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 TRAINING
  • PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES IN MILITARY SPORTS
  • sports

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.
  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.
  3. OECD, PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do (Volume I), vol. I. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019. doi: 10.1787/5f07c754-en.
  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.
  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.
  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:
  7. 1016/j.lindif.2022.102146.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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,
  12. doi: https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202212_67(4).0006.
  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/sce
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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:276066040
  23. W. N. Nasution, “Expository Learning Strategy: Definition, Goal, Profit and Procedure,” 2020, [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:219630229
  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/1225
  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.
  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.
  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,
  28. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  35. J. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Pearson Education Inc., 2015.
  36. Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2015.
  37. Y. Zhang, Assessing Literacy in a Digital World: Validating a ScenarioBased Reading-to-Write Assessmen. Springer Nature, 2022.
  38. K. Vlasenko et al., “The Criteria of Usability Design for Educational Online Courses,” no. January, pp. 461–470, 2022, doi: 10.5220/0010925200003364.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.