- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Using smartphones and tablets as experimental tools in the physics classroom: Effects on learning and motivation

Alice Gasparini1,2, F. Stern1, M. Delaval3, and A. Müller1,2

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010129 – Published 11 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/96gp-gqvj

Abstract

Tablets and smartphones provide compact and relatively inexpensive tools for measuring many physical quantities, and numerous applications of these “mobile devices as experimental tools” (MDETs) have been published over the last decade, covering a broad range of topics. According to the literature, MDETs can offer educational benefits by creating authentic, real-life contexts for physics learning, enhancing student motivation through the use of familiar technology, and supporting cognitive processes by providing multiple representations (videos, tables, and graphs) of physical phenomena. On the other hand, serious concerns have been raised about potential distractions and cognitive overload. Regarding these conflicting perspectives, few empirical studies on the impact of MDETs in real classroom settings of regular, full-length physics courses are available, and—to the best of our knowledge—none focus on a nonspecialized high-school target group. The purpose of this contribution is to present a study of a mechanics course in such a setting, addressing the tight curricular, material, and practical constraints inherent to it. A quasiexperimental pre- and post-test design comparing a treatment group using MDETs and a control group without (same content, lesson plan, and teacher) was used. The 19-week teaching sequence focused on conceptual learning and motivational outcomes (e.g., interest, self-concept, and curiosity), controlled by several predictor variables. Findings reveal substantial pre- and post-test learning gains for both groups (Cohen’s d=0.9) and small gains for perceived relation to reality (d=0.29). However, no significant differences between treatments were found, indicating that the use of MDETs does not outperform conventional approaches under the given constraints. On the other hand, no evidence of negative effects such as distraction or cognitive overload was observed. Moreover, little to no interactions with predictors such as gender or prior knowledge were found. In conclusion, MDETs show considerable potential as a viable and effective option for integrating technology into physics teaching, offering learning outcomes comparable to those of successful conventional teaching, but not better. Furthermore, no evidence of negative effects from distraction or cognitive overload was found, nor of strong interactions with gender and other predictors. The MDETs approach thus appears suitable for both sexes and different kinds of learners. This leads to suggestions for future utilization of MDETs as a component of physics education, which are discussed as potential perspectives.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (162)

  1. M. Monteiro and A. C. Martí, Resource letter MDS-1: Mobile devices and sensors for physics teaching, Am. J. Phys. 90, 328 (2022).
  2. Smartphones as Mobile Minilabs in Physics: Edited Volume Featuring More than 70 Examples from 10 Years the Physics Teacher-Column IPhysicsLabs, edited by J. Kuhn and P. Vogt (Springer Nature, Berlin, 2022).
  3. P. Gabriel and U. Backhaus, Kinematics with the assistance of smartphones: Measuring data via GPS – Visualizing data with Google Earth, Phys. Teach. 51, 246 (2013).
  4. L. Darmendrail and A. Müller, Standing vertical jumps, sport physics with smartphones, Phys. Teach. 59, 264 (2021).
  5. K. Forinash and R. F. Wisman, Smartphones as portable oscilloscopes for physics labs, Phys. Teach. 50, 242 (2012).
  6. A. Müller, P. Vogt, J. Kuhn, and M. Müller, Cracking knuckles—A smartphone inquiry on bioacoustics, Phys. Teach. 53, 307 (2015).
  7. M. Á. González and M. Á. González, Smartphones as experimental tools to measure acoustical, and mechanical properties of vibrating rods, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 045701 (2016).
  8. A. Müller, M. Hirth, and J. Kuhn, Tunnel pressure waves—A smartphone inquiry on rail travel, Phys. Teach. 54, 118 (2016).
  9. M. Osorio, C. J. Pereyra, D. L. Gau, and A. Laguarda, Measuring and characterizing beat phenomena with a smartphone, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 025708 (2018).
  10. M. Monteiro and A. C. Martí, Using smartphones as hydrophones: Two experiments in underwater acoustics, Phys. Educ. 55, 033013 (2020).
  11. J. A. Sans, J. Gea-Pinal, M. H. Gimenez, A. R. Esteve, J. Solbes, and J. A. Monsoriu, Determining the efficiency of optical sources using a smartphone’s ambient light sensor, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025301 (2016).
  12. M. C. Sullivan, Using a smartphone camera to explore ray optics beyond the thin lens equation, Am. J. Phys. 90, 610 (2022).
  13. E. Arribas, I. Escobar, C. P. Suarez, A. Najera, and A. Beléndez, Measurement of the magnetic field of small magnets with a smartphone: A very economical laboratory practice for introductory physics courses, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 065002 (2015).
  14. M. Monteiro, C. Stari, C. Cabeza, and A. C. Marti, Magnetic field “flyby” measurement using a smartphone’s magnetometer and accelerometer simultaneously, Phys. Teach. 55, 580 (2017).
  15. J. Kuhn, A. Molz, S. Gröber, and J. Frübis, iRadioactivity—Possibilities and limitations for using smartphones and tablet PCs as radioactive counters, Phys. Teach. 52, 351 (2014).
  16. O. Keller, M. Benoit, A. Müller, and S. Schmeling, Smartphone and tablet-based sensing of environmental radioactivity: Mobile low-cost measurements for monitoring, citizen science, and educational purposes, Sensors 19, 4264 (2019).
  17. S. Gil and J. Di Laccio, Smartphone una herramienta de laboratorio y aprendizaje: Laboratorios de bajo costo para el aprendizaje de las ciencias, Latin-Am. J. Phys. Educ. 11, 5 (2017).
  18. C. Stampfer, H. Heinke, and S. Staacks, A lab in the pocket, Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 169 (2020).
  19. K. Hochberg, J. Kuhn, and A. Müller, Using smartphones as experimental tools—Effects on interest, curiosity, and learning in physics education, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 27, 385 (2018).
  20. J. Bennett, F. Lubben, and S. Hogarth, Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching, Sci. Educ. 91, 347 (2007).
  21. P. J. Fensham, Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 884 (2009).
  22. M. S. Ubben, F. E. Kremer, S. Heinicke, A. Marohn, and S. Heusler, Smartphone usage in science education: A systematic literature review, Educ. Sci. 13, 345 (2023).
  23. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. 58, 858 (1990).
  24. C. C. Tossell, P. Kortum, C. Shepard, A. Rahmati, and L. Zhong, You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him learn: Smartphone use in higher education, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46, 713 (2014).
  25. L. P. Beland and R. Murphy, III communication: Technology, distraction & student performance, Labour Econ. 41, 61 (2016).
  26. J. M. Van Bruggen, P. A. Kirschner, and W. Jochems, External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load, Learn. Instr. 12, 121 (2002).
  27. P. Klein, J. Kuhn, and A. Müller, Förderung von repräsentationskompetenz und experimentbezug in den vorlesungsbegleitenden übungen zur experimentalphysik—Empirische untersuchung eines videobasierten aufgabenformates, Z. Didakt. Naturwiss. 24, 1 (2018).
  28. P. Klein, Konzeption und untersuchung videobasierter aufgaben im rahmen vorlesungsbegleitender übungen zur experimentalphysik (mechanik), Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Kaiserslautern, 2016.
  29. A. Kaps, T. Splith, and F. Stallmach, Implementation of smartphone-based experimental exercises for physics courses at universities, Phys. Educ. 56, 035004 (2021).
  30. A. Kaps and F. Stallmach, Development and didactic analysis of smartphone-based experimental exercises for the smart physics lab, Phys. Educ. 57, 045038 (2022).
  31. K. Hochberg, S. Becker, M. Louis, P. Klein, and J. Kuhn, Using smartphones as experimental tools—A follow-up: Cognitive effects by video analysis and reduction of cognitive load by multiple representations, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 29, 303 (2020).
  32. J. Kuhn and A. Müller, Context-based science education by newspaper story problems: A study on motivation and learning effects, Perspect. Sci. 2, 5 (2014).
  33. J. K. Gilbert, A. M. W. Bulte, and A. Pilot, Concept development and transfer in context-based science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 817 (2011).
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), PISA 2006. Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Volume 1: Analysis (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2007).
  35. National Research Council, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013), 10.17226/18290.
  36. M. Ratcliffe and R. Millar, Teaching for understanding of science in context: Evidence from the pilot trials of the twenty first century science courses, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 945 (2009).
  37. S. Swarat, A. Ortony, and W. Revelle, Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 515 (2012).
  38. S. Hidi and W. Baird, Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse processing, Cognit. Sci. 10, 179 (1986).
  39. S. Hidi and K. A. Renninger, The four-phase model of interest development, Educ. Psychol. 41, 111 (2006).
  40. A. Krapp, Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective, Learn. Instr. 12, 383 (2002).
  41. M. P. Arnone, R. V. Small, S. A. Chauncey, and H. P. McKenna, Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 59, 181 (2011).
  42. L. M. Gutman and I. Schoon, The Impact of Non-Cognitive Skills on Outcomes for Young People (Education Endowment Foundation, London, 2013).
  43. J. C. Valentine, D. L. DuBois, and H. Cooper, The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol. 39, 111 (2004).
  44. M. E. Uguroglu and H. J. Walberg, Motivation and achievement: A quantitative synthesis, Am. Educ. Res. J. 16, 375 (1979).
  45. E. Wild, M. Hofer, and R. Pekrun, Psychologie des lerners, in Pädagogische Psychologie—Ein Lehrbuch, edited by A. Krapp and B. Weidenmann (Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim, 2001), pp. 207–270.
  46. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educ. Psychol. 38, 43 (2003).
  47. R. Moreno, Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls, in Technology-Based Education: Bringing Researchers and Practitioners Together, edited by L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, and R. Bruning (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, 2005), pp. 1–19.
  48. R. Moreno and R. E. Mayer, Interactive multimodal learning environments, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 309 (2007).
  49. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer, Int. J. Educ. Res. 31, 611 (1999).
  50. R. E. Mayer, The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media, Learn. Instr. 13, 125 (2003).
  51. R. E. Mayer, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005).
  52. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. G. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251 (1998).
  53. J. M. Clark and A. Paivio, Dual coding theory and education, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 3, 149 (1991).
  54. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
  55. S. Alsop and M. Watts, Science education and affect, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1043 (2003).
  56. Multiple Representations in Physics Education., edited by D. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2017).
  57. J. Scheid, A. Müller, R. Hettmannsperger, and W. Schnotz, Improving learners’ representational coherence ability with experiment-related representational activity tasks, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010142 (2019).
  58. J. J. G. Van Merriënboer and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent development and future directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 17, 147 (2005).
  59. R. B. Kozma and J. Russell, Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence, in Visualization in Science Education, edited by J. Gilbert (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2005).
  60. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
  61. E. Torigoe and G. Gladding, Connecting symbolic difficulties with failure in physics, Am. J. Phys. 79, 133 (2011).
  62. T. Seufert, Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 13, 227 (2003).
  63. R. E. Mayer, Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text, J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 240 (1989).
  64. R. E. Mayer, Rote versus meaningful learning, Theory Pract. 41, 226 (2002).
  65. C. B. Fried, In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning, Comput. Educ. 50, 906 (2008).
  66. A. Kaps, T. Splith, and F. Stallmach, Implementation of smartphone-based experimental exercises for physics courses at universities, Phys. Educ. 56, 035004 (2021).
  67. A. Kaps and F. Stallmach, Development and didactic analysis of smartphone-based experimental exercises for the smart physics lab, Phys. Educ. 57, 045038 (2022).
  68. M. McCloskey, Naïve theories of motion, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), pp. 299–324.
  69. J. J. Clement, Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
  70. L. C. McDermott, Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics, Phys. Today 37, No. 7, 24 (1984).
  71. Physics Education, edited by H. E. Fischer and R. Girwidz (Springer, Cham, 2021).
  72. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, MMS17 resource letter RBAI-1: Research-based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy, Am. J. Phys. 85, 245 (2017).
  73. A. Gasparini, Using mobile devices as experimental tools in physics lessons: An empirical study of the effects on learning and motivation at secondary school level, Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva, 2021, https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:155124.
  74. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and W. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  75. R. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  76. M. T. Svec, Effect of micro-computer based laboratory on graphing interpretation skills and understanding of motion, in presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA (1995).
  77. A. Helmke and F.-W. Schrader, School achievement, cognitive and motivational determinants, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Elsevier, Oxford 2001), Vol. 20, pp. 13552–13556.
  78. C. Bolte and H. Stork, Entwicklung und einsatz von erhebungsinstrumenten zur analyse der schüler-lehrer- interaktion im chemieunterricht (teil I), Z. Didakt. Naturwiss. 2, 21 (1996).
  79. C. Bolte, Entwicklung und einsatz von erhebungsinstrumenten zur analyse der schüler-lehrer-interaktion im chemieunterricht (teil II), Z. Didakt. Naturwiss. 3, 67 (1997).
  80. F. D. Naylor, A State-Traint Curiosity Inventory. Effect of computer graphics on improving estimates to algebra word problems, J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 285 (1981).
  81. J. A. Litman, R. P. Collins, and C. D. Spielberger, The nature and measurement of sensory curiosity, Pers. individ. Differ. 39, 1123 (2005).
  82. R. B. Elkstrom, J. W. French, and H. H. Harman, Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, 1976), p. 176.
  83. M. S. Khine, Visual-Spatial Ability in STEM Education (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017).
  84. M. Opfermann, A. Schmeck, and H. E. Fischer, Multiple representations in physics and science education—Why should we use them?, in Multiple Representations in Physics Education, edited by D. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2017).
  85. H. W. Marsh, The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 623 (1990).
  86. T. Ritcher, J. Naumann, and N. Groeben, Attitudes toward the computer: Construct validation on an instrument with scales differentiated by content, Comput. Hum. Behav. 16, 473 (2000).
  87. M. Luckay and B. I. Collier-Reed, Admitting engineering students with the best chance of success: Technology literacy and the Technological Profile Inventory (TPI), in Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Conference of the South African Society for Engineering Education (Stellenbosch, 2011).
  88. N. Orion, A. Hofstein, P. Tamir, and G. J. Giddings, Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities, Sci. Educ. 81, 161 (1997).
  89. M. L. Yunker, A systemic examination of the introduction of an outdoor learning-based science curriculum to students, their teacher, and the school principal, Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 2010.
  90. F. G. Paas, J. J. Van Merrienboer, and J. J. Adam, Measurement of cognitive load in intructional research, Percept. Mot. Skills 79, 419 (1994).
  91. R. Cors, Informal science learning: An investigation of how novelty and motivation affect interest development at a mobile laboratory, Ph.D. thesis, University of Geneva, 2016.
  92. M. Hirth, Akustische untersuchungen mit dem smartphone und tablet-computern-fachliche und didaktische aspekte, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Kaiserslautern, 2019.
  93. J. Woithe, A. Müller, S. Schmeling, and J. Kuhn, Motivational outcomes of the science outreach lab S’Cool LAB at CERN: A multilevel analysis, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 59, 930 (2022).
  94. M. Hänze and R. Berger, Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes, Learn. Instr. 17, 29 (2007).
  95. J. P. Dorman, Cross-national validation of the what is happening in this class? (WIHIC) questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis, Learn. Environ. Res. 6, 231 (2003).
  96. B. J. Fraser, C. J. McRobbie, and D. Fischer, Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment questionnaire, in Proceedings of the Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum (1996).
  97. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 (2009).
  98. P. Kline, A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design (Routledge, London, 2015).
  99. J. M. Cortina, What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications, J. Appl. Psych. 78, 98 (1993).
  100. P. Cohen, J. Cohen, L. S. Aiken, and S. G. West, The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP, Multivar. Behav. Res. 34, 315 (1999).
  101. B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, Experimental Designs Using ANOVA (Thomson/Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA, 2007).
  102. L. Ding and X. Liu, Getting started with quantitative methods in physics education research, in Getting Started in PER, Reviews in PER Vol. 2, edited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2012), 10.1119/RevPERv2.3.2.
  103. A. Field, J. Miles, and Z. Field, Discovery Statistics Using r (SAGE publications, Los Angeles, 2012).
  104. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User’s Guide, edited by P. Velentgas, N. A. Dreyer, P. Nourjah, S. R. Smith, and M. M. Torchia (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, 2013).
  105. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg, Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289 (1995).
  106. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge Academic, New York, 1988).
  107. A. C. Hattie, Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (Routledge, London, New York, 2009).
  108. R Core Team, r: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.2.2) [Computer software], Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org (2022).
  109. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1289 (2011).
  110. K. S. Taber, The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 1273 (2018).
  111. M. R. Semak, R. D. Dietz, R. H. Pearson, and C. W. Willis, Examining evolving performance on the Force Concept Inventory using factor analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010103 (2017).
  112. M. L. van Blerkom, Measurement and Statistics for Teachers (Routledge, London, 2009).
  113. M. D. Miller, R. L. Linn, and N. E. Gronlund, Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (Pearson, Upper Sadler River, 2009).
  114. A. Evers, C. Hagemeister, and A. Hostmaelingen, EFPA Review Model for the Description and Evaluation of Psychological and Educational Tests (European Federation of Psychology Associations, Brussels, 2013).
  115. T. J. Kline, Classical test theory: Assumptions, equations, limitations, and item analyses, in Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005), pp. 91–106.
  116. V. E. Lee and D. T. Burkam, Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis, Sci. Educ. 80, 613 (1996).
  117. R. A. Louis and J. M. Mistele, The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 1163 (2012).
  118. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  119. E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Direct measurement of the impact of teaching experimentation in physics labs, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011029 (2020).
  120. E. Smith and N. Holmes, Best practice for instructional labs, Nat. Phys. 17, 662 (2021).
  121. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  122. L. Deslauriers, E. Schelew, and C. Wieman, Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class, Science 332, 862 (2011).
  123. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  124. S. I. Hofer, R. Schumacher, H. Rubin, and E. Stern, Enhancing physics learning with cognitively activating instruction: A quasi-experimental classroom intervention study, J. Educ. Psychol. 110, 1175 (2018).
  125. L. Steidtmann, T. Kleickmann, and M. Steffensky, Declining interest in science in lower secondary school classes: Quasi-experimental and longitudinal evidence on the role of teaching and teaching quality, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 60, 164 (2023).
  126. R. Karam, Thematic issue: The interplay of physics and mathematics: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations, Sci. Educ. 24, 487 (2015).
  127. Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B. Eylon (Springer, New York, 2019).
  128. A. Thorndike, Correlation between physics and mathematics grades, Sch. Sci. Math. 46, 650 (1946).
  129. D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation, and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1259 (2002).
  130. L. Cui, N. S. Rebello, and A. G. Bennett, College students’ transfer from calculus to physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 37 (2006).
  131. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009).
  132. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  133. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  134. A. Siani, BYOD strategies in higher education: Current knowledge, students’ perspectives, and challenges, New Dir. Teach. Phys. Sci. 12, 1 (2017).
  135. T. Cochrane, L. Antonczak, H. Keegan, and V. Narayan, Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a framework for creative pedagogies, Res. Learn. Tech. 22, 24637 (2014).
  136. H. Lin, Implementing large-scale mobile device initiatives in schools and institutions, in Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education: Full STEAM Ahead (Springer, 2015), pp. 179–198.
  137. P. Onorato, L. M. Gratton, M. Polesello, A. Salmoiraghi, and S. Oss, The Beer Lambert law measurement made easy, Phys. Educ. 53, 035033 (2018).
  138. Handbook of Mobile Teaching, and Learning, edited by A. Zhang and D. Cristol (Springer, Berlin, 2015), Chap. 38.
  139. A. Bouchereau, Les objets connectés au service de l’apprentissage, Ph.D. thesis, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 2020.
  140. T. De Jong, Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought, Instr. Sci. 38, 105 (2010).
  141. W. Schnotz and C. Kürschner, A reconsideration of cognitive load theory, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 469 (2007).
  142. K. E. DeLeeuw and R. E. Mayer, A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load, J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 223 (2008).
  143. V. Kenttälä, From design to use—factors of value creation in the usability and implementation of digital learning technology, Ph.D. thesis, University of Jyväskylä: Faculty of Information Technology, 2019.
  144. P. Bihouix and K. Mauvilly, Le Désastre de L’école Numérique (Ed. Seuil, Paris, 2021).
  145. M. Kratz, Experimente als Hausaufgaben—Physik (Aulis-Verlag Deubner, Köln, 2004).
  146. Institute of Physics, Physics education at home: DIY activities for home learning, Website, https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0031-9120/page/physics-education-at-home (2020).
  147. P. Klein, L. Ivanjek, M. N. Dahlkemper, K. Jelicic, M.-A. Geyer, S. Küchemann, and A. Sušac, Studying physics during the COVID-19 pandemic: Student assessments of learning achievement, perceived effectiveness of online recitations, and online laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010117 (2021).
  148. K. Jelicic, M.-A. Geyer, L. Ivanjek, P. Klein, S. Küchemann, M. N. Dahlkemper, and A. Sušac, Lab courses for prospective physics teachers: What could we learn from the first COVID-19 lockdown?, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 055701 (2022).
  149. S. Z. Lahme, P. Pirinen, L. Rončevič, A. Lehtinen, A. Sušac, P. Klein, and A. Müller, Physics lab courses under digital transformation: A survey among German, Finnish, and Croatian university lab instructors about the role of new digital technologies and learning objectives, arXiv:2305.08515.
  150. G. Pospiech, Framework of mathematization in physics from a teaching perspective, in Mathematics in Physics Education, edited by G. Pospiech, M. Michelini, and B. Eylon (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019).
  151. S. J. Wolf and B. J. Fraser, Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities, Res. Sci. Educ. 38, 321 (2008).
  152. B. J. Fraser, Classroom learning environments: Historical, and contemporary perspectives, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. G. Ledermann, and S. K. Abel (Routledge, 2014), Vol. II, pp. 118–133.
  153. C. Angeli and N. Valanides, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring Developing and Assessing TPCK (Springer, New York, 2015).
  154. D. Fanelli, Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries, Scientometrics 90, 891 (2012).
  155. A. Franco, N. Malhotra, and G. Simonovits, Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer, Science 345, 1502 (2014).
  156. L. D. Conlin, E. Kuo, and N. R. Hallinen, How null results can be significant for physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020104 (2019).
  157. J. W. Osborne, A. B. Costello, and J. T. Kellow, Best practices in exploratory factor analysis, in Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, edited by J. Osborne (SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, 2012), p. 86.
  158. K. Schermelleh-Engel, H. Moosbrugger, and H. Müller, Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures, Methods Psychol. Res. Online 8, 23 (2003).
  159. B. A. Cerny and H. F. Kaiser, A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices, Multivariate Behav. Res. 12, 43 (1977).
  160. J. P. Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002).
  161. S. K. Reed, Effect of computer graphics on improving estimates to algebra word problems, J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 285 (1985).
  162. S. K. Reed and N. C. Saavedra, A comparison of computation, discovery, and graph procedures for improving students’ conception of average speed, Cognit. Instr. 3, 31 (1986).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010129– Published 11 March, 2026
  • Received 20 August 2024
  • Accepted 10 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation