Menjembatani Formalisme Matematis dan Interpretasi Fisik melalui Simulasi Berbasis Python: Suatu Kerangka Pemodelan Komputasional untuk Mekanika Newton di Sekolah Menengah

Rodika Utama

doi:10.22487/jpft.v14i1.6011

Authors

Rodika Utama Universitas Ahmad Dahlan https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5475-8710

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22487/jpft.v14i1.6011

Keywords:

berpikir komputasional, koherensi representasional, mekanika Newton, pemodelan komputasional, simulasi python

Abstract

Kesenjangan antara formalisme matematis dan interpretasi fisik masih menjadi tantangan dalam pembelajaran mekanika Newton di sekolah menengah. Siswa sering mampu memanipulasi persamaan seperti F = ma, namun belum memahami bagaimana persamaan tersebut merepresentasikan proses fisik yang dinamis. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan pengembangan kerangka konseptual (conceptual framework development) berbasis analisis literatur dalam penelitian pendidikan fisika berbasis disiplin. Penelitian ini mengusulkan kerangka computational modeling yang merekonseptualisasikan hukum kedua Newton sebagai proses yang dapat dieksekusi melalui simulasi berbasis Python. Berlandaskan penelitian pendidikan fisika berbasis disiplin, teori koherensi representasional, dan computational thinking, kerangka ini mentransformasikan persamaan simbolik menjadi aturan pembaruan numerik iteratif yang menghasilkan gerak secara dinamis. Model ini mengintegrasikan dekomposisi konseptual, formalisasi matematis, translasi algoritmik, implementasi simulasi, dan visualisasi reflektif, sehingga memposisikan komputasi sebagai jembatan representasional antara persamaan, grafik gerak, dan penalaran fisik. Ilustrasi skenario gaya konstan menunjukkan bagaimana simulasi dapat memperkuat keterkaitan antara representasi matematis dan perilaku fisik. Kerangka yang diusulkan memberikan kontribusi berupa model desain pembelajaran berbasis teori untuk mengintegrasikan praktik komputasional dalam pembelajaran fisika sekolah menengah, dengan potensi memperkuat koherensi konseptual dan mengurangi fragmentasi dalam pemahaman simbolik.

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

Caballero, M. D., & Pollock, S. J. (2014). A Model for Incorporating Computation without Changing the Course: An Example from Middle-Division Classical Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 82(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4837437

Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2008). Computational Physics in The Introductory Calculus-Based Course. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2835054

Crouch, C. H., Wisittanawat, P., Cai, M., & Renninger, K. A. (2018). Life Science Students’ Attitudes, Interest, and Performance in Introductory Physics for Life Sciences: An Exploratory Study. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010111

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of Discipline-Based Education Research in Physics. Physical Review Special Topics–Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Gifford, J. D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2020). Categorical Framework for Mathematical Sense Making in Physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 020121. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020121

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a Modeling Theory of Physics Instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15129

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on Teaching and Learning of Computational Thinking through Programming. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource Letter ALIP–1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3678299

Odden, T. O. B., Lockwood, E., & Caballero, M. D. (2019). Physics Computational Literacy: An Exploratory Case Study Using Computational Essays. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020152. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020152

Orban, C. M., & Teeling-Smith, R. M. (2020). Computational Thinking in Introductory Physics. The Physics Teacher, 58(4), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5145470

Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching Physics with The Physics Suite. Wiley.

Sherin, B. L. (2001). How Students Understand Physics Equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479–541. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1904_3

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing Block-Based and Text-Based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089799

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Young, N. T., Allen, G., Aiken, J. M., Henderson, R., & Caballero, M. D. (2019). Identifying Features Predictive of Faculty Integrating Computation into Physics Courses. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010114