Cognitive Conflict Strategy for Solving Misconceptions in Physics Learning: A Meta-Analysis Study (2019-2026)
Abstract
Physics misconceptions persist due to entrenched intuitive reasoning, yet quantitative evidence on cognitive conflict interventions across educational levels remains scarce. This meta-analysis synthesizes 27 empirical studies (2019–2026) to evaluate strategy efficacy and developmental variation. Pooled results indicate moderate-to-large overall effects (g = 0.55–0.68; N-Gain = 0.52). Subgroup analysis reveals a developmental gradient: university learners benefited most from structured CCBL models (g > 0.80), leveraging advanced metacognition; secondary students required interactive scaffolding—problem-based modules and simulations yielded medium-to-large effects (g = 0.68–1.13). Findings confirm cognitive conflict effectively dismantles misconceptions, but success depends on developmental calibration and media interactivity. Educators should align conflict-induction strategies with cognitive maturity: theoretical models for higher education, immersive scaffolding for secondary levels. This research aims to offer data-driven insights that provide teachers with a clearer picture of how cognitive conflict strategies can serve as a helpful option in addressing student misconceptions.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Chaos and quantum thermalization
- The Dalton quantum chemistry program system
- Cord Blood Leptin and Adiponectin as Predictors of Adiposity in Children at 3 Years of Age: A Prospective Cohort Study
- Quantitative metabolomics by H-NMR and LC-MS/MS confirms altered metabolic pathways in diabetes
- Stable adiabatic quantum batteries
- A novel self-lipid antigen targets human T cells against CD1c(+) leukemias
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.