High impact on students’ understanding of atomics radius on crystals geometry concept through implementation of JITT with 3D animation

Main Article Content

Hena Dian Ayu
Akhmad Jufriadi
Ratri Andinisari


This study was conducted to analyze the students 'initial and final understanding after the application of JITT with 3D animation, to identify students' responses and arguments, and to determine the impact of using JITT with 3D animation. This research involved 43 students of the 6th semester of the 2019-2020 academic year of the Physics Education study program of the Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang who took solid state physics course. Students' initial and final understanding was analyzed through responses and arguments presented during the pretest, while the impact of JITT application with 3D animation was analyzed based on the results of the pretest and posttest as well as student responses during the learning process expressed through short interviews and discussions. The qualitative and quantitative data generated from the mixed-method approach were analyzed simultaneously. The results show that the students understand that the atomic radius for all the different crystal lattices is the same, namely a/2. This was awakened by an early understanding of the general definition of the radius. However, after following the JITT stages with 3D animation, their understanding changed that the atomic radius of each crystal lattice is different in length. In addition, the results of statistical analysis showed that there was a very significant increase in the students' mastery of concepts from an average of 26.9 to 96.7. Meanwhile, the N-gain value is very high, namely 0.96 in the very effective category, which illustrates that JITT with 3D animation has had a high impact on students' understanding of atomic radius in the concept of crystal geometry.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ayu, H. D., Jufriadi, A., & Andinisari, R. (2021). High impact on students’ understanding of atomics radius on crystals geometry concept through implementation of JITT with 3D animation . Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 5(2), 153-160. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v5i2.5557


AbdelAziz, M. A., ElBakry, H. M., Riad, A. E.-D. M., & Senouy, M. B. (2020). The impact of using virtual reality on student’s motivation for operating systems course learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(2), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135076

Ayu, H. D., Syagita, U., & Jufriadi, A. (2019). Pengaruh model pembelajaran just in time teaching (JITT) terhadap penguasaan konsep ditinjau dari motivasi belajar siswa. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 24(1).

Bakri, F., Kencana, H. P., Permana, H., & Muliyati, D. (2019). The 3-D animation of radiation concept using augmented reality technology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1402, 066077. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1402/6/066077

Bao, L. (2006). Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations. American Journal of Physics, 74(10), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2213632

Barikhlana, A., Sholikhan, S., Ayu, H. D., & Jufriadi, A. (2019). The just in time teaching: the effect on student learning achievements viewed from learning motivation. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 7(2), 134. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v7i2.6402

Bhatti, Z., Abro, A., Gillal, A. R., & Karbasi, M. (2017). Be-educated: Multimedia learning through 3D animation. International Journal of Computer Science and Emerging Technologies, 1(1), 13–22.

Brock, C. P., & Lingafelter, E. C. (1980). Common misconceptions about crystal lattices and crystal symmetry. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(8), 552. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed057p552

Cushman, C. V., & Linford, M. R. (2015). Using the plan view to teach basic crystallography in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1415–1418. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00011

Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2016). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage Publications.

Elmunsyah, H., Hidayat, W. N., & Asfani, K. (2019). Interactive learning media innovation: utilization of augmented reality and pop-up book to improve user’s learning autonomy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1193, 012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1193/1/012031

Eshach, H., Lin, T.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Misconception of sound and conceptual change: A cross-sectional study on students’ materialistic thinking of sound. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 664–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21435

Fotou, N., & Abrahams, I. (2016). Students’ analogical reasoning in novel situations: theory-like misconceptions or p-prims? Physics Education, 51(4), 044003. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/51/4/044003

Gentry, S., Faltens, T., Wheeler, W., & Schleife, A. (2018). Measuring student learning of crystal structures using computer-based visualizations. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--30798

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520

Hiranyachattada, T., & Kusirirat, K. (2020). Using mobile augmented reality to enhancing students’ conceptual understanding of physically-based rendering in 3D animation. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 1–5.

Ho, L.-H., Sun, H., & Tsai, T.-H. (2019). Research on 3D painting in virtual reality to improve students’ motivation of 3D animation learning. Sustainability, 11(6), 1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061605

Huan, C., & Chen, J. (2016). Research on JiTT based on mobile internet. Asian Education Studies, 1(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v1i2.39

Jones, R. O. (2018). Bonding in phase change materials: concepts and misconceptions. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 30(15), 153001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/aab22e

Jufriadi, A., & Andinisari, R. (2020). JITT with assessment for learning: Investigation and improvement of students understanding of kinematics concept. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 4(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v4i2.4669

Jufriadi, A., Kusairi, S., & Sutopo, S. (2021). Exploration of student’s understanding of distance and displacement concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1869(1), 012195. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1869/1/012195

Kelly, J., Krause, S., & Baker, D. (2010). A pre-post topic assessment tool for uncovering misconceptions and assessing their repair and conceptual change. 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), T1G-1-T1G-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2010.5673206

Kim, M. K., & Ketenci, T. (2019). Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education, 41, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.02.002

Krause, Stephen, Decker, J. C., Niska, J., Alford, T., & Griffin, R. (2003). Identifying student misconceptions in introductory materials engineering classes. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 3753–3760.

Krause, Steve, & Waters, C. (2012). Uncovering and repairing crystal structure misconceptions in an introductory materials engineering class. 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2012.6462296

Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759

Mangum, R., Lazar, J., Rose, M. J., Mahan, J. D., & Reed, S. (2017). Exploring the value of just-in-time teaching as a supplemental tool to traditional resident education on a busy inpatient pediatrics rotation. Academic Pediatrics, 17(6), 589–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.04.021

Milenković, D. D., Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D., & Horvat, S. (2016). Identification of misconceptions through multiple choice tasks at municipal Chemistry competition test. Journal of Subject Didactics, 1(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.55468

Parno, P. (2015). Pengaruh model penemuan terbimbing dengan strategi self-explanation terhadap prestasi belajar fisika zat padat mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 11(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v11i1.4000

Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: An example from electromagnetic waves. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(1), 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010109

Politzer, P., & Murray, J. S. (2017). σ-hole interactions: perspectives and misconceptions. Crystals, 7(7), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst7070212

Pospiech, G. (2000). Uncertainty and complementarity: the heart of quantum physics. Physics Education, 35(6), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/35/6/303

Prodjosantoso, A. K., Hertina, A. M., & Irwanto, I. (2019). The misconception diagnosis on ionic and covalent bonds concepts with three tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1477–1488. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12194a

Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: a commitment to substance-based conceptions naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34.

Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102

Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020101