This study was designed to analyze students' understanding of the concept of vectors and their difficulties after the learning process. In this study, using a mixed-method approach with an embedded experimental. In this study, we recruited 34 students from an Islamic-based public school located in Pasuruan, East Java, Indonesia. They consisted of 20 female students and 14 male students. To collect data, we distributed reasonable multiple-choice questions to participants. The study administered pre-test and post-test to find out students' understanding of vector material. Use formative e-assessments integrated into modelling teaching for learning. This learning is done by developing a distributed model. In addition to learning within the classroom, that support the implementation of formative e-assessments, Google forms were used for online learning. Findings suggest that integrated formative e-assessment in modelling instruction learning significantly increased students' understanding of the concept of vectors with an N-gain of 0.42 and an effect size of 1.871. Our study also documented several difficulties experienced by students after the learning enactment, including difficulties in analyzing the direction, addition, subtraction, components, and unit vectors of a vector. The combination of modelling instruction with formative e-assessment can be an alternative for increasing students' understanding during learning vector concepts.

1.
P.
Barniol
and
G.
Zavala
,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
10
,
1
15
(
2014
).
2.
Y.
Hilmi
and
D.
Usdiyana
, “
An analysis of tenth grade students’ mathematical creative thinking ability in vector
,” in
International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education 2019 (ICMScE 2019, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1521
(
Bandung, Indonesia
,
2020
), pp
1
7
.
3.
A. F.
Heckler
and
T. M.
Scaife
,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
11
,
1
17
(
2015
).
4.
G.
Zavala
and
P.
Barniol
,
AIP Conf. Proc.
1289
,
341
344
(
2010
).
5.
L.
Bollen
,
P.
Van Kampen
,
C.
Baily
,
M.
Kelly
, and
M.
De Cock
,
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
13
,
1
7
(
2017
).
6.
Sutopo
and
B.
Waldrip
,
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
12
,
741
766
(
2014
).
7.
L.
Bollen
,
P.
Van Kampen
, and
M.
De Cock
,
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.
14
,
1
18
(
2018
).
8.
J.
Jackson
,
L.
Dukerich
, and
D.
Hestenes
,
Sci. Educ.
17
,
10
17
(
2005
).
9.
E.
Etkina
,
A.
Warren
, and
M.
Gentile
,
Phys. Teach.
44
,
34
39
(
2006
).
10.
R. E.
Bennett
,
Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract.
18
,
5
25
(
2011
).
11.
F. M.
Van der Kleij
,
R. C. W.
Feskens
, and
T. J. H. M.
Eggen
,
Rev. Educ. Res.
85
,
475
511
(
2015
).
12.
G.
Pla-Campas
,
J.
Arumí-Prat
,
A. M.
Senye-Mir
, and
E.
Ramírez
,
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.
228
,
190
195
, (
2016
).
13.
V.
Villarroel
,
S.
Bloxham
,
D.
Bruna
,
C.
Bruna
, and
C.
Herrera-Seda
,
Assess. Eval. High. Educ.
43
,
840
854
, (
2018
).
14.
M.
Ishtiaq
,
English Lang. Teach.
12
,
40
41
(
2019
).
15.
R. R.
Hake
,
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
64
74
, (
1998
).
16.
G. A.
Morgan
,
K. C.
Barrett
,
N. L.
Leech
, and
G. W.
Gloeckner
,
IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation
(
The Taylor and Francis
,
New York, London
,
2019
), pp.
37
53
.
17.
E.
Brewe
,
L.
Kramer
, and
G.
O'Brien
,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
5
,
1
5
(
2009
).
18.
L. R.
Dennis
,
J. A.
Rueter
, and
C. G.
Simpson
,
Prev. Sch. Fail. Altern. Educ. Child. Youth
57
,
189
195
(
2013
).
19.
L.
Bollen
,
P.
Van Kampen
, and
M.
De Cock
,
Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. Phys. Educ. Res.
11
,
1
14
(
2015
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.