.
Saleh, A., Phillips, T. M., Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., Glazewski, K. D., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2022). A learning analytics approach towards understanding collaborative inquiry in a problem‐based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13198
Sandoval-Ríos, F., Gajardo-Poblete, C., & López-Núñez, J. A. (2025). Role of data literacy training for decision-making in teaching practice: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1485821. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1485821
Sans, J. A., Manjón, F. J., Pereira, A. L. J., Gomez-Tejedor, J. A., & Monsoriu, J. A. (2013). Oscillations studied with the smartphone ambient light sensor. European Journal of Physics, 34(6), 1349–1354. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/34/6/1349
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1
Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.610
Shana, Z., & Abulibdeh, E. S. (2020). Science practical work and its impact on high students’ academic achievement. JOTSE, 10(2), 199–215.
Smalheiser, N. (2017). Data literacy: How to make your experiments robust and reproducible. Academic Press.
Stofflett, R. T., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310105
Suryadi, Mahardika, I. K., Supeno, & Sudarti. (2021). Data literacy of high school students on physics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1839(1), 12025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1839/1/012025
Szott, A. (2014). Open-ended laboratory investigations in a high school physics course: The difficulties and rewards of implementing inquiry-based learning in a physics lab. The Physics Teacher, 52(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4849147
Thacker, B. (2023). Inquiry-based experimental physics: Twenty years of an evidence-based, laboratory-based physics course for algebra-based physics students. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19(2), 20116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020116
van der Loo, M., & De Jonge, E. (2018). Statistical data cleaning with applications in R. John Wiley & Sons.
van Riesen, S. A. N., Gijlers, H., Anjewierden, A. A., & de Jong, T. (2022). The influence of prior knowledge on the effectiveness of guided experiment design. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1631193
Wang, T., Wang, W., & Wei, J. (2022). Challenges Encountered by Student Teachers in an Inquiry-Based Laboratory Process. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(12), 3954–3963. https://doi.org /10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00334
Wen, X., Dawod, A. Y., & Yu, X. (2025). Predicting students’ academic performance in university physics experiments: discussions, presentations, and peer evaluations in flipped classroom blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13674-7
Winne, P. H. (2022). Modeling self-regulated learning as learners doing learning science: How trace data and learning analytics help develop skills for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 17(3), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09305-y
Wise, A. F. (2022). Educating data scientists and data literate citizens for a new generation of data. In Situating Data Science (pp. 165–181). Routledge.
Woolnough, J. (2000). How do students learn to apply their mathematical knowledge to interpret graphs in physics? Research in Science Education, 30(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461633
Worku, D. T., Ejigu, M. A., Gebremeskal, T. G., & Kassa Gogie, T. (2026). Assessing the impact of multiple representations based instruction integrated with formative assessment practice on secondary school students’ problem-solving performance in Physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 44(1), 224–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2469062
Wu, H., & Molnár, G. (2022). Analysing complex problem-solving strategies from a cognitive perspective: The role of thinking skills. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030046
Zakwandi, R., Ariswan, A., Nurfalah, S., Alawiyah, T. A., Amanda, W., Mahen, E. C. S., & Nuryantini, A. Y. (2021). Do It Yourself: Air Drag Force Experiment Using Paper and Scraper Sheet. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Fisika, 6(3), 198–207. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jipf.v6i3.1996
Zakwandi, R., Istiyono, E., & Maradona, B. A. (2024). Exploring the effect of problem-solving laboratory on computational thinking skills in physics learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2622(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0133340
Zee, M., Koomen, H. M. Y., Jellesma, F. C., Geerlings, J., & de Jong, P. F. (2016). Inter-and intra-individual differences in teachers’ self-efficacy: A multilevel factor exploration. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.12.003
Zhao, Y. (2026). Smartphone-based undergraduate physics labs: A comprehensive review of innovation, accessibility, and pedagogical impact. European Journal of Physics, 47(1), 13001. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6404/ae2a80
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rizki Zakwandi, Alfiansah Sandion Prakoso, Ika Mustika Sari, Asep Akmal Fadia Nurhalim, Najmi Hiyan Fathinah, Rahma Alliya Aqquilla, Duden Saepuzaman, Desy Purwasih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
