Interactive flipbook-based e-modules and fifth-grade students' learning outcomes in the properties of light: a quasi-experimental study with baseline adjustment

Abstract

Properties of light are difficult for elementary students because the underlying processes can only be observed through their effects, and flipbook-based e-modules are often promoted as a way to make these processes visible. Most evidence for such e-modules, however, comes from development studies and single-group pre-test–post-test comparisons. This study tested whether an interactive flipbook-based e-module produced higher learning outcomes on the properties of light than regular instruction once pre-existing achievement was taken into account. A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test control-group design was used with two intact fifth-grade classes at a public elementary school in Indonesia (N = 22; experimental n = 12, control n = 10). Both classes took the same 0–100 achievement test before and after instruction. The experimental class started 11.92 points higher (Hedges g = 0.73), so the primary analysis was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the pre-test as covariate, supported by permutation, bootstrap, rank-based, and robust sensitivity analyses. Both classes improved substantially, by about 33 and 35 points. After baseline adjustment, the e-module class did not outperform the control class, F(1, 19) = 0.25, p = .626, partial η² = .013; adjusted difference = −3.38 points, 95% CI [−17.65, 10.90], and all sensitivity analyses agreed. The e-module was therefore not superior to regular instruction in this setting, although the small sample cannot exclude moderate effects in either direction. The study also shows that within-group gains and normalised gain can overstate the benefit of digital learning materials when baseline differences between intact classes are ignored.

Keywords
  • elementary science education
  • interactive e-module
  • learning outcomes
  • properties of light
  • quasi-experimental design
References
  1. Abdinejad, M., Talaie, B., Qorbani, H. S., & Dalili, S. (2021). Student perceptions using augmented reality and 3D visualization technologies in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09880-2
  2. Al-Ansi, A. M., Jaboob, M., Garad, A., & Al-Ansi, A. (2023). Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), Article 100532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100532
  3. Alyusfitri, R., Gistituati, N., Yerizon, Fauzan, A., & Yarman. (2024). The effectiveness and relationship of student responses toward learning outcomes using interactive multimedia-based e-modules in elementary schools. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 16(5), 573–584. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/2203
  4. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000
  5. Arina, N., Mustaji, Kholidya, C. F., Rulviana, V., Rapii, M., & Wardana, N. A. D. (2025). The effectiveness of e-module use on the science learning outcomes of sixth-grade primary school students. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(12), 1381–1389. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i12.13593
  6. Bendall, S., Goldberg, F., & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers' prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169–1187. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300912
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students' understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606
  9. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
  10. Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897
  11. Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
  12. Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
  13. Lase, K. S., & Sudarma, I. K. (2023). Interactive e-module based on scientific approach in science content learning for sixth-grade students. MIMBAR PGSD Undiksha, 11(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpgsd.v11i2.64508
  14. Mahmudah, S., Kirana, T., & Rahayu, Y. S. (2022). Profile of students' critical thinking ability: Implementation of e-modul based on problem-based learning. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 3(4), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v3i4.231
  15. Maulidya, S. A., & Zulherman. (2024). 1stFlip flipbook creator-assisted e-module to advance learning quality in elementary schools. International Journal of Elementary Education, 8(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v8i2.78076
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
  17. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312
  18. Métioui, A. (2023). Primary school preservice teachers' alternative conceptions about light interaction with matter (reflection, refraction, and absorption) and shadow size changes on Earth and Sun. Education Sciences, 13(5), Article 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050462
  19. Munzil, M., Affriyenni, Y., Mualifah, S., Fardhani, I., Fitriyah, I. J., & Muntholib, M. (2022). Development of problem based learning based e-modules in the form of flipbooks on environmentally friendly technology materials. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 10(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v10i1.21807
  20. Nissen, J. M., Talbot, R. M., Nasim Thompson, A., & Van Dusen, B. (2018). Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen's d for analyzing gains on concept inventories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), Article 010115. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010115
  21. Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Harris, N. R., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2022). Multimedia design for learning: An overview of reviews with meta-meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 413–454. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211052329
  22. Rohmatin, I. A., Rachmayani, A., & Jumadi, J. (2022). Development of e-module based on flipbook learning model problem based learning (PBL) to improve critical thinking ability. Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 10(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v10i3.13655
  23. Sabil, H., Asrial, A., Syahrial, S., Kiska, N. D., Saputri, J., Damayanti, L., Luthfiah, Q., & Silvia, N. (2023). Problem-based learning flipbook e-module in improving students' critical thinking skills in "Always Save Energy" thematic learning. International Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v7i1.58306
  24. Saralee, A., Fitria, Y., Sukma, E., & Hidayati, A. (2024). The development of e-module IPAS based on problem based learning assisted with articulate applications to improve students' critical thinking. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(4), 2032–2040. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i4.7014
  25. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
  26. Šimkovic, M., & Träuble, B. (2019). Robustness of statistical methods when measure is affected by ceiling and/or floor effect. PLOS ONE, 14(8), Article e0220889. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220889
  27. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  28. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
  29. Vickers, A. J., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ, 323(7321), 1123–1124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1123
  30. Widiana, F. H., & Rosy, B. (2021). Pengembangan e-modul berbasis flipbook maker pada mata pelajaran teknologi perkantoran. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 3(6), 3728–3739. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v3i6.1265
  31. Winatha, K. R. (2018). Pengembangan e-modul interaktif berbasis proyek mata pelajaran simulasi digital. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan, 15(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.23887/jptk-undiksha.v15i2.14021