- 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

Development of a physical-digital learning environment for rotational motion transmission in engineering education

Nicolas Amado-Moranchel, Claudia Hernandez-Mena*, Gibran Sayeg-Sanchez, and Isaac Juarez-Acosta

  • *Contact author: c.hernandezmena@tec.mx
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020150 – Published 26 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/gddt-c1n3

Abstract

This study presents the design and evaluation of a physical-digital learning environment for teaching rotational motion transmission in introductory engineering education. The environment integrates SimulaGear, an interactive digital simulation for analyzing gear systems, with a physical-IoT experimental system composed of a 3D-printed gear mechanism, infrared sensors, ESP32-based data acquisition, Message Queuing Telemetry Transport communication, and real-time visualization through Node-RED dashboards. A quasiexperimental pretest-post-test design was implemented with 37 first-year engineering students enrolled in introductory physics courses. The control group worked exclusively with the SimulaGear digital simulation, whereas the experimental group participated in a physicaldigital experience that combined SimulaGear with the physical-IoT experimental system. Conceptual understanding, student engagement, and technology acceptance were evaluated using a conceptual test, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students, and a survey based on the technology acceptance model. Results showed that both groups improved their conceptual understanding after the intervention, with the group that used the physical-digital system showing a specific significant improvement in transmission ratios in multiple-gear systems. In addition, the physical-digital experience produced significant gains in vigor and overall engagement, while the digital-only experience did not show significant changes in engagement. Technology acceptance was high in both groups, but significantly higher in the experimental group. These findings suggest that integrating physical-IoT systems with digital simulations can strengthen students’ engagement and technology acceptance while supporting the interpretation of complex mechanical configurations through the comparison of theoretical predictions and real-time experimental data.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (33)

  1. R. Girwidz, H. Theyßen, and R. Widenhorn, Experiments in physics teaching, in Physics Education (Challenges in Physics Education), edited by H. E. Fischer and R. Girwidz (Springer, Cham, 2021),10.1007/978-3-030-87391-2_10.
  2. L. Hahn and P. Klein, Eye tracking in physics education research: A systematic literature review, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 013102 (2022).
  3. H. J. Banda and J. Nzabahimana, Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 023108 (2021).
  4. J. W. Lai and K. H. Cheong, Educational opportunities and challenges in augmented reality: Featuring implementations in physics education, IEEE Access 10, 43143 (2022).
  5. C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills-focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010128 (2022).
  6. K. A. Haedar, M. Ainurridho, and S. I. Cahyani, Does laboratory matters in today’s high school learning environment?, Int. J. Educ. Adm. Manage. Leadership 5, 1 (2024).
  7. T. De Jong, D. Gillet, M. J. Rodríguez-Triana, T. Hovardas, D. Dikke, R. Doran, O. Dziabenko, J. Koslowsky, M. Korventausta, E. Law, M. Pedaste, E. Tasiopoulou, G. Vidal, and Z. C. Zacharia, Understanding teacher design practices for digital inquiry–based science learning: The case of go-lab, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 69, 417 (2021).
  8. S. Z. Lahme, P. Klein, A. Lehtinen, A. Müller, P. Pirinen, L. Rončević, and A. Sušac, Physics lab courses under digital transformation: A trinational survey among university lab instructors about the role of new digital technologies and learning objectives, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020159 (2023).
  9. C. F. Ordoñez-Urbano, J. A. Muñoz, L. P. Fierro, J. F. F. Marulanda, and R. Vargas-Cañas, Remote laboratories for physics education: A proposal toward interactive learning for engineering students, IEEE Rev. Iberoam. Tecnol. Aprendiz. 18, 305 (2023).
  10. E. Kurvinen, A. Kutvonen, J. Ukko, Q. Khadim, Y. Shabbouei Hagh, S. Jaiswal, N. Neisi, V. Zhidchenko, J. Kortelainen, M. Timperi, K. Kokkonen, J. Virtanen, A. Zeb, V. Lämsä, V. Nieminen, J. Junttila, M. Savolainen, T. Rantala, T. Valjakka, and A. Mikkola, Physics-based digital twins merging with machines: Cases of mobile log crane and rotating machine, IEEE Access 10, 45962 (2022).
  11. J. A. Lyon and A. J. Magana, A review of mathematical modeling in engineering education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 36, 101 (2020).
  12. M. F. Merck, M. A. Gallagher, E. Habib, and D. Tarboton, Engineering students’ perceptions of mathematical modeling in a learning module centered on a hydrologic design case study, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 7, 351 (2021).
  13. A. Dominguez, J. De la Garza, M. Quezada-Espinoza, and G. Zavala, Integration of physics and mathematics in STEM education: Use of modeling, Education Sciences 14, 20 (2024).
  14. D. May, C. Terkowsky, V. Varney, and D. Boehringer, Between hands-on experiments and cross reality learning environments: Contemporary educational approaches in instructional laboratories, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 48, 783 (2023).
  15. L. D. Feisel and A. J. Rosa, The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education, J. Eng. Educ. 94, 121 (2005).
  16. N. Kapilan, P. Vidhya, and X.-Z. Gao, Virtual laboratory: A boon to the mechanical engineering education during COVID-19 pandemic, Higher Educ. Future 8, 31 (2021).
  17. T. O’Mahony, M. Hill, R. Onet, M. Neag, L.de la Torre Cubillo, and D. Zhou, The impact of take-home laboratories on student perceptions of conceptual and professional learning in electronic engineering across four European Universities, Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 49, 1376 (2024).
  18. T. de Jong, M. C. Linn, and Z. C. Zacharia, Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education, Science 340, 305 (2013).
  19. S. M. Reeves and K. J. Crippen, Virtual laboratories in undergraduate science and engineering courses: A systematic review, 2009-2019, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 16 (2021).
  20. J. Li, W. Liang, and R. Lavi, Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis, PLOS One 19, e0316269 (2024).
  21. S. J. Husnaini and S. Chen, Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010119 (2019).
  22. A. Andrade, The clock project: Gears as visual-tangible representations for mathematical concepts, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 21, 93 (2011).
  23. M. Li, L. Guo, X. Guo, Y. Yang, and J. Zou, Research on the construction of a digital twin model for a 3D measurement system of gears, IEEE Access 11, 124556 (2023).
  24. A. Granić and N. Marangunić, Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 2572 (2019).
  25. J. Cabero-Almenara and J. L. Pérez Díez de los Ríos, Validación del modelo TAM de adopción de la realidad aumentada mediante ecuaciones estructurales, Estud. Sobre Educ. 34, 129 (2018).
  26. R. Estriegana, J. A. Medina-Merodio, and R. Barchino, Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Comput. Educ. 135, 1 (2019).
  27. D. Hernandez, M. Flores-Vazquez, C. Hernandez-Mena, M. O. Avalos, G. S. Coutinho, J. A. Reyes-Avendaño, V. R. Dias, and L. F. Morán-Mirabal, Digital shadow as a didactic resource for control engineering, in 2025 Institute for the Future of Education Conference (IFE) (Monterrey, Mexico, 2025), pp. 1–7,10.1109/IFE63672.2025.11024919.
  28. W. B. Schaufeli, A. B. Bakker, and M. Salanova, Utrecht work engagement scale-9, Educ. Psychol. Meas. (2003), https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_Espanol.pdf
  29. W. B. Schaufeli, M. Salanova, V. González-romá, and A. B. Bakker, The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71 (2002).
  30. I. Miguel-Alonso, D. Checa, H. Guillen-Sanz, and A. Bustillo, Evaluation of the novelty effect in immersive virtual reality learning experiences, Virtual Reality 28, 27 (2024).
  31. J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  32. M. Dew, J. Perry, L. Ford, W. Bassichis, and T. Erukhimova, Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106 (2021).
  33. Y. Corral, Validez y confiabilidad de los instrumentos de investigación para la recolección de datos, Rev. Cienc. Educ. 19, 228 (2009)https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5349614.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020150– Published 26 October, 2026
  • Received 30 July 2026
  • Accepted 6 October 2026
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