Physics Simulations through Object-Oriented Programming: Effects on Student Conceptual Understanding and Programming Competency
*1Abdullahi Muhammad Gidado, 2Aminu Kabiru, & 3Mujitapha Bello
*1Department of Science Education, Federal University Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State-Nigeria. Email: muhammad.abdullahi@fubk.edu.ng
2Department of Science Education, Sokoto State University, Sokoto State, Nigeria. Email: aminukabiru2011@gmail.com
3Department of Science Education, Federal University Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State-Nigeria. Email: bello.mujitapha@fubk.edu.ng
Cite this as: Gidado, A M., Kabiru, A., & Bello, M. (2026). Physics Simulations through Object-Oriented Programming: Effects on Student Conceptual Understanding and Programming Competency. Rima International Journal of Education, 5(1), 75-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.65760/rijessu.v5.1.6
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of integrating object-oriented programming (OOP) with physics simulation activities in enhancing secondary school students' conceptual understanding of physics and programming competency. A quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control group configuration involved 140 students (experimental group n = 70; control group n = 70) across five secondary schools in Northwestern Nigeria. The experimental group engaged in creating physics simulations using Python OOP, while the control group received conventional physics instruction without programming components. Data collection instruments included a Physics Conceptual Understanding Test (PCUT) developed and validated by the researchers - a Programming Competency Assessment (PCA), and a semi-structured interview protocol. The PCUT demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's α = .86) and convergent validity. Results revealed statistically significant differences between groups in physics conceptual understanding (t(138) = 5.23, p < .001, d = 0.91) and programming competency (t(138) = 6.45, p < .001, d = 1.12). The experimental group demonstrated substantially improved understanding of mechanics concepts while simultaneously acquiring practical programming skills. Qualitative findings revealed four dominant themes: simulation development as mental model construction, programming as concrete representation of abstract physics, debugging as physics problem-solving, and persistence through constructive challenge. The study concludes that integrating OOP with physics simulation development is an effective interdisciplinary STEM pedagogical approach. Implications for curriculum integration, teacher preparation, and assessment design are discussed.
Keywords
Object-oriented programming, Physics simulations, programming competency, STEM integration, constructivist learning
Reference
Alsalhi, N. R., Ismail, A. A. K. H., Alqawasmi, A., Abdelkader, A. F. I., Alqatawneh, S., & Salem, O. (2024). The effect of using PhET Interactive Simulations on academic achievement of physics students in higher education institutions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 24(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2024.1.001
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17449
Ben-Zion, Y. (2025). Leveraging AI for rapid generation of physics simulations in education: Building your own virtual lab. The Physics Teacher, 63(6), 424–427. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0252343
Blikstein, P. (2011). Computationally enhanced toolkits for elementary science education: An assessment of five findings. Stanford Ventures Lab. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1884467
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
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
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Kölling, M. (2010). The Greenfoot programming environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868361
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Negahban, A. (2024). Simulation in engineering education: The transition from physical experimentation to digital immersive simulated environments. International Journal of Engineering Education, 41(3), 234–256.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K–12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
Sorva, J. (2012). Visual program simulation in introductory programming education (Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University). Aalto University publication series.
Uwakwe, O., & Nwosu, A. A. (2022). Utilization of simulation-based instruction and secondary school students’ achievement in physics in Nigeria. Journal of Science, Technology, Mathematics and Education, 18(1), 114–123.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
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
Wieman, C., Adams, W., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3361987
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1