Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Scopus

54

Citation

Dimension

413

Citation

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Contextual Interactive Multimedia: Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Dynamic Fluid Physics

Siti Robiah Hazan
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
sitirobiahhazan1@gmail.com
Víctor Hugo Velasco Galarza
Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral
Ecuador
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to examine the effect of contextual interactive multimedia on Grade XI students’ learning outcomes in dynamic fluid concepts and determine whether its use produced better learning outcomes than PowerPoint-supported instruction.

    Methodology: A quantitative quasi-experimental method with a pretest–posttest nonequivalent control group design was employed. The participants were 58 Grade XI science students from State Senior High School 3 of South Tangerang City, Indonesia. Data were collected using a 20-item multiple-choice test, observation sheet, and student-response questionnaire. The multimedia was developed using Adobe Flash CS3, AVS Video Editor, and Audio Edit Magic. Data were analyzed using normality, homogeneity, independent-samples t-test, Cohen’s d, and normalized gain.

    Main Findings: The experimental group achieved a higher posttest mean (89.76) than the control group (80.71). The independent-samples t-test showed a significant difference between groups (t = 5.08 > tcritical = 2.003). The intervention produced a large effect (Cohen’s d = 1.12) and a high normalized gain (g = 0.84), compared with g = 0.69 in the control group. Student activity reached 82.33%.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study integrates contextual learning with interactive multimedia specifically for dynamic fluid instruction. Unlike conventional presentation-based media, the developed product combines animation, instructional video, simulation, interactive exercises, contextual problems, and real-life applications within an integrated learning environment, providing an accessible approach to visualizing abstract physics concepts and supporting their application in meaningful contexts.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    S. R. Hazan and V. H. V. Galarza, “Contextual Interactive Multimedia: Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Dynamic Fluid Physics”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 289–299, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i5.3906.

    More Citation Formats

  • 1
    Abstract views
    3
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. T. Bouchée, L. de Putter - Smits, M. Thurlings, and B. Pepin, “Towards a better understanding of conceptual difficulties in introductory quantum physics courses,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 183–202, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2021.1963579.
    2. C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, and M. J. de Vries, “What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 274–297, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2020.1865588.
    3. M. I. Simeon, M. A. Samsudin, and N. Yakob, “Effect of design thinking approach on students’ achievement in some selected physics concepts in the context of STEM learning,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 185–212, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10798-020-09601-1.
    4. T. Nikula, T. Jakonen, and L. Kääntä, “Multimodal practices of unpacking and repacking subject-specific knowledge in CLIL physics and chemistry lessons,” Learn. Instr., vol. 92, p. 101932, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101932.
    5. T. Kokkonen and L. Schalk, “One instructional sequence fits all? A conceptual analysis of the applicability of concreteness fading in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology education,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 797–821, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09581-7.
    6. Y. D. Chashechkin, “Foundations of engineering mathematics applied for fluid flows,” Axioms, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 286, 2021, doi: 10.3390/axioms10040286.
    7. N. Mansour, C. Aras, J. K. Staarman, and S. B. M. Alotaibi, “Embodied learning of science concepts through augmented reality technology,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 8245–8275, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13120-0.
    8. X.-M. Wang, Q.-N. Hu, G.-J. Hwang, and X.-H. Yu, “Learning with digital technology-facilitated empathy: An augmented reality approach to enhancing students’ flow experience, motivation, and achievement in a biology program,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 6988–7004, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2057549.
    9. L. R. Amir, I. Tanti, D. A. Maharani, Y. S. Wimardhani, V. Julia, and B. Sulijaya, “Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02312-0.
    10. L. Kaldaras, H. Akaeze, and J. Krajcik, “Developing and validating Next Generation Science Standards-aligned learning progression to track three-dimensional learning of electrical interactions in high school physical science,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 589–618, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1002/tea.21672.
    11. A.-L. Tan, Y. S. Ong, Y. S. Ng, and J. H. J. Tan, “STEM problem solving: Inquiry, concepts, and reasoning,” Sci. Educ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 381–397, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2.
    12. D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, K. Kamid, and E. Triani, “The influence of generic skills on gender differences in scientific processing and critical thinking in physics motion dynamics,” J. Ilm. Ilmu Terap. Univ. Jambi, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 524–537, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.22437/jiituj.v8i2.37237.
    13. D. T. Brookes, E. Ektina, and G. Planinsic, “Implementing an epistemologically authentic approach to student-centered inquiry learning,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 16, no. 2, p. 20148, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020148.
    14. A. Wıyarsı, H. Pratomo, and E. Prıyambodo, “Vocational high school students’ chemical literacy on context-based learning: A case of petroleum topic,” J. Turkish Sci. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 147–161, 2020, doi: 10.36681/.
    15. Y. Yin, R. Hadad, X. Tang, and Q. Lin, “Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 189–214, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8.
    16. A. Alam and A. Mohanty, “Educational technology: Exploring the convergence of technology and pedagogy through mobility, interactivity, AI, and learning tools,” Cogent Eng., vol. 10, no. 2, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/23311916.2023.2283282.
    17. E. A. Abedi, “Tensions between technology integration practices of teachers and ICT in education policy expectations: Implications for change in teacher knowledge, beliefs and teaching practices,” J. Comput. Educ., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1215–1234, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40692-023-00296-6.
    18. C. Rapanta, L. Botturi, P. Goodyear, L. Guàrdia, and M. Koole, “Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education,” Postdigital Sci. Educ., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 715–742, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1.
    19. M. L. Sümmermann, D. Sommerhoff, and B. Rott, “Mathematics in the digital age: The case of simulation-based proofs,” Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 438–465, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40753-020-00125-6.
    20. S. Hanbay Tiryaki and F. Balaman, “Web 3.0 and the metaverse: Transformative impacts on education,” Int. J. Contemp. Educ. Res., vol. 12, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 102–122, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.52380/ijcer.2025.12.1.756.
    21. V. O. Adeyele, “Relative effectiveness of simulation games, blended learning, and interactive multimedia in basic science achievement of varying ability pupils,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 14451–14470, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12414-z.
    22. C.-Y. Hsu and T.-T. Wu, “Application of business simulation games in flipped classrooms to facilitate student engagement and higher-order thinking skills for sustainable learning practices,” 2023. doi: 10.3390/su152416867.
    23. M. Lui, K.-Y. A. Chong, M. Mullally, and R. McEwen, “Facilitated model-based reasoning in immersive virtual reality: Meaning-making and embodied interactions with dynamic processes,” Int. J. Comput. Collab. Learn., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 203–230, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11412-023-09396-y.
    24. W. Nielsen, A. Turney, H. Georgiou, and P. Jones, “Meaning making with multiple representations: A case study of a preservice teacher creating a digital explanation,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 871–890, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11165-021-10038-2.
    25. C.-Y. Hsu, T.-C. Liu, Y.-C. Lin, C.-Y. Hsu, and F. Paas, “Learning from different multimedia representation formats: Effects of prior knowledge,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 644–658, May 2025, doi: 10.1080/15391523.2023.2288393.
    26. O. Yalçin and F. Sadik, “Examining the cognitive and affective changes in students through the implementation process of the physics curriculum based on an interdisciplinary context-based learning approach,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 54, p. 101672, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101672.
    27. B. Çeken and N. Taşkın, “Multimedia learning principles in different learning environments: A systematic review,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 19, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40561-022-00200-2.
    28. S. Tisoglu, E. Sönmez, K. Y. Kaya, and S. Z. Et, “Bridging pedagogy and technology: A systematic review of immersive virtual reality’s potential in climate change education,” Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 3004–3034, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2480661.
    29. M. Noetel et al., “Multimedia design for learning: An overview of reviews with meta-meta-analysis,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 413–454, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3102/00346543211052329.
    30. A. Muse and J. M. Baldwin, “Quasi-Experimental Research Design,” in The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2021, pp. 307–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119111931.ch61.
    31. H. J. Lee et al., “Effects of scenario-based e-simulation on learning motivation and clinical reasoning in emergency nursing education: A nonequivalent control group pretest–posttest design,” Clin. Simul. Nurs., vol. 119, p. 102057, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2026.102057.
    32. T. Tanti, D. A. Kurniawan, N. Kurniawan, and L. Anggraini, “Attitudes toward science based on analysis and correlation: Learning enjoyment & leisure interest on science,” Form. J. Ilm. Pendidik. MIPA, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.30998/formatif.v11i1.5142.
    33. K. Kamid, R. Rohati, H. Hobri, E. Triani, S. Rohana, and W. A. Pratama, “Process skill and student’s interest for mathematics learning: Playing a traditional games,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 967–988, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.29333/iji.2022.15352a.
    34. F. Wadood, F. Akbar, and I. Ullah, “The importance and essential steps of pilot testing in management studies: a quantitative survey results,” J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Gov., vol. 27, no. 5, p. 2021, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://cibg.org.au/
    35. A. T. Hutcheson and K. G. Brown, “The Independent Samples t-Test BT - Statistics for Psychology Research: A Short Guide Using Excel,” A. T. Hutcheson and K. G. Brown, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 73–92. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-60970-1_5.
    36. K. Okoye and S. Hosseini, “T-test Statistics in R: Independent Samples, Paired Sample, and One Sample T-tests,” in R Programming: Statistical Data Analysis in Research, K. Okoye and S. Hosseini, Eds., Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 159–186. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_8.
    37. K. Kamid, S. Winarni, R. Rohati, W. A. Pratama, and E. Triani, “Student team achievement division learning model and student process skills,” J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar, vol. 6, no. 1 SE-Articles, pp. 1–10, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.23887/jisd.v6i1.42456.
    38. A. Koç and S. Kanadlı, “Effect of interactive learning environments on learning outcomes in science education: A network meta-analysis,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 681–703, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10956-025-10202-7.
    39. H. Faridi, N. Tuli, A. Mantri, G. Singh, and S. Gargrish, “A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in Physics,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 258–273, Jan. 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22342.
    40. S. Cai, C. Liu, T. Wang, E. Liu, and J.-C. Liang, “Effects of learning physics using Augmented Reality on students self‐efficacy and (1).pdf,” 2020.