Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Exploring How the Timing of Computer Simulations Shapes Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Newton’s Second Law of Motion

Sabine Jamaleddine ORCID ,  Nehme Safa ORCID
    Received: 28 June 2026; Revised: 14 July 2026; Accepted: 30 July 2026; Published: 7 August 2026

    Abstract

    Students often struggle to develop a conceptual understanding of Newton’s Second Law while also mastering its mathematical applications. This study examined how placing computer simulations before or after teacher instruction was associated with students’ conceptual and computational approaches. Fourteen secondary students from a bilingual private school in Mount Lebanon were stratified by grade point average and gender and randomly assigned to two groups. Group A received teacher instruction before completing PhET simulation activities, whereas Group B explored the simulations before instruction. The sequence remained consistent across projectile motion and motion on an inclined plane. A qualitatively driven, randomized comparative intervention design was used, drawing on classroom observations, two open-ended tests, and semi-structured interviews. Group B generated more questions about variable relationships, physical meanings, and real-world applications, whereas Group A focused more often on equations, procedures, and calculation accuracy. Written responses showed a similar pattern: Group B used more conceptual and partially conceptual reasoning, while Group A produced more computational responses and more fully correct solutions. In immediate post-unit interviews, Group B participants recalled exploratory processes and variable relationships, whereas Group A participants emphasized formulas and solution procedures. Within this small, context-specific sample, simulation before instruction was associated with conceptual exploration, while simulation after instruction was associated with computational consolidation. Because the study involved one school, guided activities, and no delayed assessment, the findings should be interpreted as preliminary and transferable only with caution. The study also offers practical recommendations for integrating computer simulations into physics lessons.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1.Levi, H.; Merzel, A.; Lehavi, Y. Physmatic Difficulties and Students' Thinking Approaches. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2025, 21, em2663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16565
    2. 2.McDermott, L.C. Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: "Physics Education Research—The Key to Student Learning." Am. J. Phys. 2001, 69, 1127–1137.
    3. 3.Atchia, S.M.C.; Rumjaun, A. The Real and Virtual Science Laboratories. In Contemporary Issues in Science and Technology Education; Akpan, B., Cavas, B., Kennedy, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 113–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24259-5_9
    4. 4.Faour, M.A.; Ayoubi, Z. The Effect of Using Virtual Laboratory on Grade 10 Students' Conceptual Understanding and Their Attitudes towards Physics. J. Educ. Sci. Environ. Health 2018, 4, 54–68.
    5. 5.Kohnle, A.; Baily, C.; Ruby, S. Investigating the Influence of Visualization on Student Understanding of Quantum Superposition. In Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference 2014, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 30–31 July 2014; pp. 139–142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2014.pr.031
    6. 6.Salameh, M.S.; Aldhamit, Y. The Effect of Computer Simulation on Al-Hussein Bin Talal University Students' Understanding of Electricity and Magnetism Concepts and Their Attitudes towards Physics Learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. Technol. 2014, 5, 54–60.
    7. 7.Smetana, L.K.; Bell, R.L. Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A Critical Review of the Literature. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2012, 34, 1337–1370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
    8. 8.De Jong, T.; Lazonder, A.W.; Chinn, C.A.; et al. Let's Talk Evidence – The Case for Combining Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction. Educ. Res. Rev. 2023, 39, 100536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
    9. 9.Brant, G.; Hooper, E.; Sugrue, B. Which Comes First, the Simulation or the Lecture? J. Educ. Comput. Res. 1991, 7, 469–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/PWDP-45L8-LHL5-2VX7
    10. 10.Brophy, S.P.; Magana, A.J.; Strachan, A. Lectures and Simulation Laboratories to Improve Learners' Conceptual Understanding. Adv. Eng. Educ. 2013, 3, 1–27.
    11. 11.Shaw, K.C. Use of Computer Simulations in Physics: Comparison of Simulation Implementation as Introductory or Reinforcement Tools. Master's Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA, 2014.
    12. 12.Stefaniak, J.E.; Turkelson, C.L. Does the Sequence of Instruction Matter during Simulation? Simul. Healthc. 2014, 9, 15–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a8336f
    13. 13.DeCaro, M.S.; McClellan, D.K.; Patrick, R.; et al. Flipping a Simulation before Instruction Can Improve Students' Learning, Interest and Perceived Competence. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2026, 96, 172–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.70007
    14. 14.Kapur, M. Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 51, 289–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
    15. 15.Sinha, T.; Kapur, M. When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure. Rev. Educ. Res. 2021, 91, 761–798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105
    16. 16.Weaver, J.P.; Chastain, R.J.; DeCaro, D.A.; et al. Reverse the Routine: Problem Solving before Instruction Improves Conceptual Knowledge in Undergraduate Physics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 52, 36–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.003
    17. 17.Chazbeck, B.; Ayoubi, Z. Resources Used by Lebanese Secondary Physics Teachers for Teaching Electricity: Types, Objectives and Factors Affecting Their Selection. J. Educ. Sci. Environ. Health 2018, 4, 118–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.409487
    18. 18.Temsah, L.; Safa, N. New Approaches to Simulation-Based Science Instruction to Enhance Reasoning and Communication Skills in Lebanese Elementary Education. Middle East. J. Res. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2021, 2, 56–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47631/mejress.v2i1.180
    19. 19.Yehya, F.M.; Barbar, A.M.; Abou-Rjelil, S. Learning with Simulations: Influence of a Computer Simulation with Hands-On Activities on Students' Learning of the Physics Capacitors' Concepts. Res. Soc. Sci. Technol. 2019, 4, 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.04.01.1
    20. 20.Ayasrah, F.T.M.; Alarabi, K.; Al Mansouri, M.; et al. Enhancing Secondary School Students' Attitudes toward Physics by Using Computer Simulations. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2024, 8, 369–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.9.017
    21. 21.Resbiantoro, G.; Setiani, R.; Dwikoranto. A Review of Misconception in Physics: The Diagnosis, Causes, and Remediation. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2022, 19, 403–427.
    22. 22.AlArabi, K.; Tairab, H.; Wardat, Y.; et al. Enhancing the Learning of Newton's Second Law of Motion Using Computer Simulations. J. Baltic Sci. Educ. 2022, 21, 946–966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.946
    23. 23.Alabidi, S.; Alarabi, K.; Tairab, H.; et al. The Effect of Computer Simulations on Students' Conceptual and Procedural Understanding of Newton's Second Law of Motion. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2023, 19, em2259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13140
    24. 24.Parra-Zeltzer, V.R.; Huincahue, J.; Abril, D. Newton's Second Law Teaching Strategies—Identifying Opportunities for Educational Innovation. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060748
    25. 25.Sirait, J.; Hamdani; Mursyid, S. Students' Understanding of Forces: Force Diagrams on Horizontal and Inclined Plane. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 997, 012030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/997/1/012030
    26. 26.Taber, K.S. Educational Constructivism. Encyclopedia 2024, 4, 1534–1552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4040100
    27. 27.Driver, R.; Asoko, H.; Leach, J.; et al. Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educ. Res. 1994, 23, 5–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005
    28. 28.Nordine, J.; Fortus, D. Reinventing Science Standards to Better Support Meaningful Science Learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2026, 63, 83–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.70021
    29. 29.Clement, J. Students' Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 1982, 50, 66–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989
    30. 30.Halloun, I.A.; Hestenes, D. Common Sense Concepts about Motion. Am. J. Phys. 1985, 53, 1056–1065. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031
    31. 31.Keselman, A. Supporting Inquiry Learning by Promoting Normative Understanding of Multivariable Causality. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 898–921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115
    32. 32.Bybee, R.W. Guest Editorial: The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Personal Reflections and Contemporary Implications. Sci. Child. 2014, 51, 10–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10
    33. 33.Polanin, J.R.; Austin, M.; Taylor, J.A.; et al. Effects of the 5E Instructional Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AERA Open 2024, 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
    34. 34.Schunk, D.H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 6th ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
    35. 35.Sweller, J. The Development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication Crises and Incorporation of Other Theories Can Lead to Theory Expansion. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2023, 35, 95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09817-2
    36. 36.Carpenter, S.K.; Pan, S.C.; Butler, A.C. The Science of Effective Learning with Spacing and Retrieval Practice. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2022, 1, 496–511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1
    37. 37.Mayer, R.E. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 3rd ed.; Mayer, R.E., Fiorella, L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 57–72.
    38. 38.Gick, M.L. Problem-Solving Strategies. Educ. Psychol. 1986, 21, 99–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1986.9653026
    39. 39.Larkin, J.; McDermott, J.; Simon, D.P.; et al. Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems. Science 1980, 208, 1335–1342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335
    40. 40.Park, M. Students' Problem-Solving Strategies in Qualitative Physics Questions in a Simulation-Based Formative Assessment. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2020, 2, 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0019-4
    41. 41.Ghimire, A.; Singh, C. Perspectives of Women and Men Students and Faculty on Conceptual and Quantitative Problem-Solving in Physics from Introductory to Graduate Levels. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121602
    42. 42.PhET. Interactive Simulations for Science and Math. Available online: https://phet.colorado.edu/ (accessed on 19 June 2026).
    43. 43.Wieman, C.E.; Adams, W.K.; Perkins, K.K. PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. Science 2008, 322, 682–683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948
    44. 44.Banda, H.J.; Nzabahimana, J. The Impact of Physics Education Technology (PhET) Interactive Simulation-Based Learning on Motivation and Academic Achievement Among Malawian Physics Students. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023, 32, 127–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10010-3
    45. 45.Uwambajimana, S.; Minani, E.; Mollel, A.D.; et al. The Impact of Using PhET Simulation on Conceptual Understanding of Electrostatics within Selected Secondary Schools of Muhanga District, Rwanda. J. Math. Sci. Teach. 2023, 3, em045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/13595
    46. 46.Zacharia, Z.C.; Olympiou, G. Physical versus Virtual Manipulative Experimentation in Physics Learning. Learn. Instr. 2011, 21, 317–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
    47. 47.Fadillah, M.A.; Alawyah, K.; Syafrijon, S.; et al. Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of PhET Simulations in Physics Education. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2026, 22, 21–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v22i02.59007
    48. 48.Antonio, R.P.; Castro, R.R. Effectiveness of Virtual Simulations in Improving Secondary Students' Achievement in Physics: A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Instr. 2023, 16, 533–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16229a
    49. 49.Schwartz, D.L.; Bransford, J.D. A Time for Telling. Cogn. Instr. 1998, 16, 475–522.
    50. 50.Bego, C.R.; Chastain, R.J.; DeCaro, M.S. Designing Novel Activities before Instruction: Use of Contrasting Cases and a Rich Dataset. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2023, 93, 299–317.
    51. 51.Chin, D.B.; Chi, M.; Schwartz, D.L. A Comparison of Two Methods of Active Learning in Physics: Inventing a General Solution versus Compare and Contrast. Instr. Sci. 2016, 44, 177–195.
    52. 52.DeCaro, M.S.; Isaacs, R.; Bego, C.R.; et al. Bringing Exploratory Learning Online: Problem-Solving before Instruction Improves Remote Undergraduate Physics Learning. Front. Educ. 2023, 8, 1215975.
    53. 53.DeCaro, M.S.; Bego, C.R.; Velić, L.; et al. Increasing Contrasting Cases during Exploration or Practice Problems Given before or after Instruction. Instr. Sci. 2025, 53, 121–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09696-2
    54. 54.Reilly, D.; Neumann, D.L.; Andrews, G. Gender Differences in Spatial Ability: Implications for STEM Education and Approaches to Reducing the Gender Gap for Parents and Educators. In Visual-Spatial Ability in STEM Education; Khine, M.S., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 195–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44385-0_10
    55. 55.Kondracki, N.L.; Wellman, N.S.; Amundson, D.R. Content Analysis: Review of Methods and Their Applications in Nutrition Education. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2002, 34, 224–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
    56. 56.Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
    57. 57.Potter, W.J.; Levine-Donnerstein, D. Rethinking Validity and Reliability in Content Analysis. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 1999, 27, 258–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
    ×