Momentum: Physics Education Journal

8 (2), 2024, 194-209

Available at: [Link]/[Link]/momentum
ISSN 2548-9127(print) | 2548-9135 (online)

Scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy for teaching

atomic and nuclear physics
Eric Appiah-Twumasi

Department of Educational Studies, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial
Development, Ghana
e-mail: eatwumasi@[Link]
* Corresponding Author.

Received: 27 December 2023; Revised: 7 March 2024; Accepted: 12 March 2024

Abstract: This study investigated the effectiveness of scaffolding as a cognitive load

reduction strategy for teaching Atomic and Nuclear Physics. This study was carried out with
the participation of university physics students (n = 20) enrolled in the [Link]. Physics
Education Programme. A quasi-experimental one-group pre-test-post-test design was used
to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on physics students’ conceptual
understanding and learning dispositions about Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The intervention
consisted of a university academic calendar of one semester (2022-2023) using scaffolding
as a cognitive load reduction strategy. The baseline assessment revealed that the
respondents had incorrect, partial, and no knowledge of electron transition and
radioactivity-related concepts. However, the post-test analysis revealed a mean score of
7.22 (SD = 0.31) that can be considered significant (p < 0.05) and a large effect of 0.79 on
the conceptual understanding of the participants in Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The study
findings also revealed that the participants' factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-
cognition about Atomic and Nuclear Physics improved after using scaffolding as a cognitive
load reduction strategy. The results further revealed an improved learning disposition about
Atomic and Nuclear Physics among the participants after the intervention. The participants
articulated, among others, that the use of scaffolds as a cognitive load reduction strategy
stimulated their interests, made the topic more enjoyable, and reduced their sense of
hopelessness. The author accordingly recommends scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction
strategy to physics educators for effective teaching and learning in the context of Atomic
and Nuclear Physics.
Keywords: Scaffolding; Cognitive Load; Atomic Nuclear and Physics; Learning Disposition

How to Cite: Appiah-Twumasi, E. (2024). Scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy for teaching
atomic and nuclear physics. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 194-209.
[Link]

Introduction
During the past century, atomic and nuclear physics applications have enormously affected
humankind, some beneficial (Jóźwik, 2017) and some catastrophic (Williams, et al., 2015). Nonetheless,
atomic and nuclear physics are still beneficial in today’s world. It continues to produce technological
advances and computer science, which are critical in the digital age (Hachiya & Akashi, 2016; Hon,
2022). Hon specifically argued that modern experiments in nuclear physics enable scientists, engineers,
and other industry stakeholders to solve complex problems and increase life expectancy. Therefore,
Hon concluded that it is important that physics students become more involved in nuclear physics in
general and contribute significantly to the future.
Nuclear Physics Education is an excellent opportunity for students to become aware of the
impact of modern science and its achievements on daily life (Elbanowska-Ciemuchowska & Giembicka,
Copyright ©2024, Momentum: Physics Education Journal. This is an open access article under the CC–BY license
DOI: 10.21067/mpej.v8i2.9580

194
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

2011). In addition, teaching nuclear physics enables students to understand the application of
laboratory research results in the fields of medicine, technology, food conservation, and the energy
industry. However, Elbanowska-Ciemuchowska and Giembicka (2011) contend that nuclear physics is
perceived as a difficult subject to teach because the physics and mathematical apparatus required to
describe it are very advanced. Therefore, this part of the physics content demands abstract thinking
and frequently exceeds students’ cognitive abilities. Rathore’s (2016) study findings affirm these
negative attributes of Nuclear Physics, as highlighted by Elbanowska-Ciemuchowska and Giembicka.
Specifically, Rathore’s findings showed that students face many common challenges related to the
concepts of radioactivity, half-life, nuclear force, and binding energy.
A study (Muhakeya & Maseko, 2022) found that even after comprehensive training, students in
the university's introductory and advanced physics classes struggle to demonstrate an understanding
of some fundamental concepts in Atomic and Nuclear Physics. This perceived difficulty may be
attributed to the traditional nature of the teaching pedagogies employed by physics educators. In
traditional physics classrooms, the focus is on solving problems that require students to calculate a
precise quantitative solution and on equations, manipulating them, and calculating an answer
(Abraham & Barker, 2023). This traditional pedagogical approach to physics teaching, rather than
promoting strong conceptual understanding, promotes rote memorisation with a consequential effect
on student academic performance.
A theoretical paradigm for instructional design, Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) addresses how the
human brain processes and stores information (Main 2022). CLT argues that humans will find it difficult
to perform tasks if the cognitive load exceeds the processing capacity. Based on its underlying theory,
the CLT explains how humans learn by utilising the properties of working memory and long-term
memory, as well as their interactions. As such, the CLT helps to understand how people absorb and
retain new knowledge as well as the kinds of instructional strategies that promote learning (Likourezos
and Kalyuga, 2021). According to CLT, learning is impeded when learning tasks require more working
memory than can be handled. These characteristics of CLT align with those of CLT proponent John
Sweller, who believes that optimal learning occurs in settings that match students' cognitive capacities.
The adoption of CLT in the classroom has helped improve students’ understanding and
performance in learning domains; therefore, it has been implemented in the classroom. In 2023,
Pečiuliauskienė, for example, studied the clarity of instruction in physics lessons and student
motivation and self-confidence. Pečiuliauskienė found supporting evidence that cognitive load theory
positively influences student learning outcomes. The findings led Pečiuliauskienė to recommend that
physics educators reduce the heavy intrinsic load associated with physics and increase instructional
clarity in physics lessons by providing explanations using signalling and redundancy (Pečiuliauskienė,
2023).
Scaffolding is a classroom teaching strategy in which instructors deliver lessons in distinct
segments, providing less and less support as students master new concepts or material (McIsaac, 2019).
Mclsaac added that similar to scaffolding in a building, this technique is designed to provide students
with a framework for learning as they build and strengthen their understanding. Subsequently, in the
application of the scaffolding strategy in the classroom, when students have achieved the desired level
of comprehension or mastery, the teacher can take a step back and gradually remove their support
(Mulvahill, 2023).
Consequently, scaffolding attempts to help students disperse their learning into manageable
parts as they progress toward greater understanding and, ultimately, independence. As introduced by
psychologist Lev Vygotsky, scaffolding refers to the assistance or support provided to learners as they
work towards the acquisition of new knowledge or skills (Mcleod, 2023). McLeod further stated that
the concept of scaffolding was precisely articulated by Lev Vygotsky, who referred to the perceived gap
in learners’ minds that must be filled by an experienced person. As a result, scaffolds can be used to
bridge the gap between students’ current cognitive abilities, improve their general conceptual
understanding, and consequently promote students’ positive learning dispositions in any domain of
learning.

195
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

The learning disposition of students is another factor that affects their learning outcomes. To be
successful future-focused lifelong learners, students will need a complex blend of dispositions, skills,
values, and attitudes. Consequently, authors such as Dowd et al. (2019) have demonstrated that
students’ learning is influenced by their intrapersonal competencies, specifically their motivation, self-
efficacy, and intellectual beliefs. For this reason, the development of appropriate learning dispositions
in students must be done in the institutions of learning to ensure students’ success in their future
endeavour and their development to become respected scientific literate.
Educators' major goals in physics should be to assist students in building dispositions that will
allow them to engage with information purposefully and to honestly explain their knowledge and
opinions in all subject areas (Weinstock et al., 2017), utilising their conceptual understanding. Despite
the perceived benefits of students’ learning disposition, it appears that undergraduate physics students’
learning disposition, particularly in the context of Atomic and Nuclear Physics teaching and learning,
has not been researched and presents a gap in this domain of research. Therefore, to improve the
conceptual understanding and learnin g dispositions of undergraduate physics students about Atomic
and Nuclear Physics and to fill this identified gap, scaffolding was adopted as a cognitive load reduction
strategy. Consistent with the foregoing, this study specifically sought to answer the following questions.
1. What prior conceptual understanding do undergraduate physics students hold on Atomic and
Nuclear Physics concepts?
2. What is the effect of scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy on undergraduate physics
students' conceptual understanding of Atomic and Nuclear Physics?
3. Does scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy enhance undergraduate physics students’
factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognition knowledge of Atomic and Nuclear Physics?
4. How does scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy enhance undergraduate physics
students' learning disposition towards Atomic and Nuclear Physics?

Method

Research Design
The researcher employed a one-group pre-test-post-test quasi-experimental design. In this type
of quasi-experimental design, as proposed by Reichardt (2019) and presented in Table 1, the researcher
measures the outcome of interest twice, once before and once after exposing a non-randomised group
of participants to a certain intervention or treatment.

Table 1. The One-Group Pretest-Post-test Design

O X O
Pre-intervention measurement Intervention Post-intervention measurement

With this adopted design, pre-intervention measures were conducted using baseline assessment
instruments. This measure was intended to establish the prior conceptual understanding of Atomic and
Nuclear Physics by the research participants and their learning dispositions towards Atomic and
Nuclear Physics. Following this phase, the treatment was introduced, which was scaffolding as a
cognitive load reduction strategy, and a subsequent postintervention measurement that measured
participants' conceptual understanding as well as participants' factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognition knowledge in Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The last measure was the participants' new
learning dispositions toward Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

Measures
Three research instruments—a baseline assessment test, an Atomic and Nuclear Physics Test,
and Learning Dispositions about Atomic and Nuclear Physics—were used for the data collection for the
study.

196
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Baseline Assessment Test

The baseline assessment consisted of four open-ended items comprising concepts from Atomic
and Nuclear Physics, namely electron transition and radioactivity. The baseline assessment instruments
are used to evaluate the conceptual understanding of undergraduate Physics students in Atomic and
Nuclear Physics, especially to answer research question one of this study. The detailed structure of the
baseline assessment instrument is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Baseline Assessment

Concept Questions
Electron A lithium atom emits energy to move from its ground state to an excited state. Explain
Transition whether this statement is true or false.
Explain why an electron in the ground state of hydrogen cannot absorb a photon of energy
less than 13.6 eV for excitation to occur.
Explain why an electron of an atom requires a much greater energy of -12.07 eV to be
excited from the ground state (n=1) to the third energy level (n=3) but another electron of
the same atom requires an energy of -1.88 eV to transition from the second energy level
(n=2) to the third energy level (n=3).
Radioactivity Using the nucleon number, how can you determine if an isotope is radioactive or stable?

Atomic and Nuclear Physics Test

The Atomic and Nuclear Physics Test (ANPT) was used to answer research questions two and
three. ANPT consisted of 25 multiple-choice items on selected concepts in Atomic and Nuclear Physics.
The selected topics included atomic models, energy levels, nuclear stability and radioactivity,
photoelectric effects, as well as wave-particle duality based on PHY 247 (Atomic and Nuclear Physics)
for [Link]. Physics Education at AAMUSTED-M. ANPT items were constructed in line with the revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy as factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge, as seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Atomic and Nuclear Physics Test Specification

Knowledge Questions Sample of the Questions
Factual 1, 2,4, 17, 18, 19, The duality of matter implies that matter…..
and 22 exists as a particle of dual composition
has momentum and energy
has both wave and particle properties
is made up of dual material
Which photon is more energetic: A red one or a violet one?
Both
Red
Violet
Neither
Conceptual 3, 5, 8, 15, 16, Which of the following statements is an assumption of the
Knowledge 21, and 25 radioactive decay law?
Alpha particles are released
Beta particles are released
Charges are not conserved
Mass number is conserved
Why are alkali metals most suitable as photo-sensitive metals?
High frequency
Zero rest mass
High work function
Low work function
Procedural 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, The energy of an electron in the first Bohr’s orbit of a hydrogen atom
Knowledge 13, 14, and 23 is −2.18 × 10−18 J. Its energy in the second orbit will be

197
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Knowledge Questions Sample of the Questions

−1.09 × 10−19 J
−4.36 × 10−19 J
−5.45 × 10−19 J
−8.72 × 10−19 J
Meta-cognition 7, 20, and 24 The energy of an electron in the first Bohr orbit of hydrogen is
Knowledge −13.6 𝑒𝑉. The possible energy value(s) of the excited state(s) for the
electron in the Bohr orbits of hydrogen is
−10.2 𝑒𝑉
−3.4 𝑒𝑉
−1.51 𝑒𝑉
−0.85 𝑒𝑉
I only
I and II only
I, II, and III
II, III, and IV

The ANPT items were validated using expert judgement by drawing experts from the
AAMUSTED-M campus. The test-retest reliability analysis using second-year Chemistry students of the
same campus who were doing similar course content revealed Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients
of 0.76, which was interpreted as a very satisfactory level of acceptance.

Learning Dispositions about Atomic and Nuclear Physics

The Atomic and Nuclear Physics Learning Disposition Survey assesses undergraduate physics
students’ learning dispositions regarding atomic and nuclear physics. The participants responded to
each of the 7 items by selecting one of the following responses: strongly agree (4), agree (4), disagree
(2), or strongly disagree (1). Negatively worded items were scored in reverse: strongly disagree (1),
disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4). Accordingly, negative questionnaire items 2, 3, and 6
were scored inversely to produce consistent values between positively and negatively worded items.
That is, it would produce high scores for those high and low scores for those low in the Atomic and
Nuclear Physics learning disposition. The minimum score on the scale is 1, and the maximum score is
28. Table 4 presents the detailed structure of the Atomic and Nuclear Physics learning disposition
survey.

Table 4. Atomic and Nuclear Physics Learning Disposition Survey

S/N Learning Item
Dispositions
1 Interest I am interested in learning about atomic and nuclear physics.
2 Frustration While learning Atomic and Nuclear Physics, I felt frustrated.
3 Learning boredom I become bored when studying Atomic and Nuclear Physics.
4 Study management I usually study in places where I can concentrate.
5 Learning enjoyment I enjoy the challenge of learning about atomic and nuclear physics.
6 Learning I feel hopeless when studying Atomic and Nuclear Physics.
hopelessness
7 Learning persistence When studying atomic and nuclear physics, I keep going over and over until I
understand them.

Participants
A total of 20 intact-class undergraduate physics students participated in this study. Participants
were selected from students from Akenten Appiah-Menkah University of Skills and Entrepreneurial
Skills and Development in the academic year group 2022-2023. The respondents were between the
ages of 18 and 26, with a standard deviation of 1.23 years. Because the one-group design was adopted,
all participants were subjected to the same treatment of using scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction

198
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

strategy to teach Atomic and Nuclear Physics to undergraduate students. The participants were assured
of the anonymity of any information they provided. Therefore, pseudonyms were used in the study.

Research Procedure
The main principle of cognitive load theory is that when teachers align their instruction with
students’ cognitive structures, students’ learning will improve (Sweller, 2020). The premise is that
students have a working memory that can hold only a certain amount of knowledge for a limited period
and an infinite long-term memory. Therefore, purposeful integration and preservation of knowledge in
students’ long-term memory can help them function beyond their limited working memory with the
correct scaffold intervention from an experienced person. Sweller subsequently proposed seven
scaffolding effects that teachers can apply to help reduce their students’ cognitive load, including the
worked examples effect, self-explanation effect, completion problems effect, and goal-free effect.
Other effects include variability, imagination, and the collective working memory effect. Five of the
scaffolding effects proposed by Sweller were adapted for this study. Figure 1. presents a detailed
description of the effects of the adapted scaffolds used, including the researcher’s role and that of the
students.

Data Analysis
The set of data collected was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative
part was analysed using SPSS version 23, where paired sample t-text, effect size analysis, percentages,
and graphs were employed to analyse research questions two and three. The qualitative data analysis
was done to solicit undergraduate Physics students' prior conceptual understanding and their learning
dispositions about Atomic and Nuclear Physics to answer research questions one and four. In this regard,
the students' explanations and views on some selected concepts in Atomic and Nuclear Physics and
their learning dispositions about Atomic and Nuclear Physics through a semi-structured interview were
sorted, coded, and categorised. To reveal their prior conceptual understanding and learning disposition,
students’ responses to the semi-structured interview questions were analysed under themes and
categories.

199
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

• The researcher led students through work examples by providing a full solution to a
problem.
• The worked example effect focussed on the students’ attention on the procedure
required to solve a particular example.
Worked • The worked example helped students to induce generalised procedures in solving a
Example Effect particular problem.

• The researcher guided students to respond to prompts that required them to explain
the process and methods used to solve a particular problem.
• The self-explanation effects enabled students to carefully study the worked example for
Self-Explanation future applications.
Effect

• The researcher provided partially completed problems to complete them.

• The amount of work on the related partially completed examples was varied to reduce
the cognitive load of the students.
Completion • The application of the completed problem effect forms a bridge between worked
Problem Effect examples and similar problems.

•To help students visualise or mentally practice an idea or a problem, the researcher
used the imagination effect.
•Students completed the stage of the imagination effect once they had a firm grasp of
Imagination the Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts and principles they had studied.
Effect

•Students had the chance to work together on a challenging assignment or project on

Atomic and Nuclear Physics.
•The ability to pool several limited working memories into a single information
Collective processing and storing system for future applications was made possible for students
Working by the collective working effect.
Memory Effect

Figure 1. Atomic and Nuclear Physics Teaching and Learning Scaffolding Activities

Results and Discussion

Students’ Prior Conceptual Understanding of Atomic and Nuclear Physics Concepts

To assess the respondents’ prior conceptual understanding of Atomic and Nuclear Physics
concepts, 8 respondents labelled A-H were selected through a systematic sampling from the 20
undergraduate participants used for the study. Their responses to the selected questions asked on
Atomic and Nuclear Physics revealed that the respondents before the introduction of scaffolding as a
cognitive load reduction strategy had an incorrect, partial, and no understanding of the questions asked
on some selected concepts in Atomic and Nuclear Physics. Their responses to the various questions are
presented as follows:
Researcher: A lithium atom emits energy to move from its ground state to an excited state.
Explain whether this statement is true or false.

200
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Expected answer: Before a lithium atom makes a transition from the ground state to an
excited state, the Lithium atom must absorb energy. Therefore, the statement is false.
Student A’s response:
“The statement is true. This is because, at ground state, the atom possesses a greater
amount of energy than expected. Therefore, the lithium atom must give out some energy
before it can move from a lower energy level to a higher energy level”.
Student A response revealed incorrect knowledge concerning the answer to question one. A
careful analysis of student A’s response reveals that the student misunderstood the concept of ground
state and excited state.
Student B’s response:
“The statement is a false statement. This is because, the lithium atom naturally is unstable.
Therefore, to move from its ground state to an excited state, it must absorb energy”.
However, student B demonstrated partial knowledge of the answer to question one. Student B
identified the statement as a false statement; however, the student confused the electron configuration
of lithium with the energy level of the electrons of lithium.
Researcher: Explain why an electron in the ground state of hydrogen cannot absorb a
photon of energy less than 13.6 eV for excitation to occur.
Expected response: For an electron to move from the ground state to a higher energy level,
it must absorb a photon of energy that is equal to the energy difference between the two
levels. If the photon’s energy is less than 13.6 eV, the electron will not be able to absorb it
and move to a higher energy level. If the photon’s energy is greater than 13.6 eV, the
electron can absorb it, and it will excite to a higher energy level.
Student C’s response:
“13.6 eV is an energy limit for all energy transitions within the hydrogen atom. Therefore,
once the energy absorbed is less than 13.6 eV, the electron cannot move from the ground
state to an excited state”.
Student C demonstrated partial knowledge about answering question two. The fact that the
energy threshold of 13.6 eV precisely relates to the energy differential between the ground
state and the first excited state was overlooked by Student C.
Student D’s response:
“The electron cannot absorb energy less than 13.6 eV because it cannot reach a higher
energy level”.
Student D's response also revealed wrong knowledge in answering question two. Student D
assumed that the electron in the hydrogen atom is fixed. Therefore, from the student’s response, no
amount of energy could cause the electron to be excited.
Researcher: Explain why an electron of an atom requires a much greater energy of -12.07
eV to be excited from the ground state (𝑛 = 1) to the third energy level (𝑛 = 3) but another
electron of the same atom requires an energy of -1.88 eV to transition from the second
energy level (𝑛 = 2) to the third energy level (𝑛 = 3).
Expected response: The ground state of an atom is the lowest energy level where the atom
is most stable. The electron located in the ground state therefore requires that a greater
amount of energy be absorbed to move it electron from the ground state to the third
allowed state. However, as one moves up the energy levels, stability reduces. As a result,
the energy required for the transition from 𝑛 = 2 to 𝑛 = 3 is comparatively lower than that
for the 𝑛 = 1 to 𝑛 = 3.
Student E’s response:
“The distance between the electron in the second energy level and the third energy level is
shorter compared to the distance between the ground state and the third energy level. As a
result, the electron in the ground state will require greater energy than the electron in the
second energy level”.
The response from student E revealed that the student demonstrated incorrect knowledge
regarding item 3. One could decipher from the student’s response that the student mistakenly believed
that energy levels are evenly spaced or linear in their distribution. Student E thought the energy
required for each successive level should increase by a consistent amount, leading to an incorrect

201
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

understanding of why the energy jump from 𝑛 = 1 to 𝑛 = 2 is significantly larger than the jump from
𝑛 = 2 to 𝑛 = 3.
Student F’s response:
“Since the electron in the ground state is located at the last energy level, it will require a
greater amount of energy to excite it to the third energy level, compared to the electron in
the second energy level”.
Also, the response from student F to item 3 revealed that the student demonstrated partial
knowledge. Student F failed to add that the electron is located at the last energy level, making the atom
stable, which will require a greater amount of energy to excite the electron compared to the electron
in the second energy level, which is located at an unstable energy level.
Researcher: Using the nucleon number, how can you determine if an isotope is radioactive
or stable?
Expected response: Isotopes with a balanced neutron-to-proton ratio are more likely to be
stable, while those with an imbalance in this ratio tend to be radioactive.
Student G’s response:
“Isotopes with less neutron-proton ratio are more radioactive than isotopes with high
neutron-proton ratio”.
Student G’s response to question four revealed that the student demonstrated incorrect
knowledge. The student rather answered in the opposite.
Student H’s response:
“The greater the number of nucleons in an isotope, the more stable the isotope and the less
radioactive the isotope”
Student H also demonstrated no knowledge in answering question four. The student showed no
knowledge of neutron-proton ratio in determining the stability of an isotope.
The findings of the study showed that undergraduate Physics students demonstrated “incorrect
knowledge”, “partial knowledge” and “no knowledge” in Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts.
Previous findings such as those of the studies of Im and Kim (2014), Ejigu (2014), as well as Muhakeya
and Maseko (2022), found that undergraduate and pre-service teachers had incorrect knowledge about
concepts of Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

Effect of scaffolding as cognitive reduction strategy Conceptual Understanding

This research question was analysed using paired samples t-test with pre and post-test scores of
Atomic and Nuclear Physics Knowledge Tests. Table 5 presents the results of the paired-sample t-test
with an effect size value on conceptual understanding before and after the introduction of scaffolding
as a cognitive reduction strategy.

Table 5. Paired Sample Test Results with Effect Size

Variable Group M SD MD SD-MD df t p 𝜼𝟐
Pre-test score One 6.12 0.38 7.22 0.31 19 -12.96 0.03 0.79
Post-test score 13.34 0.23
N=20, p<.05; M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; MD: Mean difference; & SD-MD: Standard deviation of mean
difference.

The results shown in Table 5 show a statistically significant difference between the post-test
score (M = 13.34, SD = 0.23) and the pre-test score (M = 6.12, SD = 0.38); t (19) = -12.96, p < 0.05, 95%
CI [32.50, 41.15]. Also, the overall mean score increases by 7.22 with a slightly smaller spread in
standard deviation (SD = 0.31). This indicates that the mean increase in undergraduate physics
student's overall conceptual understanding of Atomic and Nuclear Physics after the introduction of
scaffolding as a cognitive reduction strategy can be considered significant by the Sig (2-tailed) value of
0.03 and a large effect size value of 0.79 (Cohen et al., 2018).
The finding represents that the utilisation of scaffolding as a cognitive load strategy in the
teaching and learning of Atomic and Nuclear Physics increased [Link]. Physics Education students’
comprehension and mastery of concepts, demonstrating improved conceptual understanding of

202
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

undergraduate Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts. Researchers such as Alake and Ogunseemi (2013),
Alrawili et al. (2015), Joda (2019), Mohammed (2019), and Bileya et al. (2021), in agreement with this
study, found the use of scaffolding as an effective instructional strategy to enhance students’ academic
performance in science, which can be extrapolated to mean enhanced conceptual understanding.

Factual Knowledge, Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, and Meta-Cognition

Knowledge
This research question assesses participants’ factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-
cognition knowledge in Atomic and Nuclear Physics before and after the integration of scaffolding into
CLT. Pre-test frequency counts and post-test frequency counts of each question of the ANPT were
converted into percentages and used to answer this research question.
In the ANPT factual knowledge domain, undergraduate physics students’ knowledge of
terminology and specific details about Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts is assessed. The factual
knowledge items of the ANPT, as presented in Figure 2, were 1, 2, 4, 17, 18, 19, and 22. The item pre-
test frequency counts ranged from 3.00 to 10.00, with corresponding percentages between 15.00%
and 50.00% and an overall percentage of 31.43% for the pre-test. In addition, the frequency counts of
the post-test items ranged from 14.00 to 16.00, with corresponding percentages between 70.00% and
80.00% and an overall percentage of 75.71%. These results indicate that the participants improved
their factual knowledge of atomic and nuclear physics after the integration of scaffolding into CLT.

ITEM 22 50 80
ITEM 19 30 75
ITEM 18 35 70
ITEM 17 15 80
ITEM 4 35 80
ITEM 2 30 75
ITEM 1 25 70

Pre-test Post-test

Figure 2. Pre-test and Post-test Percentage Distribution of Factual Knowledge Items

The conceptual knowledge domain of the ANPT assesses the knowledge of undergraduate
physics students about classification, category principles, generalisations, theories, models, and
structures of Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts. The conceptual knowledge items of the ANPT as
presented in Figure 3 were 3, 5, 8, 15, 16, 21, and 25. The item pre-test frequency counts ranged from
5.00 to 11.00, with corresponding percentages between 25% and 55% and an overall percentage of
40.00% for the pretest. Similarly, the frequency counts of the post-test items ranged from 12 to 17,
with corresponding percentages between 45% and 75% and an overall percentage of 74.28%. The
results indicate that the participants have improved their conceptual knowledge of Atomic and Nuclear
Physics after the integration of scaffolding into CLT.

203
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

ITEM 25 55 80
ITEM 21 50 85
ITEM 16 45 80
ITEM 15 25 70
ITEM 8 35 65
ITEM 5 30 60
ITEM 3 40 80

Pre-test Post-test

Figure 3. Pre-test and Post-test Percentage Distribution of Conceptual Knowledge Items

The procedural knowledge domain of the ANPT assesses the knowledge of undergraduate
physics students about subject-specific methods and the criteria to determine when to use appropriate
procedures of the concepts of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. Procedural Knowledge items of the ANPT
as presented in Figure 4 were 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 23. The procedural knowledge item pre-test
frequency counts ranged from 4.00 to 12.00, with corresponding percentages between 20% and 60%
and an overall percentage of 41.88 % for the pre-test. Also, the frequency counts of the post-test items
of the post-test items ranged from 12 to 17, with corresponding percentages between 60% and 85 %
and an overall percentage of 75.00%. These results indicate that the participants have improved their
procedural knowledge of Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts used for the study after the integration
of scaffolding into CLT.

ITEM 23 55 65
ITEM 14 50 60
ITEM 13 60 80
ITEM 12 45 85
ITEM 11 35 70
ITEM 10 20 75
ITEM 9 40 85
ITEM 6 30 80

Pre-test Post-test

Figure 4. Pre-test and Post-test Percentage Distribution of Procedural Knowledge Items

The meta-cognition knowledge domain of the ANPT measures the metacognition knowledge of
undergraduate physics students’ knowledge about cognitive tasks, including contextual and conditional
knowledge of Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts. Meta-cognition knowledge items of the ANPT as
presented in Figure 5 were 7, 20 and 24. The meta-cognition knowledge item pre-test frequency counts
ranged from 6.00 to 8.00, with corresponding percentages between 30.00 % and 40.00 % and an overall
percentage of 35.00 % for the pre-test. Also, the frequency counts of the post-test items ranged from
14 to 16, with corresponding percentages between 70.00% and 80 % and an overall percentage of
75.00%. These results can be interpreted as indicating that the participants have improved their meta-
cognition Knowledge of Atomic and Nuclear Physics concepts used for the study after the integration
of scaffolding into CLT.

204
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

ITEM 24 30 70

ITEM 20 35 80

ITEM 7 40 Pre-test Post-test 75

Figure 5. Pre-test and Post-test Percentage Distribution of Meta-cognition Knowledge Items

this findings on students’ factual, procedural, conceptual, and meta-cognition knowledge,

researchers including Wang et al. (2021), Midun et al. (2020), and Abdul-Aziz (2016) found the use of
scaffolding to enhance student metacognitive and procedural knowledge. Ahmad et al., (2019) posit
that scaffolding gives students the organised help, direction, and clarity they need to approach
problems methodically, fostering comprehension, developing abilities, and instilling the self-assurance
required for academic achievement. Furthermore, in the view of Ahmad et al. (2019), using real-world
examples and models of concepts and problem-solving techniques helps decrease the cognitive stress
and uncertainty related to abstract or new tasks.

Physics Students’ Learning Dispositions Towards Atomic and Nuclear Physics

The effectiveness of using scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy on the learning
dispositions of undergraduate Physics students toward Atomic and Nuclear Physics was examined both
quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative part was descriptively analysed by examining the
responses of the pre-and post-learning disposition of the respondents from the questionnaire. The
results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the Learning Disposition with Effect Size

Learning Disposition Pre-Survey Post-Survey Effect Size Effect Size
Domain M SD M SD 𝜼𝟐 Interpretation
Interest 1.19 0.91 2.85 1.11 1.63 Large
Frustration 2.81 1.23 1.98 1.20 0.68 Medium
Learning Boredom 2.57 0.78 2.00 1.89 0.68 Medium
Study Management 2.01 1.23 3.01 1.32 0.92 Large
Learning enjoyment 1.89 0.17 2.98 1.07 0.95 Large
Hopelessness 2.10 1.23 1.52 1.45 0.43 Small
Learning Persistence 1.11 1.90 3.45 2.00 1.19 Large
Overall 1.95 1.06 2.54 1.13 0.93 Large
𝑀 = 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛, 𝑆𝐷 = 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝜂 2 = 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑡

In the pre-survey analysis on the learning disposition domains, the mean scores of the
items ranged from 1.11 to 2.81, with an overall mean score of 1.95 (SD = 1.06). These results can be
interpreted to indicate that undergraduate physics students used for the study had a negative learning
disposition towards the learning of Atomic and Nuclear Physics before the introduction of scaffolding
as a cognitive load reduction strategy. However, post-survey analysis revealed that the mean scores of
the elements range between 1.52 and 3.45, with an average mean score of 2.54 (SD = 1.13), suggesting
that the undergraduate physics students used for the study have developed a positive learning
disposition towards Atomic and Nuclear Physics after the introduction of the scaffold as a cognitive
load reduction strategy. The positive learning disposition developed is also supported by the calculated
large effect size value, η2 = 0.93 (Cohen et al., 2018).

205
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

The opinions of the students after the use of scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy
were also solicited to provide a complete understanding of their dispositions towards the teaching and
learning of concepts of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. In this regard, the researcher asked the
respondents, selected through a systematic sampling from the 20 undergraduate physics students and
labelled as A-H for a face-to-face interview. The respondents were asked to briefly explain a learning
experience that they felt had a particularly significant or influential outcome during the teaching and
learning of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The researcher also asked the respondents to explain the
difficulties they encountered, their approach, how they maintained their motivation as they studied,
and how they were able to accomplish the learning objectives. The results of the face-to-face interview
are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. The results of the Face-to-Face Interview

Respondent Response Identified Learning
Disposition
A The real-life examples helped me to understand the practical Interest
applications of X-rays and the photoelectric effect. For instance, I
understood that the shorter wavelength of X-rays makes it
possible for them to be used as a diagnostic tool in medicine to
detect fractures of bones and foreign bodies like bullets and
stones in the body. My interest in these topics was piqued by the
sufficient process of reducing difficult problems into manageable
steps, even though it was initially difficult.
B The use of conceptual analogies to relate carbon dating Learning enjoyment
phenomena to everyday experiences made the subject more
enjoyable. Making links between unfamiliar situations and
abstract concepts made it easier for me to understand the details
of carbon dating, and I now enjoy seeing those connections.
C These strategies used to teach Atomic and Nuclear Physics have Study Management
encouraged autonomous learning. The resources and guidance
provided during the learning process empowered me to explore
additional materials and deepen my understanding of half-life
independently. It is like I have developed a toolkit for tackling
similar complex scenarios regarding half-life on my own. For
instance, I can determine the half-life of substance using
0.693
N=NO e−λt to find the decay into T1 = .
2 λ
D Now using these strategies has helped me understand that Learning hopelessness
learning is a process, and it is okay not to grasp everything
immediately. Breaking down the material into smaller,
manageable parts allowed me to focus on mastering one concept
at a time, reducing the sense of hopelessness.
E These techniques you used helped break down the challenges of Learning persistence
solving carbon dating problems using the decay law into
manageable steps. For example, I can determine the original
amount of a substance after it has decayed for some time. I can
also determine the age of a substance, all by rearranging the
equation N=NO e−λt . Instead of feeling overwhelmed, I could
focus on one concept at a time, which motivated me to persist
and gradually build a solid understanding of the subject.
F The regular feedback allowed me to address my misconceptions Frustration
and errors early on. Previously I exchanged the meaning of
nuclear fusion for nuclear fission, especially when solving
problems regarding applications of fission and fusion. Getting
prompt feedback on my understanding helped prevent
frustration from escalating. It turned mistakes into opportunities
for learning and improvement.

206
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Respondent Response Identified Learning

Disposition
G The collaborative nature of lectures in atomic and nuclear Boredom
physics, especially when working with peers in discussions, made
the learning experience more interactive. Sharing ideas, debating
concepts, and learning from each other kept me interested and
prevented the monotony that could come with studying alone.

Supporting the findings presented in Tables 6 and 7, researchers such as Annisa and Sutapa (2019)
and Weinstein and Preiss (2017) stated that the use of scaffolding increases students’ interest and
further said that scaffolding improves students’ learning autonomy. In this study, participants
articulated that the use of the scaffolding strategy encourages them to take charge of their learning.
This aspect of the finding is consistent with Cardullo et al. (2018), who acknowledged that the
application of scaffolding in the classroom provides a structured framework. This structured framework
subsequently reduces students' feelings of overwhelm and promotes a sense of competence and
achievement by breaking down difficult activities into manageable steps.

Conclusion
This study examines the effectiveness of scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy in
the teaching and learning context of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. The baseline assessment revealed
that the majority of the [Link]. Physics Education students had difficulties relative to Atomic and Nuclear
Physics concepts. However, after employing scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy,
undergraduate physics used for the study's conceptual understanding of Atomic and Nuclear Physics
was enhanced.
Similarly, the factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognition knowledge of undergraduate
physics students was enhanced after using scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy. Also, both
quantitative and qualitative measures revealed that the use of scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction
helps undergraduate physics students develop positive learning dispositions towards the teaching and
learning of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. Based on these findings, the author concludes that using
scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy effectively promotes the teaching and learning of
Atomic and Nuclear Physics in the context of undergraduate physics studies.

Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that undergraduate physics lecturers
consider the use of scaffolding to reduce the cognitive load of students, which increases their
conceptual understanding of the teaching and learning of Atomic and Nuclear Physics. Additionally, in
an attempt to change students’ learning dispositions, it is recommended that undergraduate physics
lecturers employ scaffolding as a cognitive load reduction strategy in the teaching and learning of
Atomic and Nuclear Physics.

References
Abdul-Aziz, T. (2016). The Effect of metacognitive instructional method on eleventh-grade students’ metacognitive
skill and mathematical procedural and conceptual knowledge [Ph.D. - Doctoral Program]. Middle East
Technical University.
Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2023). Students’ Perceptions of a “Feminised” Physics Curriculum. Research in Science
Education, 53(6), 1163-1183.
Ahmad, N., Jumaat, N. F., Samah, N. A., Ashari, Z. M., Abdullah, A. H., & Ali, D. F. (2019). The effect of
metacognitive scaffolding framework towards students’ performance. International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering, 7(65), 1584-1593.
Alake, E. M., & Ogunseemi, O. E. (2013). Effects of Scaffolding Strategy on Learners’ Academic Achievement in
Integrated Science at the Junior Secondary School Level. European Scientific Journal, 9(19), 149–155.

207
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Alrawili, K. S., Osman, K., & Almuntasheri, S. (2015). Scaffolding Strategies on Higher-Order Thinking Skills in
Science Classroom. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(5), 718–729.
Annisa, A., & Sutapa, P. (2019). Scaffolding Strategies to Increase Children's Science Interest. International
Conference on Special and Inclusive Education, 296, 279–284. [Link]
Bileya, S. G., Aliyu, S., & Bulus, T. C. (2021). Effect of Instructional Scaffolding on Physics Students’ Achievement
in Secondary Schools in Taraba State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 7(9),
14–22.
Cardoso, P. S. S., Nunes, M. C. S., Silva, G. P. S., Braghittoni, L. S., & Trindade, N. M. (2020). Conceptions of High
School Students on Atomic Models, Radiation and Radioactivity. Physics Education, 55(3), 1–8.
[Link]
Cardullo, V. M., Wilson, N. S., & Zygouris-Coe, V. I. (2018). Enhanced student engagement through active learning
and emerging technologies. Student engagement and participation: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and
applications, 399-417.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed). Routledge.
Dowd, J. E., Thompson Jr, R. J., Schiff, L., Haas, K., Hohmann, C., Roy, C., ... & Reynolds, J. A. (2019). Student
learning dispositions: Multidimensional profiles highlight important differences among undergraduate
STEM honors thesis writers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2).
Ejigu, M. A. (2014). Conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics: An investigation into physics students'
depictions of the basic concepts of quantum mechanics (Doctoral dissertation).
Elbanowska-ciemuchowska, S., & Giembicka, M. A. (2011). How to Stimulate Students’ Interest in Nuclear Physics.
US-China Education Review, 5(1), 678–687.
Hachiya, M., & Akashi, M. (2016). Lessons learned from the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power
plant—more than basic knowledge: education and its effects improve the preparedness and response to
radiation emergency. Radiation protection dosimetry, 171(1), 27-31.
Hon, Y. P. (2022). 5 Applications of Nuclear Physics Students Should Know About. Retrieved from
[Link]
Im, S., & Kim, J. (2014). Comparison of Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Classical and
Quantum Mechanics. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 64(1), 56-65.
Joda, F. M. (2019). Effects of Instructional Scaffolding Strategy on Senior Secondary Biology Students’ Academic
Achievement and Retention in Taraba State, Nigeria. The Asian Institute of Research, 2(2), 269–275.
[Link]
Jóźwik, R. (2017). The Use of Nuclear Energy for Military and Civilian Purposes Safety in the Nuclear Power
Industry. Journal of Science of the Military Academy of Land Forces, 49(3), 106–123.
[Link]
Kirby, John R. & Lawson, Michael J. (eds.) (2012). Enhancing the Quality of Learning: Dispositions, Instruction, and
Learning Processes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp.251–275.
Likourezos, V., & Kalyuga, S. (2017). Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: Alternative pathways
to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science, 45, 195-219.
Main, P. (2022). Cognitive Load Theory: A teacher’s Guide. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/post/cognitive-load-theory-a-teachers-guide
McIsaac, J. (2019) What is ‘Scaffolding’ in Teaching? A Simple Explanation. Retrieved from
[Link]
Mcleod, S. (2023). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and scaffolding. Simple Psychology.
Midun, H., Bule, O., & Rorimpandey, W. H. (2020). The effect of scaffolding on assignment quality and procedural
learning achievement. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), (22), 143-
157.
Mohammed, A. A. (2019). Effect of Scaffolding Strategy on Biology Student’s Academic Achievement in Senior
Secondary School. International Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 2(5), 35–47.
Muhakeya, A., & Maseko, B. (2022). Students Alternative Conceptions in Quantum Mechanics: The Case of One-
Dimensional Potential Quantum Tunneling. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and
Sciences, 18(2), 55–77.

208
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 8(2), 2024, 194-209

Mulvahill, E. (2023). 10 ways to scaffold learning. Retrieved from [Link] .com/ways-to-

scaffold-learning/
Pečiuliauskienė, P. (2023). Instructional clarity in physics lessons: Students’ motivation and self-
confidence. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2236463.
Rathore, R. (2016). Surveying students' misconceptions and understanding in nuclear physics. Journal of Applied
Physics, 8(1), 7-10.
Reichardt, C. S. (2019). Quasi-experimentation: A guide to design and analysis. Guilford Publications.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 68(1), 1-16.
Wang, H. S., Chen, S., & Yen, M. H. (2021). Effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ performance and
confidence judgments in simulation-based inquiry. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2),
020108.
Weinstock, M., Kienhues D., Feucht F. C., Ryan M. (2017). Informed reflexivity: Enacting epistemic
virtue. Educational Psychologist, (4), 284–298.
Weinstein, S., & Preiss, D. (2017). Scaffolding to Promote Critical Thinking and Learner Autonomy Among Pre-
Service Education Students. Journal of Education and Training, 4(1), 69–87.
[Link]
Williams, H., Lewis, P., & Aghlani, S. (2015). The Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Initiative: The'big
Tent'in Disarmament. London: Chatham House.

209