ISSN 2456-2653
Contact us
Social Science and Humanities Journal
ISSN 2456-2653
Submit Paper
server-injected
ArticlesOpen Access

Enhancing Science Literacy Through Cognitive Conflict-Based Generative Learning Model: An Experimental Study in Physics Learning

, , , ,
DOI: 10.18535/sshj.v9i07.1934· Pages: 8507-8522· Vol. 9, No. 07, (2025)· Published: July 18, 2025
PDF
Views: 814 PDF downloads: 268

Abstract

This experimental study investigates the effectiveness of the Cognitive Conflict-Based Generative Learning Model (GLBCC) in enhancing science literacy among Indonesian high school physics students. The novelty of this research lies in the innovative integration of cognitive conflict strategies with generative learning principles through a six-stage structured framework, specifically designed to address persistent misconceptions in physics education while systematically developing scientific literacy competencies. The research employed a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design involving 167 Grade XI students from three schools. Students were randomly assigned to experimental groups (n = 83) that received GLBCC instruction and control groups (n = 84) that used the expository learning model. Science literacy was measured using validated instruments assessing scientific knowledge, inquiry processes, and application skills across six key indicators. Statistical analysis using ANOVA with Tukey HSD post-hoc tests revealed significant improvements in science literacy scores for students receiving GLBCC instruction compared to traditional methods (p < 0.001). This study makes a unique contribution to physics education by demonstrating how the deliberate creation of cognitive conflict, combined with authentic real-world physics phenomena, can effectively restructure students’ conceptual understanding and enhance their scientific thinking capabilities. Factor analysis identified four critical implementation factors: science literacy development components, learning stages and orientation, motivation and objectives, and knowledge construction processes. The findings provide empirical evidence supporting the integration of cognitive conflict strategies with generative learning approaches in physics education, offering practical implications for educators seeking to enhance students’ 21st-century science literacy skills.

Keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRAININGPERFORMANCE OUTCOMES IN MILITARY SPORTSsports

References

  1. A. Mustakim, S. Jumini, and F. Firdaus, “Pengaruh Penggunaan Modul Pembelajaran Fisika dengan Pendekatan Saintific Berbasis Riset untuk Meningkatkan Literasi Sains Siswa Kelas VIII di SMP Takhassus Al-Qur’an 2 Dero Duwur, di Wonosobo Tahun Ajaran 2018/2019,” Pros. Semin. Nas. Pendidik. Fis. FITK UNSIQ, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 217–226, 2020.Google Scholar ↗
  2. E. Petričević, “The Contextual and Individual Determinants of Engagement in Learning Physics,” Psihol. Teme, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 383–402, 2022, doi: 10.31820/pt.31.2.9.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  3. OECD, PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I), vol. I. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019. doi: 10.1787/5f07c754-en.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  4. A. Amsikan, “Application of Project Based Learning Model to Increase Students Physics Learning Outcomes and Science Process Skills,” Paedagogia, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 1, 2022, doi: 10.20961/paedagogia.v25i1.58989.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  5. S. U. S. Supardi, L. Leonard, H. Suhendri, and R. Rismurdiyati, “Pengaruh Media Pembelajaran dan Minat Belajar Terhadap Hasil Belajar Fisika,” Form. J. Ilm. Pendidik. MIPA, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2015, doi: 10.30998/formatif.v2i1.86.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  6. E. Haataja, M. Dindar, J. Malmberg, and S. Järvelä, “Individuals in a group: Metacognitive and regulatory predictors of learning achievement in collaborative learning,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 96, no. March, 2022, doi:Google Scholar ↗
  7. 1016/j.lindif.2022.102146.Google Scholar ↗
  8. L. Linkola, C. J. Andrews, and T. Schuetze, “An agent based model of household water use,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1082–1100, 2013, doi: 10.3390/w5031082.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  9. M. Jenkins and J. D. Walker, “COVID-19 Practices in Special Education: Stakeholder Perceptions and Implications for Teacher Preparation,” Teach. Educ. J., vol. 14, pp. 83–105, 2021.Google Scholar ↗
  10. A. A. Hero Yawo, “The Influence of Virtual Physics Laboratory on Senior High School Form one Physics Students Performance and Cognitive Achievement at Bishop Herman College, Kpando, Volta Region- Ghana,” Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 7, no. 9, 2020, doi: 10.31873/ijeas.7.09.17.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  11. Y. Yan Lu, H. Shyang Lin, F. Lai Lin, and Z. R Hong, “Exploring the Effectiveness of a Scientific Inquiry Creative Workshop in Promoting Senior and Vocational High School Students’ Scientific Inquiry Self-efficacy,” J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 177–219, 2022,Google Scholar ↗
  12. doi: https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  13. R. Dolfing, G. Prins, A. M. W. Bulte, A. Pilot, and J. D. Vermunt, “Strategies to Support Teachers Professional Development Regarding Sense‐Making in Context-Based Science Curricula,” Science Education, vol. 105, no. 1. pp. 127–165, 2021. [Online]. Available: wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sceGoogle Scholar ↗
  14. Q. X. Ryan, D. Agunos, S. Franklin, M. Gomez-Bera, and E. C. Sayre, “Question characteristics and students’ epistemic framing,” in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2020, pp. 442–447. doi: 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Ryan.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  15. F. Mufit, F. Festiyed, A. Fauzan, and L. Lufri, “Impact of Learning Model Based on Cognitive Conflict toward Student’s Conceptual Understanding,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 335, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/335/1/012072.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  16. A. Akmam, R. Hidayat, F. Mufit, R. Anshari, and N. Jalinus, “Effect of Generative Learning Models Based on Cognitive Conflict on Students’ Creative Thinking Processes Based on Metacognitive,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2582, no. 1, p. 012058, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2582/1/012058.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  17. A. Akmam, R. Hidayat, F. Mufit, N. Jalinus, and A. Amran, “Need Analysis to Develop a Generative Learning Model with a Cognitive Conflict Strategy Oriented to Creative Thinking in the Computational Physics Course,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2309, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2309/1/012095.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  18. A. Akmam, R. Hidayat, F. Mufit, R. Anshari, and N. Jalinus, “Effect of Generative Learning Models Based on Cognitive Conflict on Students ’ Creative Thinking Processes Based on Metacognitive,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2023, p. 012058. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2582/1/012058.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  19. H. W. Lee, K. Y. Lim, and B. L. Grabowski, “Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback.,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 629–648, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  20. A. Akmam, R. Afrizon, I. Koto, D. Setiawan, R. Hidayat, and F. Novitra, “Integration of Conflict in Generative Learning Model to Enhancing Students’ Creative Thinking Skills,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 20, no. 9, p. em2504, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/15026.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  21. J. Jumaisa, “Model Pilihan Pembelajaran, Inquiry atau Expository?,” J. Ilm. Mandala Educ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 339–348, 2020, doi: 10.58258/jime.v6i2.1441.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  22. A. K. Hasan, M. Athila, M. Bertuanda, S. Sapriya, and W. Wilodati, “Relevance of Using Expository Learning Strategies in Teaching And Learning Activities in Schools,” Prog. Pendidik., 2025, [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276066040Google Scholar ↗
  23. W. N. Nasution, “Expository Learning Strategy: Definition, Goal, Profit and Procedure,” 2020, [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:219630229Google Scholar ↗
  24. W. O. Eli, “Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Ekspositori Dalam Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar IPS Siswa Kelas VIII MTs Negeri 4 Buton Selatan,” J. Akad. Pendidik. Ekon., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 51–66, 2019, [Online]. Available: http://refcale.uleam.edu.ec/index.php/enrevista/article/view/1225Google Scholar ↗
  25. A. K. Peterson, C. B. Fox, and M. Israelsen, “A systematic review of academic discourse interventions for school-aged children with language-related learning disabilities,” Lang. Speech. Hear. Serv. Sch., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 866–881, 2020, doi: 10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00039.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  26. E. Irmayanti, B. Surindra, E. Prastyaningtyas, and T. Ayatik, “Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Ekspositori Untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi, Keaktifan, Kemampuan Memecahkan Masalah, Kolaborasi, dan Hasil Belajar Siswa Dengan Pendekatan Saintifik Berbasis Lesson Study,” no. 6, pp. 165–172, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.29407/E.V6I2.13754.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  27. D. Fortus, J. Lin, K. Neumann, and T. D. Sadler, “The role of affect in science literacy for all,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 535–555, 2022,Google Scholar ↗
  28. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  29. T. S. Sheromova, A. N. Khuziakhmetov, V. A. Kazinets, Z. M. Sizova, S. I. Buslaev, and E. A. Borodianskaia, “Learning styles and development of cognitive skills in mathematics learning,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 16, no. 11, 2020, doi: 10.29333/EJMSTE/8538.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  30. J. J. B. R. Aruta, “Science literacy promotes energy conservation behaviors in Filipino youth via climate change knowledge efficacy: Evidence from PISA 2018,” Aust. J. Environ. Educ., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2023, doi: 10.1017/aee.2022.10.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  31. A. J. Sharon and A. Baram-Tsabari, “Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?,” Sci. Educ., vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 873–894, 2020, doi: 10.1002/sce.21581.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  32. S. Fayanto, S. Sulthoni, A. Wedi, A. Takda, and M. Fadilah, “Exploration of Integrated Science-Physics Textbooks Based on Science Literacy Indicators: A Case Study in Kendari City Indonesia,” Anatol. J. Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 159–172, 2023, doi: 10.29333/aje.2023.8111a.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  33. F. Fakhriyah, S. Masfuah, M. Roysa, A. Rusilowati, and E. S. Rahayu, “Student’s science literacy in the aspect of content science?,” J. Pendidik. IPA Indones., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 81–87, 2017, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v6i1.7245.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  34. C. Gormally, P. Brickman, and M. Lut, “Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments,” CBE Life Sci. Educ., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 364–377, 2012, doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  35. J. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Pearson Education Inc., 2015.Google Scholar ↗
  36. Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2015.Google Scholar ↗
  37. Y. Zhang, Assessing Literacy in a Digital World: Validating a ScenarioBased Reading-to-Write Assessmen. Springer Nature, 2022.Google Scholar ↗
  38. K. Vlasenko et al., “The Criteria of Usability Design for Educational Online Courses,” no. January, pp. 461–470, 2022, doi: 10.5220/0010925200003364.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  39. A. Akmam, F. Mufit, R. Hidayat, and R. Anshari, “Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Generatif Berstrategi Konflik Kognitif Berorientasi Berpikir Kreatif Mahasiswa Pada Mata Kuliah Komputasi Fisika.” p. HIBAH UNP (PD), 2022.Google Scholar ↗
  40. L. Fiorella and R. E. Mayer, “Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 28, no. 4. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  41. F. Mumtaz, S. Sjaifuddin, and A. Nestiadi, “The effect of the generative learning model on the student critical thinking ability in environmental conservation topic,” J. Pijar Mipa, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 479–485, 2023, doi: 10.29303/jpm.v18i4.5152.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  42. E. Sandoval-Lucero, K. Antony, and W. Hepworth, “Co-Curricular Learning and Assessment in New Student Orientation at a Community College,” Creat. Educ., vol. 08, no. 10, pp. 1638–1655, 2017, doi: 10.4236/ce.2017.810111.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  43. M. Fleer, “The genesis of design: learning about design, learning through design to learning design in play,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1441–1468, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10798-021-09670-w.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  44. I. N. Suardana, K. Selamet, A. A. I. A. R. Sudiatmika, P. Sarini, and N. L. P. L. Devi, “Guided inquiry learning model effectiveness in improving students’ creative thinking skills in science learning,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1317, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012215.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  45. E. B. Mandinach and K. Schildkamp, “Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 69, no. January 2020, p. 100842, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  46. F. Mufit and M. Dhanil, “Effectiveness of Augmented Reality with Cognitive Conflict Model to Improve Scientific Literacy of Static Fluid Material,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1199–1207, 2024, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.9.2149.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  47. S. Bektiarso, D. R. Dewi, and Subiki, “Effect of problem based learning models with 3D thinking maps on creative thinking abilities and physics learning outcomes in high school,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1832/1/012027.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  48. J. Rokhmat, I. W. Gunada, S. Ayub, Hikmawati, and T. Wulandari, “The use of causalitic learning model to encourage abilities of problem solving and creative thinking in momentum and impulse,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2165, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2165/1/012052.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  49. A. Hinck and J. Tighe, “From the other side of the desk: students’ discourses of teaching and learning,” Commun. Educ., vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2020, doi: 10.1080/03634523.2019.1657157.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  50. Yulkifli et al., “The Impact of Virtual Reality on Creative Thinking Skills and Self-Efficacy in Learning Rotational Dynamics,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1302–1311, 2025, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.6.2332.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  51. F. Mufit, W. S. Dewi, S. Riyasni, and M. Dhanil, “Augmented Reality with A Cognitive Conflict Model and STEM Integration on Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation: Does Practicing Practical Learning Support Scientific Literacy?,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 255–271, 2025, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.2.2239.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  52. N. Fauziah, A. Hakim, and Y. Handayani, “Meningkatkan Literasi Sains Peserta Didik Melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Berorientasi Green Chemistry Pada Materi Laju Reaksi,” J. Pijar Mipa, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 31–35, 2019, doi: 10.29303/jpm.v14i2.1203.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  53. H. Dominguez et al., “Learning to Transform, Transforming to Learn: Children’s Creative Thinking with Fractions,” J. Humanist. Math., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 76–101, 2020, doi: 10.5642/jhummath.202002.06.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
  54. [G. G. Calvo and L. M. Álvarez, “Embodied teaching journals as an instrument for reflection and self-evaluation during the teaching practicum,” Estud. Pedagog., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 185–204, 2018, doi: 10.4067/S0718-07052018000200185.DOI ↗Google Scholar ↗
Author details
Akmam Akmam
Universitas Negeri Padang
✉ Corresponding Author
ORCID ↗
👤 View Profile →
Serli Ahzari
Universitas Negeri Padang
ORCID ↗
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication
Emiliannur Emiliannur
Universitas Negeri Padang
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication
Rio Anshari
Universitas Negeri Padang
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication
David Setiawan
Universitas Lancang Kuning
👤 View Profile →🔗 Is this you? Claim this publication