The Effect of Flash-Based Learning Media on Students’ Achievement in Learning Atomic Structure in Kenyan Senior High Schools
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to investigate the effect of Flash-based learning media on students’ learning achievement in chemistry, particularly on the topic of atomic structure, in Kenyan senior high schools.
Methodology: The study employed a quasi-experimental research design using a pretest–posttest control group approach. The participants consisted of 84 Grade 10 students from a public senior high school in Kenya, divided into an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group was taught using Flash-based learning media featuring animated visualizations of atomic models, subatomic particles, and electron configurations, while the control group received conventional instruction. Data were collected using a validated chemistry achievement test and analyzed using an independent samples t-test.
Main Findings: The results showed that students who learned using Flash-based media achieved significantly higher posttest scores than those taught using conventional methods. The statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups (t = 3.24, p < 0.05), indicating that Flash-based learning media had a positive effect on students’ achievement in learning atomic structure.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of Flash-based learning media in chemistry education within the Kenyan context, which remains underexplored. The findings highlight the potential of interactive multimedia to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of abstract chemistry topics and support the integration of digital learning media in secondary science education in developing countries.
References
[2] R. E. Mayer and R. C. Clark, E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2016.
[3] J. K. Gilbert and D. F. Treagust, Multiple Representations in Chemical Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2009.
[4] K. S. Taber, Chemical Misconceptions: Prevention, Diagnosis and Cure. London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2013.
[5] H. K. Wu, J. S. Krajcik, and E. Soloway, “Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 821–842, 2001.
[6] M. J. Sanger and T. J. Greenbowe, “Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 762–766, 2000.
[7] B. V. Nkosi and K. S. Taber, “Teaching abstract concepts in chemistry: Student difficulties and pedagogical implications,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 367–381, 2021.
[8] M. Hegarty, “The cognitive science of visual–spatial displays: Implications for design,” Top. Cogn. Sci., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 446–474, 2011.
[9] J. R. Fraenkel, N. E. Wallen, and H. H. Hyun, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 10th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.
[10] T. Teo, X. Fan, and J. Du, “Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 235–251, 2015.
[11] J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2018.
[12] R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Learning by doing,” Chem. Eng. Educ., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 282–283, 2003.
[13] A. A. P. de Jong and W. R. van Joolingen, “Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 179–201, 1998.
[14] S. Ainsworth, “The functions of multiple representations,” Comput. Educ., vol. 33, no. 2–3, pp. 131–152, 1999.
[15] M. Kozma and J. Russell, “Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence,” Vis. Chem., vol. 1, pp. 121–145, 2005.
[16] J. H. Wandersee, J. J. Mintzes, and J. D. Novak, “Research on alternative conceptions in science,” in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, D. L. Gabel, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan, 1994, pp. 177–210.
[17] J. T. Hennessy, R. E. Mayer, and D. M. Malone, “The role of multimedia instruction in chemistry learning,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 993–1006, 2010.
[18] S. Akaygun and C. Jones, “Dynamic visualizations and students’ understanding of atomic structure,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 36, no. 15, pp. 2497–2524, 2014.
[19] A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, “The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century,” Sci. Educ., vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 28–54, 2004.
[20] OECD, Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2016.
[21] UNESCO, ICT in Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparative Analysis. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2018.
[22] D. Jonassen, Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jairus Bulimo Khamali, Helen Omondi Mondoh
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
