Designing L-FEA Worksheets for Alternative Energy Physics: A Teacher Needs Analysis to Support Team-Based Project Learning and Design Thinking

Devi Atmaja; Achmad samsudin; Duden Saepuzaman

doi:10.58797/cser.040102

Authors

Devi Atmaja Department of Physics Education, University of Education, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
Achmad samsudin Department of Physics Education, University of Education, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia
Duden Saepuzaman Department of Physics Education, University of Education, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58797/cser.040102

Keywords:

alternative energy, design thinking, needs analysis , physics worksheets, team-based projects

Abstract

This study aims to identify physics teachers' needs for developing Physics Worksheets on Alternative Energy (L-FEA) integrated with Team-Based Project Learning and a Design Thinking approach. The study employed a quantitative descriptive research design using a survey approach. Data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed via Google Forms to 40 physics teachers from eight cities/regencies across Java Island using purposive sampling. The adapted questionnaire consisted of eight closed- and open-ended questions. The findings revealed that 68% of the teachers considered the development of Physics Worksheets on Alternative Energy to be very necessary, while 27% considered them necessary for classroom learning. Furthermore, 41% of the teachers expected the worksheets to include systematic experimental activities, and 32% emphasized the importance of contextual tasks related to social and environmental issues. Teachers also recommended incorporating authentic projects, contextual problem-solving, and hands-on activities to foster collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. The findings provide an empirical foundation for developing L-FEA that aligns with teachers' needs and supports the implementation of Team-Based Project Learning integrated with a Design Thinking approach. The proposed worksheets are expected to facilitate meaningful physics learning while contributing to the development of interdisciplinary STEAM-oriented instructional materials.

References

Appleton, K. (2007). Elementary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 493–535). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5–6), 23–37.

Bourha, D., Hatzigianni, M., Sidiropoulou, T., & Vitoulis, M. (2026). From blocks to bots: The stem potential of technology-enhanced toys in early childhood education. Behavioral Sciences, 16(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16010161

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Bubiková-Moan, J., Hjetland, H. N., & Wollscheid, S. (2019). ECE teachers’ views on play-based learning: A systematic review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(6), 776–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1678717

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4674-X.

Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in “a roundabout way” in play-based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801953161

Fleer, M. (2021). Conceptual PlayWorlds: The role of imagination in play and learning. Early Years, 41(4), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1549024.

Gangal, M., Çalık, M., & Ozturk, Y. (2026). Effectiveness of early childhood science activities in promoting scientific literacy: A meta-analysis study. Science & Education, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-026-00748-2

Junaedi, E., Cahyani, A., & Prastika, L. R. (2023). Analysis of Science Activities at the Early Childhood Level: A Case Study of Teachers’ Topics and Challenges in Bandung City and Bandung Regency. KIDDO: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Anak Usia Dini, 4(1), 1–13.

Kesner Baruch, Y., Mevarech, Z., & Spektor‐Levy, O. (2025). Preschoolers” scientific curiosity and inquiry capabilities: An ecological research approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 63(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.70019

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.

Mubarok, H., Hwang, G.-J., & Lin, C.-J. (2025). Incorporating spirituality and art factors into interdisciplinary tasks: Project-based STREAM, STEAM, and STEM approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 74(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10571-1

Nirmala, D., & Fitria, N. (2020). Analisis Kemampuan Guru dalam Mengembangkan Pembelajaran Sains AUD Berbasis Pendekatan Saintifik. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 4(2), 765–776.

https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v4i2.469.

Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063

OECD. (2017). Starting Strong V: Early Childhood Education Framework.

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Putri, E.C., & Sugito. (2021).Pola Pembelajaran Sains di Prasekolah. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 6(2), 1062–1074. https://doi.org/10.31004/obsesi.v6i2.1571.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Fleer, M. (2008). Play and learning in early childhood: International perspectives. Springer.

Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-7.

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.717032

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202.

Verma, V., & Babu M, S. (2026). Learning, Unlearning, Relearning Strategies for 21st century learners to tackle the digital learning paradox. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 15(3), 179–210. https://doi.org/10.32674/v2j8aa74

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Worth, K., & Grollman, S. (2003). Worms, shadows, and whirlpools: Science in the early childhood classroom. Heinemann.

Yoon, S. A., Shim, J., Cottone, A., Miller, K., & Noushad, N. (2026). making the case to improve teachers’ stem-integrated content knowledge: an analysis of teachers’ adaptive expertise and impacts on student classroom experiences. International Journal of STEM Education, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-026-00617-y