Problem-based learning with scaffolding assisted by mobile technology: enhancing students' understanding of chemical kinetics
Tadesse Hagos
*a and
Abayneh Lemmab
aCollege of Education and Language Studies, Department of Teacher Education, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. E-mail: tadessehagos23@gmail.com
bDepartment of Chemistry, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA
First published on 13th August 2025
Abstract
Chemical kinetics is a vital yet conceptually abstract, mathematically demanding, and often challenging topic for secondary school students, necessitating innovative instructional approaches to improve conceptual understanding, foster real-world relevance, and strengthen problem-solving skills. This study examined the impact of integrating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supported by mobile technology and structured scaffolding on students’ conceptual learning of chemical kinetics in non-governmental secondary schools in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A mixed-methods intervention research design was employed, involving three instructional groups: (1) PBL with mobile technology and scaffolding, (2) PBL with scaffolding alone, and (3) conventional lecture-based instruction. The instructional content addressed core topics including reaction rates, factors affecting rates, rate laws, and graphical interpretation of rate data. Quantitative data were collected through pre- and post-tests, with analyses providing evidence supporting the validity of the data for this specific population, and analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations to capture students’ engagement levels, collaborative learning experiences, and perceptions of the instructional strategies. Post-test findings showed a statistically significant instructional effect (p < 0.001), with the PBL with mobile technology and scaffolding group achieving the highest mean score (M = 44.24), followed by the PBL with scaffolding group (M = 37.03), and the lecture-based group (M = 31.00). Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced student engagement, collaboration, and problem-solving confidence, with mobile simulations helping make abstract reactions more concrete. A post hoc analysis further confirmed the robustness of the intervention effect across subgroups. The study concludes that integrating PBL with mobile technology and scaffolding offers an effective instructional model for improving conceptual understanding in chemical kinetics and recommends expanding access to mobile learning tools and incorporating technology-enhanced PBL in science curricula.
1. Introduction
Advancements in pedagogical practices and the integration of digital technologies are progressively reshaping STEM education worldwide (Kefalis et al., 2025; Pardiñan and Loremia, 2020; Jamil et al., 2023; Kuş, 2025; Sokolova et al., 2025). Within this evolving educational landscape, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) has emerged as a student-centered, inquiry-driven approach that fosters active engagement, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving skills. It has proven particularly effective in conceptually demanding subjects such as chemistry (Savery, 2015; Hoidn and Klemenčič, 2021; Sahin et al., 2020). Recent studies suggest that combining PBL with mobile technology and structured scaffolding can further enhance students’ conceptual understanding, inquiry competencies, and engagement in complex topics (Laurillard, 2020; Shin et al., 2020; Wiggins, 2021; Liu et al., 2021a, b).One such complex area is chemical kinetics, a foundational yet abstract and mathematically intensive topic in secondary chemistry curricula. Students often struggle to grasp concepts like reaction rates, mechanisms, and the quantitative relationships governing chemical processes (Kırık and Boz, 2012; Bain and Towns, 2016; Jusniar et al., 2020; Adauyah and Aznam, 2024; Vo et al., 2025). Conventional lecture-based instruction frequently fails to make these abstract ideas accessible or relevant, resulting in superficial understanding, misconceptions, and difficulties in applying knowledge to real-world contexts (Kimberlin and Yezierski, 2016; Tsaparlis et al., 2018; Ferk Savec and Mlinarec, 2021; Jegstad, 2024).
To address these challenges, PBL offers an alternative instructional model by immersing students in authentic, real-world problems that demand the application of theoretical knowledge in collaborative settings (Savery, 2015). Integrating mobile technology into these environments enhances learning by providing flexible, interactive resources—such as simulations, video tutorials, and virtual labs that are particularly valuable for visualizing abstract concepts like reaction mechanisms and reaction rates (Liu et al., 2021a, b; Byeon and Kwon, 2023; Ubben et al., 2023). Mobile devices extend learning beyond the classroom, promoting independent study and peer collaboration through readily accessible educational resources (Guo et al., 2024).
Additionally, instructional scaffolding complements these strategies by providing phase-based guidance, prompts, and continuous feedback, helping students manage complex problems while progressively developing independence in inquiry-based learning (Belland et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018; Castro-Alonso and Fiorella, 2019). This combination has been widely endorsed in international research for enhancing conceptual understanding and inquiry skills in STEM education.
However, in resource-limited contexts such as Ethiopia, the practical implementation of PBL, mobile-assisted learning, and scaffolding remains limited. Though the country's educational reforms increasingly promote active learning and digital integration, persistent obstacles—including inadequate infrastructure, unequal access to devices, limited teacher expertise in PBL methodologies, and variations in digital literacy hinder widespread adoption (Bati and Workneh, 2021; Dagnew, 2023; Telore and Damtew, 2023). While some studies have highlighted the potential of active learning in Ethiopia's STEM education (Jemberie, 2021; Tegegn, 2024; Ahmed et al., 2025; Berhanu, 2025), there remains a significant gap in evidence regarding the application and effectiveness of integrated PBL, mobile technology, and scaffolding approaches in teaching complex, abstract topics like chemical kinetics.
Therefore, this study was designed to address these instructional gaps by examining the effectiveness of integrating Problem-Based Learning, mobile technology, and structured scaffolding in improving secondary school students’ understanding of chemical kinetics in non-governmental schools in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. By generating context-specific, scalable evidence, the study aims to inform future curriculum frameworks, teacher training programs, and educational policy initiatives while contributing to the broader integration of technology-supported, inquiry-based pedagogies in chemistry education within resource-constrained settings. To address the identified problems, this study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How do students’ conceptual understanding performance scores in chemical kinetics differ among the group taught using Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supported by mobile technology and scaffolding, the group using PBL with scaffolding only, and the group receiving traditional lecture-based instruction?
2. How do students perceive the development of their conceptual understanding, critical thinking skills, and problem-solving abilities in chemical kinetics within the different instructional groups (PBL supported by mobile technology and scaffolding, PBL with scaffolding only, and traditional lecture-based instruction)?
2. Literature review
The integration of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) with mobile technology and scaffolding has gained considerable attention as a potent educational strategy, particularly in enhancing the understanding of complex subjects like chemical kinetics in chemistry education. This review synthesizes research on the efficacy of PBL, the role of mobile technology, and the importance of scaffolding, highlighting their individual and collective impacts on student engagement and learning outcomes.2.1. The difficult nature of chemical kinetics
Chemical kinetics—the study of reaction rates and influencing factors is widely recognized as one of the most challenging topics in chemistry education at both secondary and higher levels (Cakmakci, 2010; Bain and Towns, 2016; Gegios et al., 2017; Stroumpouli and Tsaparlis, 2022). The difficulty stems from multiple factors including the abstractness of key concepts, the mathematical rigor required for understanding rate laws, and the intricate mechanisms of chemical reactions. Students must grasp theoretical frameworks and apply them in practical problem-solving contexts, which many find overwhelming (Muntholib et al., 2020).A major challenge is the abstraction of molecular behavior at the microscopic level and its impact on macroscopic properties, which is difficult for students to visualize (Cook et al., 2008; Bucat and Mocerino, 2009). This disconnects between conceptual knowledge and real-world applications often create significant barriers to learning. Additionally, integrating the mathematical and conceptual components—such as algebra, calculus, logarithmic functions, and differential equations—poses considerable difficulties for students lacking strong math backgrounds (Peng and Jimenez, 2019; Çalik and Kurt, 2024; Nemtsov and Booker, 2024).
Understanding reaction mechanisms, which require imagining unobservable molecular collisions and reactions, further complicates learning (Bodner, 2018; Stieff and Wilensky, 2003). Students often struggle to connect theoretical models with experimental data and real-world phenomena, resulting in lower retention and comprehension rates.
Research indicates that traditional pedagogical strategies typically passive methods like lectures and textbook learning exacerbate these challenges by failing to engage students actively (Mazur, 1997; Esparza et al., 2022; Ješková et al., 2022). When students lack opportunities for active learning or hands-on practice, they tend to have poor conceptual understanding (Felder and Brent, 2009; Jin et al., 2024). These findings emphasize the need for more student-centered, active pedagogical approaches that promote deeper engagement and problem-solving skills.
One promising approach is Problem-Based Learning (PBL), which encourages students to apply knowledge to real-world problems, fostering active learning, collaboration, and critical thinking. PBL has been shown to improve understanding of complex topics like chemical kinetics by making abstract concepts tangible and relevant (Moust et al., 2005; Gijbels et al., 2014). This method reduces cognitive load and enhances retention by engaging students in meaningful problem-solving (Felder and Brent, 2009). By linking theory with practice, PBL supports conceptual understanding and real-world application.
2.2. Problem-based learning in chemistry education
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) has become increasingly popular as an instructional method for teaching complex subjects such as chemical kinetics, which requires grasping reaction rates, mechanisms, and influencing factors (Díaz-Sainz et al., 2021; Abadi et al., 2024). Traditional approaches relying on lectures and memorization often fail to engage students or promote understanding of real-life applications (Abadi et al., 2024). PBL addresses this by immersing students in real-world problems, prompting active solution-seeking while applying theoretical knowledge practically (Kek and Huijser, 2011a, b; Savery, 2006). This hands-on approach is particularly effective in chemical kinetics, where both conceptual understanding and practical skills are essential (Talan, 2020; Fitria et al., 2024; Arthamena et al., 2025).PBL increases student engagement and motivation, which is critical for abstract and difficult topics like chemical kinetics (Savery and Duffy, 1995). In PBL settings, students collaborate in groups to solve complex, context-rich problems that contextualize theoretical kinetics concepts (Savery and Duffy, 1995; Dong et al., 2024). This environment promotes critical thinking and problem-solving, with activities such as case studies, reaction simulations, and experimental data analysis making abstract ideas more concrete (Gao et al., 2020). Collaboration exposes students to diverse perspectives and strategies, deepening understanding (Gao et al., 2020).
Moreover, scholars have adopted diverse PBL models in practice, ranging from pure PBL, hybrid PBL, to case-based PBL (Barrows, 1986; Loyens et al., 2008). Pure PBL typically uses entirely open-ended, ill-structured problems with minimal direct instruction, where students independently identify learning issues and knowledge gaps. Hybrid PBL, by contrast, combines lectures or tutorials with problem-based tasks, offering more structured scaffolding. Case-based PBL provides problems modeled on real-life scenarios but with predetermined learning objectives and guided inquiry activities (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Delivery formats also vary widely. In some implementations, students tackle problems individually before engaging in group discussions (Dolmans et al., 2005), while others rely exclusively on small-group collaborative work, typically in teams of 4–7 learners (Gijbels et al., 2005). The facilitator's role ranges from minimal intervention in open PBL to active guidance in hybrid forms. Some programs use assigned tutors for each group to provide immediate feedback, while others rotate facilitation duties among participants to encourage leadership and peer mentoring (Schmidt et al., 2009).
Another dimension of variation lies in the nature of the problems posed. Some studies employ highly open-ended problems with multiple potential solutions and decision paths (Hmelo-Silver, 2004), while others use structured, sequential problems leading to a common conclusion. The degree of student autonomy and creativity depends on this design. Similarly, problem complexity, scope, and alignment with course objectives influence outcomes.
Assessment methods in PBL environments also differ. Some programs assess students through written reflections, peer evaluations, and concept mapping, while others rely on traditional pre/post-tests and project-based assessments (Loyens et al., 2015; Fung et al., 2023). The duration of PBL interventions likewise varies from single-module, short-cycle projects (2–4 weeks) to semester-long implementations, with longer interventions associated with deeper learning gains (Schmidt et al., 2009).
More recently, technology-enhanced PBL has gained power, integrating mobile apps, virtual labs, and online collaborative platforms (Choi-Lundberg et al., 2023). These adaptations allow remote participation, instant access to simulations, and scaffolding tools, making PBL more flexible and accessible, particularly in contexts with limited physical resources.
Studies have consistently demonstrated that PBL enhances students' conceptual understanding and application skills in chemical kinetics. Choi-Lundberg et al. (2023) found PBL students outperform traditional lecture students on theoretical and practical assessments. Junker et al. (2025) similarly showed that PBL fosters deeper learning via active problem-solving and critical thinking. PBL helps students’ link abstract concepts like rate laws and mechanisms to real-world contexts such as industrial and biological reactions, aiding internalization and readiness for practical challenges (Junker et al., 2025).
However, PBL implementation faces challenges. Instructors must shift from lecturer to facilitator roles, guiding complex problem-solving while providing feedback (Loyens et al., 2008). Designing meaningful, curriculum-aligned problems that are neither too easy nor too difficult is difficult. Moreover, PBL demands significant planning and resources (Gijbels et al., 2005). Despite this, its benefits—including improved engagement, problem-solving, and understanding—make PBL a promising alternative to traditional chemistry teaching (Junker et al., 2025).
2.3. The role of mobile technology in chemistry education
Combining mobile technology and scaffolding with PBL further enhances chemistry education, especially for complex topics like chemical kinetics (McCormick et al., 1994a, b). While PBL promotes active problem-solving and contextualizes abstract concepts, mobile technology enriches this by providing digital tools, simulations, and multimedia resources that facilitate interactive, accessible learning (McCormick et al., 1994a, b).Mobile apps enable dynamic simulations of reaction rates under varying conditions, allowing students to manipulate variables such as temperature, concentration, and catalysts to observe effects on reaction rates. This interactive visualization supports deeper conceptual understanding beyond traditional textbooks (Savery and Duffy, 1995). Mobile devices also allow personalized learning, enabling students to study at their own pace and practice problem-solving outside class (Matovu et al., 2023).
Scaffolding integrated with mobile technology provides structured support during PBL activities (McCormick et al., 1994a, b; Matovu et al., 2023). Scaffolding involves temporary assistance to help learners complete tasks they cannot do independently, such as guided questions or hints delivered through mobile apps (Junker et al., 2025). In chemical kinetics, scaffolding may guide students on experiment design, data interpretation, or formula application. Real-time feedback and adaptive scaffolding through mobile platforms allow targeted support personalized to individual progress, gradually reducing assistance to foster learner independence (McCormick et al., 1994a, b; Matovu et al., 2023; Junker et al., 2025).
Mobile technology also facilitates collaboration in PBL, enabling students to communicate, share resources, and work cooperatively on problem-solving tasks (Haynes and Ericson, 2021). Collaborative use of apps enhances peer learning, mimicking real-world scientific teamwork essential for success (Matovu et al., 2023; Junker et al., 2025).
The integration of mobile technology and scaffolding within PBL creates a flexible, dynamic learning environment that supports mastery of chemical kinetics. Research confirms that this combined approach improves outcomes in challenging chemistry topics and fosters 21st-century skills like problem-solving, collaboration, and self-regulation (McCormick et al., 1994a, b; Haynes and Ericson, 2021; Matovu et al., 2023; Junker et al., 2025).
2.4. Scaffolding in education
Scaffolding is a pedagogical strategy designed to support learners as they engage with complex content (Wood et al., 1976; Fischer et al., 2018). In PBL contexts, scaffolding includes structured guidance, feedback, and prompts that help students manage difficult problems (Ertmer and Glazewski, 2019). Effective scaffolding enhances conceptual understanding and problem-solving in chemistry, especially for abstract topics like chemical kinetics. It provides immediate support and gradually reduces assistance to foster learner independence (McCormick et al., 1994a, b).Ge and Chua (2019) demonstrated that scaffolding improved students’ grasp of chemical kinetics and problem-solving skills. However, scaffolding effectiveness depends on teachers’ preparedness and ability to adapt support to individual needs (Hattie, 2020). Teachers must assess understanding continuously and adjust scaffolding accordingly.
Technology enhances scaffolding by enabling adaptive environments with personalized feedback and customized learning paths (Hattie, 2020). Mobile apps and learning management systems provide real-time progress tracking and individualized assistance (Haynes and Ericson, 2021). This integration creates a responsive learning environment conducive to mastering complex concepts like chemical kinetics.
Collaborative scaffolding within PBL encourages peer support during problem-solving (Hattie, 2020). Group work allows shared problem-solving, peer feedback, and joint strategy development, deepening individual learning through diverse insights (Ge and Chua, 2019).
2.5. Summary and gaps in the literature
Problem-Based Learning (PBL), mobile technology, and scaffolding have each proven effective in enhancing student outcomes in complex subjects such as chemical kinetics. PBL promotes active, student-centered learning, sharpening problem-solving skills and deepening understanding (Jalani and Sern, 2015). Mobile technology enriches education by enabling personalized learning, interactive simulations, and real-time collaboration (Junker et al., 2025). Scaffolding offers vital support, guiding students through complex challenges toward independent mastery (Matovu et al., 2023; Junker et al., 2025). Together, these approaches boost engagement and comprehension, especially in abstract, difficult topics like chemical kinetics (Junker et al., 2025).Despite strong evidence supporting these strategies individually, research combining their effects—particularly in the Ethiopian context is scarce. Most studies isolate each method, overlooking the potentially powerful synergy of integrating PBL, mobile technology, and scaffolding to deepen chemistry learning (Savery and Duffy, 1995). Moreover, little is known about adapting these strategies to Ethiopia's unique socio-cultural and economic landscape. While mobile technology's benefits are well-documented globally (Matovu et al., 2023), factors such as limited internet access, uneven technological infrastructure, and students’ varying digital familiarity may constrain its effectiveness locally (Haynes and Ericson, 2021). Likewise, entrenched traditional teaching styles may challenge the adoption of collaborative and constructivist methods like PBL and scaffolding (Ge and Chua, 2019).
Additionally, although the promise of these pedagogies is recognized in chemistry education broadly, their personalized application in Ethiopia remains underexplored. Effective integration demands not only theoretical frameworks but also context-sensitive implementation strategies (Loyens et al., 2015). Research that optimizes the combined use of PBL, mobile tools, and scaffolding could transform student learning in chemical kinetics—a topic often seen as difficult in both secondary and tertiary education (Meister et al., 2014). Insights gained could inform curriculum design, teacher training, and policy reforms, ultimately enhancing STEM education outcomes across Ethiopia.
Filling these gaps is essential to unlock the full potential of innovative, technology-enhanced, and student-centered teaching methods in Ethiopian classrooms and similar settings. By investigating the integrated application of PBL, mobile technology, and scaffolding in chemistry education, this study aims to advance understanding of effective strategies for teaching challenging STEM concepts concrete the way for improved engagement, comprehension, and academic success.
2.6. Theoretical framework
This study is grounded in four interrelated learning theories: Constructivist Learning Theory, Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Cognitive Load Theory, and Technological Integration Theory. Collectively, these theoretical perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for designing instructional strategies—specifically Problem-Based Learning (PBL), scaffolding techniques, and the integration of mobile technology—to enhance students' conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics in secondary school chemistry classrooms.Constructivist Learning Theory posits that learners actively construct knowledge by connecting new experiences to their existing cognitive frameworks, rather than passively receiving information from teachers (Piaget, 1973; Bruner, 1996). Meaningful learning occurs when students engage in authentic, inquiry-based activities that require them to investigate, discuss, and collaboratively solve problems. In the context of this study, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) embodies these principles by encouraging students to engage with real-world, open-ended problems in chemical kinetics. Through this approach, learners actively generate hypotheses, seek information, test ideas, and negotiate meaning with their peers. Such engagement fosters deeper conceptual understanding and promotes the development of higher-order thinking skills.
Vygotsky's (1978) Sociocultural Theory of Learning further expands on the social dimensions of constructivism through the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD refers to the difference between what a learner can accomplish independently and what they can achieve with guidance and support from a more knowledgeable other, such as a teacher or peer. This framework underpins the use of scaffolding within PBL environments, whereby instructional support is strategically provided to help students manage tasks slightly beyond their current abilities. Scaffolding may take various forms, including prompting, questioning, modeling, and providing cues. As learners’ competence grows, these supports are gradually withdrawn, promoting independent problem-solving and knowledge construction. In this study, both teachers and peers serve as scaffolds within students’ ZPD, particularly during collaborative group work on complex chemical kinetics problems.
Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) complements these perspectives by emphasizing the limitations of working memory during the learning process. It asserts that instructional materials and tasks should be designed to manage three types of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Excessive cognitive demands can overwhelm learners, hinder comprehension, and hinder problem-solving performance. To address this, the study incorporates scaffolding strategies and task segmentation, breaking down complex problems into manageable sub-tasks. This enables learners to focus on essential concepts without cognitive overload. As students develop proficiency, supports are reduced, and task complexity is incrementally increased, fostering both conceptual mastery and cognitive efficiency.
Lastly, Technological Integration Theory highlights the pedagogical potential of digital tools in enhancing learning experiences (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). In this study, mobile technologies—including educational applications, interactive simulations, instructional videos, and virtual laboratories—are integrated to visualize abstract concepts in chemical kinetics, such as reaction rates and molecular interactions, which are typically inaccessible in conventional classroom settings. These tools provide opportunities for students to learn at their own pace, receive immediate feedback, and experiment with different variables in simulated environments. This aligns with contemporary educational practices that position technology not merely as a content delivery tool but as an interactive, learner-centered medium for exploration and inquiry.
In summary, the interplay of these four theoretical frameworks provides a robust foundation for this study's pedagogical design. By integrating PBL, scaffolding, and mobile technology within a socially mediated and cognitively supportive learning environment, the study aims to enhance students' understanding of complex chemical kinetics concepts while promoting active engagement, collaboration, and independent learning.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Philosophical stance of the researchers
This study was underpinned by a pragmatic philosophical stance, which prioritizes practical, contextually responsive solutions to real-world problems through the flexible use of multiple research approaches. As Creswell and Creswell (2017) emphasizes, pragmatism advocates for the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods, acknowledging that no single research tradition can fully capture the complexities of educational settings and learners' experiences. In alignment with this perspective, the present study employed a mixed methods design, combining quantitative data from pre- and post-tests with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and classroom observations to comprehensively investigate the effects of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), scaffolding, and mobile technology integration on students’ understanding of chemical kinetics in authentic classroom environments.The theoretical foundation of the study was strongly informed by Constructivist Learning Theory, which conceptualizes learning as an active, socially mediated process in which learners construct new knowledge by linking it to their prior experiences and understandings (Piaget, 1973; Bruner, 1996). This perspective holds that meaningful learning is facilitated when students engage in hands-on, inquiry-oriented activities, collaborate with peers, and reflect critically on their learning experiences. Accordingly, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) was adopted as the core instructional strategy, as it embodies constructivist principles by providing opportunities for learners to investigate complex, real-world problems, engage in collaborative discourse, and co-construct knowledge rather than passively receive information from the teacher.
Consistent with constructivist principles, scaffolding techniques were integrated into the instructional design to support students as they manage challenging concepts in chemical kinetics. Drawing on Vygotsky's (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) framework, scaffolding involved the provision of temporary, adaptive instructional supports including guiding questions, structured problem-solving activities, and modeling that enabled students to accomplish tasks beyond their independent capabilities. These supports were systematically withdrawn as learners gained competence, fostering autonomy and deepened conceptual understanding.
Additionally, the incorporation of mobile technologies was guided by principles of technology integration in constructivist learning environments (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Digital tools such as educational applications, interactive simulations, and video demonstrations were not merely used for information delivery but were strategically employed to enhance visualization of abstract chemical processes, support peer collaboration, and provide opportunities for self-paced, interactive learning experiences. This approach aligns with constructivist beliefs about the value of student-centered, inquiry-driven instructional technologies in promoting active learning.
Beyond informing the instructional intervention, these theoretical perspectives also shaped the interpretation of both the quantitative and qualitative data. Increases in post-test scores among students in the PBL groups were interpreted through a constructivist lens as indicators of successful knowledge construction facilitated by active, collaborative learning experiences. Likewise, qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and classroom observations provided rich, contextualized insights into students' lived experiences with the intervention. These qualitative sources illuminated how students engaged with PBL tasks, responded to scaffolding strategies, and interacted with mobile technologies, offering explanatory depth to the quantitative findings. By interpreting both data types through constructivist and pragmatist perspectives, the researchers developed a more holistic and nuanced understanding of how the integrated instructional strategies influenced students' learning outcomes and experiences in real classroom contexts.
3.2. Research design
This study adopted an intervention mixed-methods research design, a type of mixed-methods approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of an instructional intervention. This design was selected as it aligns with the study's pragmatic philosophical stance, which values methodological flexibility and the use of diverse data sources to address complex educational questions. It also reflects the principles of Constructivist Learning Theory, which emphasize understanding learning processes from multiple perspectives and in authentic contexts. The mixed-methods design enabled the researchers to capture both measurable changes in students’ conceptual understanding through standardized tests and rich qualitative insights into their classroom experiences via interviews and observations.The intervention itself was grounded in Constructivist Learning Theory, which views learning as an active, social, and reflective process wherein learners construct new knowledge by integrating new experiences with existing cognitive frameworks (Piaget, 1973; Bruner, 1996). Informed by this perspective, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) was selected as the primary instructional strategy, as it fosters inquiry, peer collaboration, and real-world problem-solving opportunities. PBL places learners in meaningful problem situations that require them to investigate, discuss, and construct knowledge collaboratively rather than passively receiving information from the teacher.
Additionally, the study incorporated scaffolding techniques to provide structured, temporary supports for students as they engaged with complex chemical kinetics concepts. These scaffolding strategies, informed by Vygotsky's (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) framework, included guiding questions, problem-solving frameworks, and instructional prompts, which were gradually reduced as students became more proficient and independent.
To further enhance the learning environment and support conceptual visualization, mobile technologies were integrated into the PBL sessions. The integration of digital tools was guided by constructivist principles and educational technology integration frameworks (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Mobile devices and applications enabled students to access relevant information, visualize abstract scientific processes, communicate with peers, and engage in interactive simulations at their own pace. This technology-supported environment aligned with constructivist views on fostering active, learner-centered experiences.
The intervention employed a pre-test and post-test control group design, involving three distinct instructional groups. Group 1 (G1) received PBL combined with mobile technology integration and scaffolding support. Group 2 (G2) experienced PBL with scaffolding only, without mobile technology. Group 3 (G3) served as the control group, receiving conventional lecture-based instruction. This multi-group structure enabled comparative analysis of the effects of each instructional condition on students’ learning outcomes.
Data collection was conducted using two primary tools: quantitative data obtained from pre- and post-tests measuring students’ conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics, and qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations during the intervention. The quantitative data assessed changes in students’ knowledge before and after the intervention to identify learning gains, while the qualitative data provided deeper insights into students’ engagement, learning processes, and classroom experiences.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposively selected sample of students following the intervention, exploring their perceptions, feelings, and attitudes toward the instructional strategies, including PBL activities, scaffolding techniques, and mobile technology use. Complementing the interviews, classroom observations were systematically conducted throughout the intervention period. These observations captured students’ real-time problem-solving behaviors, peer interactions, responses to scaffolding supports, and engagement with mobile technologies in authentic classroom contexts. Observation data were particularly valuable for documenting how scaffolding was applied within students’ ZPD, how students managed cognitive challenges, and how collaborative problem-solving unfolded within the PBL environment.
The study's theoretical frameworks not only informed the intervention design but also guided data interpretation. Increases in students’ post-test scores, particularly within the PBL groups, were interpreted through a constructivist lens as evidence of effective knowledge construction. Qualitative data from interviews and classroom observations offered explanatory depth, revealing how students experienced, valued, and responded to the learning activities and instructional supports. In particular, classroom observations provided direct evidence of collaborative, active learning and the strategic application of scaffolding in line with Vygotsky's sociocultural principles. By interpreting the combined quantitative and qualitative data through the integrated lens of Constructivist Learning Theory, pragmatism, and educational technology integration principles, the researchers were able to develop a comprehensive understanding of how the instructional strategies influenced students’ learning outcomes, engagement, and problem-solving processes.
3.3. Research population and sampling procedures
Data collection for this study was conducted in three non-governmental secondary schools in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. These schools were purposively selected based on their access to educational technology, internet connectivity, and openness to implementing innovative instructional approaches. To ensure clear separation between instructional conditions and to prevent potential contamination of the intervention, the three schools were randomly assigned to the study groups. One school was allocated to Group 1 (G1), which received Problem-Based Learning (PBL) combined with mobile technology integration and scaffolding support. The second school was assigned to Group 2 (G2), which experienced PBL with scaffolding only, while the third school was assigned to Group 3 (G3), which followed a conventional, lecture-based instructional approach. A total of 103 students participated, distributed across the three groups: 34 in G1, 35 in G2, and 34 in G3.The data collection process involved both quantitative and qualitative methods, consistent with the study's mixed-methods design and pragmatic philosophical stance. Quantitative data were collected through pre-test and post-test assessments administered to all students in the three groups. The tests were designed to measure students’ conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics before and after the instructional intervention. The same test items were administered as both the pre-test and post-test to assess learning gains attributed to the instructional strategies.
Qualitative data were gathered through two main tools: semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. Following the intervention, 12 students were purposively selected from Groups 1 and 2 for individual semi-structured interviews. The selection was stratified based on students’ achievement levels, categorized as high, medium, and low achievers, with four students from each category. These interviews explored students’ experiences, perceptions, and attitudes toward the instructional strategies, including the use of PBL activities, scaffolding techniques, and mobile technology tools.
In addition to interviews, systematic classroom observations were conducted throughout the intervention period in all three groups. The observations focused on capturing students’ real-time engagement, collaborative problem-solving behaviors, interactions with peers, and responses to instructional scaffolding and mobile technologies. The observation sessions provided valuable qualitative evidence on how learning activities unfolded in practice, how scaffolding was implemented within students’ Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD), and how students responded cognitively and socially to problem-solving challenges in chemical kinetics.
Both the quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures were designed to ensure consistency, validity, and alignment with the study's theoretical framework. The data obtained were later integrated and interpreted to evaluate the instructional interventions’ impact on students’ conceptual understanding, engagement, and classroom learning experiences.
3.4. Variables of the study
This study examined several key variables classified into independent and dependent variables to investigate the effects of different instructional strategies on students’ understanding of chemical kinetics.The independent variables consisted of the instructional approaches applied, organized into three distinct groups. Group 1 (G1) received Problem-Based Learning (PBL) combined with scaffolding and mobile technology integration. Students in this group utilized mobile devices, including tablets and smartphones, to access a range of multimedia learning resources such as simulations, animations, and digital problem-solving applications designed to support their understanding of chemical kinetics. Group 2 (G2) was taught using PBL with scaffolding support only, without the integration of mobile technologies. These students engaged with traditional instructional materials, including textbooks, worksheets, and teacher-guided scaffolding techniques. In contrast, Group 3 (G3) followed a conventional, teacher-centered instructional approach that did not incorporate PBL, scaffolding, or mobile technology tools. Additionally, the presence or absence of mobile technology integration served as a specific independent variable, distinguishing Group 1 from the other instructional conditions.
The dependent variables in this study were the learning outcomes and classroom behaviors influenced by the instructional interventions. The primary dependent variable was students’ conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics, measured quantitatively through pre-test and post-test assessments. These tests evaluated both students’ conceptual knowledge and their ability to apply principles of chemical kinetics in problem-solving contexts.
In addition to cognitive outcomes, the study examined secondary dependent variables related to students’ learning behaviors and experiences. These included student engagement and cooperative learning experiences. Engagement was assessed qualitatively as the extent to which students actively participated in learning tasks, maintained sustained attention, and interacted meaningfully with instructional activities. Cooperative learning experiences referred to students’ perceptions of working collaboratively with peers, exchanging ideas, discussing problems, and supporting one another during PBL tasks. These qualitative variables were explored through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations, offering deeper insights into how the different instructional approaches shaped students’ social interactions, engagement levels, and learning experiences.
The selection of these dependent variables allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of both the cognitive outcomes and social aspects of learning, providing a multidimensional perspective on the effectiveness of PBL, scaffolding, and mobile technology integration in secondary school chemistry classrooms.
3.5. Data collection methods
This study employed a mixed-methods research design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques to comprehensively investigate the effects of different instructional interventions on students’ conceptual learning and problem-solving abilities in chemical kinetics. The combination of data types enabled methodological triangulation and provided a richer interpretation of both measurable learning outcomes and students’ classroom experiences.Quantitative data were collected through achievement-based pre-tests and post-tests administered to all participating students. The pre-test was conducted prior to the intervention to establish baseline knowledge levels, while the post-test was administered immediately after the instructional period to measure changes in students’ conceptual understanding and skills. Each test consisted of 40 items: 25 multiple-choice questions, 10 short-answer questions, and 5 problem-solving questions. The test items were adapted from validated chemistry assessment instruments (Calik et al., 2010; Alkan, 2021) and were modified as needed to align with the Ethiopian national chemistry curriculum and instructional context. The modified test instruments were reviewed by two experienced chemistry educators for content validity, language clarity, and alignment with learning objectives. A sample of the pre-test and post-test items is presented in Appendix A.
A detailed scoring rubric was developed for both the pre-test and post-test to ensure objective and consistent assessment of student performance. The total maximum score for each test was 100 points, distributed proportionally across the item types: multiple-choice questions accounted for 50 points (2 points per item), short-answer questions for 30 points (3 points per item), and problem-solving questions for 20 points (4 points per item). This scoring distribution reflected the increasing cognitive demand from factual recall in multiple-choice items to higher-order thinking and application in problem-solving tasks.
To enhance scoring reliability, two independent raters—the principal researcher and a second qualified chemistry teacher—evaluated all test papers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, which yielded a value of 0.87, indicating a high level of agreement between raters. Any scoring discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus. In addition, internal consistency of the test items was examined using Cronbach's alpha, which yielded a value of 0.82 for the post-test, suggesting acceptable reliability.
Qualitative data were collected to capture students’ classroom experiences, engagement levels, and perceptions of the instructional strategies applied during the intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposively selected sample of twelve students from Groups 1 and 2, representing high, medium, and low achievers based on their post-test scores. The interview protocol explored students’ experiences with PBL activities, scaffolding techniques, group work, and the integration of mobile technology. The interview guide was reviewed by two qualitative research experts for content validity and clarity. It was also piloted with three non-participant students to ensure appropriateness and comprehensibility. The final version of the interview protocol is included in Appendix D.
Classroom observations were also conducted during the intervention period to document instructional practices, student behaviors, scaffolding techniques, group dynamics, technology use, and inquiry-based learning processes. A total of twelve sessions (four per instructional group) were observed using a structured observation protocol. The observation tool focused on elements such as student engagement, interaction patterns, inquiry facilitation, and the application of scaffolding supports. The observations were recorded in real-time and later thematically analyzed to support the qualitative findings. To ensure reliability, the observation protocol was piloted and refined based on feedback from a trial observation session, and observer calibration was conducted prior to the main data collection.
In addition to test results, interviews, and observations, instructional documents such as lesson plans, scaffolding guides, PBL problem scenarios, and digital resource screenshots were reviewed and analyzed to triangulate data from other sources and verify consistency in instructional implementation. Sample PBL problem scenarios and resource overviews are provided in Appendix B, while the teacher training workshop agenda and materials used for the experimental group teachers’ preparation are included in Appendix C.
Lastly, students were asked to submit brief written reflections at the conclusion of the intervention, describing their personal learning experiences, perceived challenges, and views on the instructional strategies applied. These reflections served as additional data points to validate or contrast insights gained from interviews and classroom observations. All data collection procedures followed ethical research guidelines. Informed consent was obtained from participants and school administrators, and all data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality.
3.6. Validity and reliability of the data from collection instruments
To ensure the accuracy, consistency, and appropriateness of the data generated through the collection instruments, a series of procedures were employed to establish evidence supporting both the validity and reliability of the data across the quantitative and qualitative components of the study.Evidence supporting the validity of the data generated from the pre-test and post-test instruments was obtained through expert review. For face validity, experienced chemistry educators examined the test items for clarity, appropriateness, and alignment with the targeted learning outcomes in chemical kinetics. To ensure content validity, the same experts evaluated whether the items comprehensively reflected the key topics and cognitive domains outlined in the Ethiopian national chemistry curriculum. Based on their feedback, necessary revisions were made to improve item clarity, relevance, and content coverage. Similarly, the semi-structured interview protocol underwent expert review by both chemistry educators and qualitative research specialists. These experts assessed the alignment of the questions with the study's research objectives and theoretical framework, and verified their contextual appropriateness and clarity. Feedback was incorporated to revise and refine the interview items accordingly.
The reliability of the data generated from the achievement tests was assessed using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), appropriate for evaluating the internal consistency of dichotomously scored items such as multiple-choice and short-answer questions. The KR-20 coefficients were 0.78 for the pre-test and 0.80 for the post-test. These values indicate a satisfactory level of internal consistency, suggesting that the data collected through these instruments reliably measured students’ conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics.
For the qualitative instruments, the dependability of the data was ensured through a rigorous process that included expert review and pilot testing. The pilot interviews were conducted with a small group of students not involved in the main study, allowing the researcher to assess the clarity, flow, and effectiveness of the interview questions in generating meaningful responses. Based on this trial, minor adjustments were made to improve question phrasing and sequencing. To strengthen the credibility and dependability of the qualitative data analysis, inter-coder reliability was established. Two independent coders analyzed the interview transcripts and classroom observation notes using the agreed-upon thematic coding scheme. The analysis yielded a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.82, indicating substantial agreement between coders and confirming the consistency of the coding process.
Through these rigorous procedures, the study ensured that the data generated from the instruments were both scientifically robust and contextually appropriate, thereby enhancing the overall trustworthiness and credibility of the research findings.
3.7. Pilot study
Before implementing the main study, a pilot study was conducted involving 45 grade 11 students from a non-governmental school that was not part of the actual intervention groups. The purpose of the pilot study was to test the data quality and appropriateness of the collection instruments, including the pre- and post-test assessments and the semi-structured interview protocol. This preliminary phase enabled the researchers to identify any potential issues related to item clarity, content coverage, administration procedures, and scoring consistency.As part of the pilot process, the pre-test and post-test instruments were administered under conditions similar to those planned for the main study. The test results were analyzed to assess item difficulty, discrimination, and internal consistency. Feedback was also obtained from experienced chemistry educators, who reviewed the test items for content accuracy, relevance, and alignment with the intended learning objectives in chemical kinetics. Their feedback provided evidence supporting the face and content validity of the data generated from the instruments, while identifying a few items that required revision for clarity and contextual appropriateness. These items were subsequently modified based on the reviewers' recommendations.
To determine the reliability of the data from the achievement tests, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) was applied to the pilot test results. The reliability coefficient of the data obtained from the pilot tests was 0.76, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency for educational assessment data. This result provided assurance that the tests would consistently generate reliable data reflecting students' conceptual understanding of chemical kinetics in the main study.
The semi-structured interview protocol was also piloted with a subset of students from the same school. The pilot interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the researchers evaluated whether the interview questions elicited relevant and meaningful responses aligned with the study's research objectives. Based on these pilot sessions, minor wording, sequencing, and structural adjustments were made to improve the clarity, sequencing, and phrasing of several interview questions, ensuring that the final protocol would effectively capture students’ experiences and perceptions.
Overall, the pilot study provided valuable insights into the performance and suitability of the data generated from the collection instruments, allowing for necessary refinements that enhanced the validity, reliability, and practicality of the resulting data before the full-scale implementation.
3.8. Procedure of data collection
The data collection process for this study was carried out over a period of seven weeks, following a structured sequence of activities aligned with the research objectives. The procedure ensured systematic collection of both quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the effects of different instructional interventions on students’ conceptual understanding and learning experiences in chemical kinetics.During the first week, students from all three instructional groups completed a pre-test designed to assess their initial knowledge of chemical kinetics concepts. Simultaneously, a three-day professional training workshop was conducted for the chemistry teachers involved in the intervention. The training familiarized teachers with the principles and procedures of Problem-Based Learning (PBL), the application of scaffolding techniques, and the effective integration of mobile technology tools in chemistry instruction. This preparatory phase was crucial to ensure instructional fidelity and consistency across the intervention groups.
The main intervention phase spanned from the second to the sixth week. During this period, students in Group 1 (G1) engaged in PBL activities supported by both scaffolding and mobile technologies. This group used mobile devices to access simulations, animations, and interactive resources, complementing teacher-facilitated scaffolding practices during problem-solving sessions. Students in Group 2 (G2) participated in PBL with scaffolding alone, relying on textbooks, worksheets, and teacher guidance without digital learning tools. Meanwhile, Group 3 (G3) received conventional, lecture-based instruction without the application of PBL strategies, scaffolding, or mobile technology. Throughout this phase, teachers in the intervention groups regularly applied scaffolding techniques to assist students in managing complex problems, facilitating inquiry-based group discussions, and gradually reducing support as students gained competence.
In the final week, students from all groups completed the post-test to assess changes in their conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities after the intervention. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 12 students from Groups 1 and 2, representing high, medium, and low achievers. These interviews provided qualitative insights into students’ experiences with the instructional strategies, perceptions of scaffolding support, engagement with mobile technologies, and views on the relevance and effectiveness of PBL activities.
Throughout the intervention, classroom observations were also conducted in each instructional group to document teaching practices, student engagement, collaborative interactions, and the application of scaffolding and technology tools. These observations, alongside the data generated from test scores and interview responses, contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the instructional processes and learning outcomes across the different groups. The open-ended questions in the pre- and post-tests were scored using an analytic rubric that assessed concept identification, correct application of scientific principles, and explanation. A sample scoring rubric is provided in Appendix E.
3.9. Treatment procedures
The intervention was conducted over six consecutive weeks, with students participating in five instructional sessions per week, each lasting 45 minutes. To minimize school-level bias and maintain comparability, three private secondary schools were randomly assigned to one of three instructional conditions: Group 1 received Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supported by mobile technologies and scaffolding; Group 2 experienced PBL with scaffolding but without mobile technologies; and Group 3 followed conventional, teacher-centered instruction.Prior to the intervention, ethical approval was secured, and informed consent was obtained from students and their guardians. Participants were assured that while instructional group assignment was based on their school's routine classes, they could opt out of research data generation without academic penalty. The study adhered to ethical principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw.
Each group covered the same core chemical kinetics curriculum aligned with national standards, including topics such as reaction rates, collision theory, activation energy, and rate laws. However, the instructional strategies used to deliver this content differed significantly among the groups. Each group was composed of students with diverse academic abilities to ensure representativeness of the entire class.
Two specially trained chemistry teachers were assigned to teach Groups 1 and 2 throughout the intervention to ensure fidelity in implementing the experimental teaching methods. These teachers participated in a comprehensive three-day professional development workshop covering PBL methodology, scaffolding techniques, classroom management, and, specifically for Group 1, mobile technology integration. The training included role-playing, development of scaffolding prompts, use of mobile learning applications, and pilot lessons. The regular teacher taught Group 3 and received no specialized training.
• Understand the factors affecting reaction rates.
• Describe collision theory and molecular interactions.
• Apply rate laws to predict reaction behavior.
• Design and conduct investigations on chemical kinetics.
• Analyze and interpret experimental data.
Table 7 (Appendix B) summarizes how these objectives were addressed differently in each instructional condition—for example, “Understanding factors affecting reaction rates” was supported through virtual labs and simulations in Group 1, through hands-on physical labs in Group 2, and through lecture and textbook exercises in Group 3. Fig. 2 in Appendix B illustrates an example of the virtual simulation interface used to explore reaction rate factors in Group 1
The PBL problems in Groups 1 and 2 were intentionally designed to be open-ended and locally relevant, allowing multiple investigative approaches and encouraging critical thinking. For instance, students explored how varying catalyst types impacted reaction speed, enabling diverse experimental designs and solution paths. Appendix B provides sample problem scenarios, suggested investigative options, and expected learning outcomes.
To ensure consistent, rigorous implementation, the teacher training workshop included extensive practice in delivering PBL lessons, applying scaffolding strategies, managing group dynamics, and integrating technology (for Group 1). The full training agenda and materials are available in Appendix C.
Finally, Table 6 (Appendix B) comprehensively compares key aspects of the instructional approaches, including scaffolding methods, technology use, group formation, inquiry tasks, and assessment techniques, providing a clear overview of the treatment differences. Fig. 2 (Appendix B) also presents an example of mobile technology resources used in Group 1 PBL sessions, highlighting the digital tools integrated into the instructional process. Appendix E includes a detailed scoring rubric used for evaluating open-ended responses, specifying total scores and partial credit criteria. For example, a 3-point short-answer item granted 1 point for identifying the relevant kinetic variable, 1 point for applying the correct concept (e.g., collision theory), and 1 point for scientific justification.
These procedures were designed to provide a methodologically sound and ethically responsible framework for evaluating the effects of different instructional strategies on students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills in chemical kinetics.
3.10. Data analysis techniques
This study employed a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative data analysis to thoroughly investigate the effects of the instructional interventions on students’ understanding of chemical kinetics.Quantitative data were gathered through pre-test and post-test assessments to measure students’ conceptual knowledge before and after the intervention. A One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on pre-test scores to determine whether baseline differences existed among the three groups: Group 1 (PBL with mobile technology and scaffolding), Group 2 (PBL with scaffolding), and Group 3 (traditional instruction). The null hypothesis assumed no significant differences across groups at baseline, ensuring initial comparability.
Post-test data were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for pre-test scores as a covariate to adjust for any initial group differences. This allowed the estimation of the unique effect of the instructional intervention on students’ post-test performance. When ANCOVA results indicated significant differences, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test was employed as a post hoc procedure to perform pairwise comparisons among groups, controlling for Type I error across multiple comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using partial Eta-squared (η2), interpreted according to Cohen's (1988) guidelines, where 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
Qualitative data were obtained from two primary sources: semi-structured interviews and structured classroom observations, ensuring methodological triangulation and enhancing the credibility of findings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve purposively selected students from Groups 1 and 2, representing high, medium, and low achievement levels. The interviews explored students’ experiences and perceptions regarding PBL, scaffolding strategies, mobile technology integration, and their overall impact on learning chemical kinetics.
Structured classroom observations were conducted during instructional sessions across all groups using a standardized observation protocol. These observations documented instructional practices, student interactions, scaffolding techniques, and the integration of mobile technology, offering contextualized evidence of students’ engagement and collaborative problem-solving behaviors in authentic classroom settings.
Thematic analysis of qualitative data followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. Two researchers independently coded the data, reading and re-reading all transcripts and field notes, highlighting meaningful phrases, assigning initial codes, and identifying patterns. These were then compared and discussed collaboratively to reach consensus on final themes.
To enhance trustworthiness, member checking was conducted with five interview participants to validate the accuracy of the researchers’ interpretations. Researcher triangulation was also employed to minimize potential bias, and coding decisions were made through a collaborative process. A reflexive journal was maintained throughout the analysis to document decisions, assumptions, and reflections, contributing to the confirmability of the results.
Triangulation of data sources—interviews, classroom observations, and field notes—further strengthened the study's findings. For example, interview responses indicating the usefulness of mobile simulations were corroborated by observational data showing elevated student engagement during sessions involving interactive tools.
Rich narrative descriptions and direct quotes from students were included in the findings to support theme development and enhance the transferability of the results. Emergent themes included “increased conceptual clarity through simulation,” “enhanced student motivation,” “scaffolding as confidence builder,” and “challenges of unequal digital access.”
In summary, the manual, rigorous thematic analysis provided detailed, empirically grounded insights into how students experienced and responded to the instructional interventions, contributing to a holistic understanding of the study's outcomes.
3.11. Ethical considerations
This study was conducted in full compliance with internationally accepted ethical guidelines for educational research involving human participants. Ethical clearance was obtained from the relevant institutional review board before data collection commenced. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students, and additional parental or guardian consent was secured for students under the age of 18. Participants were thoroughly informed of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and the instructional activities they would experience within their normal classroom setting.Because students remained in their pre-assigned school classes for logistical and administrative reasons, they did not have the option to select their instructional group. This was necessary to preserve the integrity of school scheduling and minimize disruption to routine instructional arrangements. However, students were explicitly informed that participation in the research data collection aspect of the study was entirely voluntary. Although they continued attending their school's regular instructional program as assigned, they could freely opt out of contributing their test results, interview responses, or any other data for research purposes at any time, without penalty or adverse effect on their academic standing, grades, or classroom participation.
To address ethical concerns regarding the differential instructional experiences, care was taken to ensure that all instructional strategies, including the traditional teacher-centered approach, adhered to the national chemistry curriculum standards and provided students with quality learning experiences. The traditional instructional group (Group 3) was not disadvantaged of access to content, resources, or assessment opportunities necessary for academic success. At the conclusion of the intervention, all students, regardless of group assignment, were provided with a summary of the learning activities, resources, and problem-solving strategies used in the PBL-based groups to support equitable long-term learning opportunities.
Confidentiality and data security were maintained throughout the research process. All student data were anonymized using pseudonyms (e.g., S1, S2) before analysis. Only the research team had access to identifiable data, which were securely stored in password-protected digital files and locked physical storage. Anonymized transcripts and assessment data were used for reporting; ensuring that no individual participant could be identified in published findings.
No physical, psychological, or academic harm came to participants as a result of this study. All interventions were educational in nature, intended to support students’ learning, engagement, and problem-solving abilities. Care was taken to design activities appropriate for students’ developmental and academic levels, and instructional content aligned with curriculum standards. The study's ethical procedures were rigorously followed to protection participants’ rights, dignity, and educational welfare throughout the research process.
4. Findings
4.1. Quantitative findings
Prior to conducting ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses, assumptions were assessed. Independence of observations was assumed as participants were randomly assigned to groups. Normality of the data was confirmed through Shapiro-Wilk tests and Q–Q plots, indicating a normal distribution within each group. Homogeneity of variances was evaluated using Levene's test, which showed non-significant results (F(2, 99) = 0.85, p > 0.05), suggesting variances were homogeneous among groups. Additionally, homogeneity of regression slopes was tested for ANCOVA, and the interaction between the covariate (pre-test scores) and group assignment was non-significant (F(2, 98) = 0.72, p > 0.05), indicating homogeneity of regression slopes. These assumptions support the appropriateness of the subsequent statistical analyses. Interpretation of both the pre-test and post-test academic achievement scores for Groups 1, 2, and 3 is provided below, along with post hoc analysis to clarify the effectiveness of each instructional method.| Groups | N | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group1 | 34 | 15.97 | 3.21 |
| Group 2 | 35 | 16.17 | 1.93 |
| Group 3 | 34 | 17.05 | 1.17 |
| Total | 103 | 16.39 | 2.29 |
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | Df | Mean square | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 21.55 | 2 | 10.78 | 2.10 | 0.128 |
| Within groups | 512.91 | 100 | 5.13 | ||
| Total | 534.47 | 102 |
| Groups | N | Mean | Std. deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 34 | 44.24 | 4.82 |
| Group 2 | 35 | 37.03 | 6.82 |
| Group 3 | 34 | 31.00 | 6.61 |
| Total | 103 | 37.42 | 8.15 |
| Source | Type III sum of squares | Df | Mean square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a R squared = 0.445 (adjusted R squared = 0.429). | ||||||
| Corrected model | 3017.934a | 3 | 1005.98 | 26.49 | 0.000 | 0.445 |
| Intercept | 2082.21 | 1 | 2082.21 | 54.84 | 0.000 | 0.356 |
| Pretest | 31.98 | 1 | 31.98 | 0.84 | 0.361 | 0.008 |
| Group | 2997.03 | 2 | 1498.51 | 39.47 | 0.000 | 0.444 |
| Error | 3759.11 | 99 | 37.97 | |||
| Total | 150![[thin space (1/6-em)]](https://www.rsc.org/images/entities/char_2009.gif) 984.00 |
103 | ||||
| Corrected total | 6777.05 | 102 | ||||
ANCOVA was chosen over one-way ANOVA to analyze the post-test scores because it allows for controlling the variability attributed to pre-existing differences in the pre-test scores. The non-significant differences observed in the pre-test scores among groups (F(2, 99) = 2.10, p > 0.05) justified the use of ANCOVA to adjust for any initial disparities in understanding of chemical kinetics concepts. By incorporating pre-test scores as a covariate, ANCOVA increases statistical power and reduces error variance, thereby providing a more precise estimation of the treatment effect on post-test scores. This approach strengthens the validity of conclusions drawn regarding the effectiveness of problem-based learning with mobile technology and scaffolding in enhancing students' understanding of chemical kinetics concepts. The pre-test scores were used as a covariate, and the post-test scores served as the dependent variable. There were three groups: Group 1 received PBL with mobile technology, Group 2 received PBL with scaffolding, and Group 3 received traditional instruction as a comparison group. The ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of the intervention on post-test scores, F(2, 98) = 39.47, p < 0.01. The mean post-test scores for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were 44.24, 37.03, and 31.00, respectively.
| Pairwise comparisons | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable: posttest | ||||||
| (I) Group | (J) Group | Mean difference (I–J) | Std. error | Sig.b | 95% Confidence interval for differenceb | |
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
| Based on estimated marginal means.a The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.b Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. | ||||||
| Group 1 | Group 2 | 7.257a | 1.485 | 0.063 | 3.641 | 10.873 |
| Group 3 | 13.500a | 1.522 | 0.000 | 9.793 | 17.206 | |
| Group 2 | Group 1 | −7.257a | 1.485 | 0.063 | −10.873 | −3.641 |
| Group 3 | 6.243a | 1.502 | 0.000 | 2.585 | 9.901 | |
| Group 3 | Group 1 | −13.500a | 1.522 | 0.000 | −17.206 | −9.793 |
| Group 2 | −6.243a | 1.502 | 0.000 | −9.901 | −2.585 | |
Post hoc analysis using the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test was conducted to examine pairwise differences in post-test scores among the three groups: Group 1 (M = 44.24), Group 2 (M = 37.03), and Group 3 (M = 31.00). The results revealed significant differences between Group 1 and Group 3 (p < 0.001) and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p <0.001), indicating that both Group 1 (PBL with mobile technology) and Group 2 (PBL with scaffolding) had significantly higher post-test scores compared to Group 3 (traditional instruction). However, there was no significant difference in post-test scores between Group 1 and Group 2 (p = 0.063). These findings underscore the effectiveness of problem-based learning approaches (PBL with mobile technology and PBL with scaffolding) in enhancing students' understanding of chemical kinetics concepts compared to traditional instructional methods. These findings suggest that problem-based learning approaches, whether supported with mobile technology or scaffolding, are more effective in enhancing students' understanding of chemical kinetics concepts compared to traditional instructional methods.
Fig. 1 (below) visualizes these outcomes by comparing mean achievement scores across pre- and post-tests. As shown, pre-test scores were relatively comparable, while post-test scores indicate substantial improvement in Group 1, followed by Group 2, with Group 3 showing the least gain. This graphical representation reinforces the statistical conclusion that mobile-based PBL is particularly impactful.
 | ||
| Fig. 1 Pre-test and post-test mean achievement scores for the three instructional groups. | ||
4.2. Qualitative findings
A qualitative inquiry was conducted through semi-structured interviews with twelve purposively selected students from the experimental groups. Participants were chosen to reflect a broad spectrum of engagement levels and academic performance to ensure diverse experiences were represented. Interviews lasted approximately 40 minutes each, guided by a piloted interview protocol exploring students’ learning experiences with Problem-Based Learning (PBL), the integration of mobile technology, and the role of teacher scaffolding. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. To contextualize and triangulate the interview data, weekly classroom observations were conducted by a trained observer using a structured protocol, documenting instructional strategies, scaffolding practices, student interactions, and patterns of engagement.Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis framework. Manual coding was employed, with two researchers independently analyzing the interview transcripts and observation notes to enhance credibility. Coding was initially conducted inductively, allowing themes to emerge from the data without imposing predefined categories. Codes were compared and refined through consensus meetings. Inter-coder agreement was established, and discrepancies were discussed and resolved collaboratively. Preliminary themes were validated through member checking with a subset of participants, leading to refinements that enhanced credibility and trustworthiness. From this rigorous analysis, seven overarching themes were identified, each closely aligned with the research questions and the study's socio-constructivist framework. Classroom observations richly contextualized these themes by revealing how instructional and social dynamics unfolded in real-time within the learning environment.
Students described these simulations as immersive experiences that transformed abstract chemical kinetics concepts into tangible, observable phenomena. One student reflected:
“Using the simulation was like stepping into a real laboratory environment without leaving the classroom. I remember the first time we worked on the reaction rates simulation—it felt so different from our usual classes where the teacher talks, we listen, and then we copy notes. Here, I could adjust concentrations, temperatures, and immediately see the effect on the reaction. It was so visual and immediate. I didn’t have to imagine what would happen if I doubled the temperature I could see it. That made learning chemistry feel less like memorizing facts and more like discovering something real. It wasn’t like those static textbook diagrams that sometimes don’t make sense on their own. I actually felt curious and wanted to test what would happen if I changed different variables. It made me feel like a scientist experimenting with real substances and it kept me engaged throughout the lesson because I knew whatever I did would have an effect in the simulation.” (S3)
Another participant emphasized the interactive control the technology afforded:
“The best part was that I wasn’t just a passive observer. In most of our classes before, we’d just sit, listen, and sometimes take notes. But during those simulation activities, I was the one making decisions choosing what to change and what to observe. That made me think critically about why certain changes increased the reaction rate and why others didn’t. It forced me to connect the theory we learned in class to the practical changes I was seeing on the screen. That boosted my confidence because instead of being told what happens, I was figuring it out myself. It really felt like I was learning by doing, which is different from just sitting and listening to explanations that sometimes feel abstract and hard to follow.” (S1)
These narratives closely aligned with our classroom observations, where sessions involving mobile technologies visibly transformed atmospheres into collaborative, dynamic environments. As insider researchers’ familiar with the conventional passivity in chemistry classrooms, we interpreted these comments as evidence of how technology can disrupt rote traditions, making abstract concepts more accessible and prompting authentic inquiry. This aligns with constructivist learning theories that emphasize the importance of active, experiential engagement in fostering deeper understanding.
One student described initial frustration with this approach, which evolved into appreciation:
“At the beginning, I found it frustrating because I was so used to the teacher giving us direct answers or showing us step-by-step how to solve problems. When our teacher started asking us questions instead of giving answers, it felt uncomfortable. I would sit there thinking, ‘Just tell me the formula to use.’ But after a while, I realized these questions were actually helping me understand the concepts better. I remember a particular session on rate laws where the teacher asked us what would happen if the concentration of a reactant doubled. Instead of telling us, he made us predict, test it in the simulation, and then explain why the rate changed. That made me feels like I really understood the chemistry, not just memorized formulas. I started to enjoy those moments because they challenged me to think.” (S2)
Another student noted how scaffolding broke down intimidating content into manageable parts:
“At first, I was overcome by rate laws and the math involved because it looked so complicated. The equations had exponents and multiple variables, and I didn’t know where to start. But the teacher would break the problems into parts and ask guiding questions like, ‘What does this part of the equation mean?’ or ‘What happens if you increase this?’ As the weeks went by, I noticed I could solve problems on my own without needing so much help. That was encouraging and made me feel more confident. It showed me that complicated topics can be understood if they’re approached step by step.” (S4)
As insider observers and facilitators, these reflections confirmed our experience that students initially resist indirect instructional approaches but gradually develop independent reasoning. The alignment between interview data and classroom observations reinforced how scaffolded questioning, consistent with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, effectively fosters critical thinking and cognitive resilience.
“Working in groups really helped me see problems from different angles. Sometimes when the teacher explained something, I would still be confused, but when a classmate explained it in simpler terms or using their own example, it clicked for me. It felt like we were building our understanding together rather than struggling alone. I remember a problem about factors affecting reaction rates where we all had different ideas. At first, we argued, but then we used the simulation to test each factor one by one and discuss the results. That process not only improved my understanding but also made the learning experience fun and less stressful.” (S8)
Another student reflected on the emotional reassurance collaborative learning offered:
“When we faced difficult questions, it was comforting to know I wasn’t alone. In traditional classes, I used to feel isolated when I didn’t understand something because I thought everyone else did. But in the groups, we admitted when we were confused and worked it out together. It made me more engaged and less afraid of tough questions. I didn’t have to worry about being judged because we were all in the same situation and supporting each other.” (S11)
These accounts closely reflected classroom observations where students consistently supported and challenged one another in collaborative problem-solving. We interpreted these peer-led dialogues as instrumental in lowering cognitive barriers and promoting inquiry-driven risk-taking, particularly valuable within the traditionally rigid culture of secondary science instruction.
“The problems we worked on weren’t like typical textbook exercises where you’re given a clear formula and all you have to do is plug in numbers and get an answer. These were messy, like in real life. For example, we had to figure out why the reaction rate in food spoilage increased under certain conditions. There wasn’t one correct way we had to research, make assumptions, test ideas with simulations, and explain our reasoning. It made me appreciate that science isn’t about always having the right answer immediately but about thinking, testing, and adjusting based on evidence.” (S9)
However, not all students embraced this complexity easily. One participant admitted:
“Sometimes I wished the problems were more straightforward because it could get confusing. I wasn’t always sure if we were on the right track, and it made me anxious about making mistakes.” (S7)
These varied responses highlighted both the strengths and challenges of PBL. While most students valued the autonomy and authenticity, the initial uncertainty proved stressful for some. This degree reflects the importance of gradual support withdrawal and structured collaborative dialogue in facilitating productive struggle.
“Learning about reaction rates in food preservation was eye-opening. I never really thought about how chemistry plays a role in things like how long milk lasts or why food spoils faster in the heat. But after we did the project on temperature and decay, it all made sense. Suddenly, chemistry wasn’t just about equations it was about understanding my world better. Like, when I saw bread mold faster in the summer, I now understood that it had to do with increased kinetic energy and faster reactions. It was like chemistry became real instead of just formulas in a book. That relevance motivated me to study more seriously because I could see how the knowledge applied to my life and the lives of people around me.” (S9)
Another participant described environmental applications:
“When we studied how pollutants degrade in the environment, it made chemistry feel urgent and important. We looked at how reaction rates affect how long harmful substances stay in water or soil, and that led us to discuss water contamination in our local area. It made me think—this isn’t just about passing exams; this is about solving real problems. That really changed how I approached learning. I started thinking about how I could use this knowledge to help in my community. It made me want to learn and apply what I know, not just to get a grade, but to actually do something meaningful.” (S10)
These remarks closely mirrored our classroom field notes, where students frequently drew connections between abstract chemistry concepts and local environmental or public health issues. As insider researchers’ familiar with students’ cultural and community contexts, we interpreted these applications as essential motivators for sustained engagement with science content. This finding resonates with constructivist views that meaningful learning occurs when new knowledge can be integrated into learners' existing experiences and cultural realities.
“At first, the math part was overwhelming. The rate equations, exponents, and unit conversions were completely new to me, and I felt lost. I remember crying after the first problem set because I couldn’t get anything right. But the teacher never made me feel dumb instead, he asked questions like, ‘What do you know?’ or ‘What's changing in this reaction?’ That helped me find my way step by step. And then in group work, when I didn’t understand something, someone would explain it again in a way that made sense. Slowly, I began to get it. The support kept me going. By the third or fourth week, I was solving problems on my own, and I felt proud—not just because I got the answers, but because I understood what I was doing.” (S12)
Peer collaboration was equally vital:
“My group really helped when I struggled. I wasn’t the only one confused, and that made me feel better. We’d sit down together and go through problems line by line. Sometimes, someone would explain a step I didn’t get, and other times I’d be the one helping. That teamwork really made a difference. Knowing that others were facing similar challenges made me feel supported. It wasn’t about competition; it was about helping each other succeed. And that made me more confident and willing to try, even when I wasn’t sure.” (S1)
However, one student admitted that the challenges sometimes felt discouraging:
“There were times I felt like giving up because the math was too hard. Even with help, it didn’t always click right away, and I thought maybe I wasn’t cut out for this. It was frustrating watching others get it faster.” (S7)
In addition to these mathematical difficulties, several participants reported experiencing intermittent internet connectivity during simulation-based activities. This issue was especially apparent in schools located in areas with weaker network coverage. In focus group discussions, some students explained how they occasionally had to restart simulations due to lost connections or wait until the school's Wi-Fi was restored. While not universally experienced, these challenges were both reported by participants and observed during the intervention period. Importantly, students and teachers devised coping strategies such as pre-downloading simulations or pairing students for shared access which mitigated the severity of these disruptions.
As researchers embedded in the instructional environment, we witnessed these challenges firsthand and observed how peer-led, scaffolded support networks allowed students to persist. The occasional frustration voiced by some students underscored the importance of balancing productive struggle with timely support. These accounts repeat the role of collaborative, inquiry-driven communities in justifying individual academic struggles, consistent with social learning theories that emphasize learning through shared experience and support.
“Before this course, I used to memorize facts and equations without really understanding them. I’d cram for tests and then forget everything. But now, I feel like I can explain why things happen, not just what happens. I remember one day when I explained to a friend how increasing concentration affects reaction rate, and I didn’t even need to look at my notes. I just knew it because I understood it. That had never happened before. I feel ready to tackle new problems instead of being scared. I approach questions by thinking, ‘What do I know?’ instead of lose it. That's a huge change for me.” (S5)
Another participant reflected on improved self-efficacy:
“I doubted my ability in chemistry before, but after completing the assignments, I feel capable and empowered. I used to think chemistry was for the ‘smart kids,’ and I was just trying to survive the class. But now, I see myself as someone who can learn science, who can solve problems. That has made a big difference in how I see myself as a learner—not just in chemistry, but in other subjects too. I speak up more in class, I take initiative in group work, and I’m not afraid to try new things.” (S8)
Students also noted the development of generalizable academic skills:
“I’ve improved my critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. The tasks forced us to analyze data, make arguments, and explain our thinking clearly. These are skills I’ll use beyond chemistry in work, in life. I feel more prepared to face challenges and find solutions. That's something I never expected from a science class.” (S6)
These transformative narratives closely paralleled our observations of growing student independence, particularly in later sessions where learners initiated inquiries, challenged each other's reasoning, and demonstrated confidence in applying their knowledge. As insider researchers aware of students’ initial hesitancies, we interpreted these transformations as meaningful indicators of the intervention's impact not only on academic capabilities but also on learners’ identities as capable, confident problem-solvers.
Collectively, these seven themes reveal that students' experiences in the PBL-supported, technology-enhanced chemistry instruction were dynamic, often challenging, and ultimately transformative. Mobile simulations and collaborative inquiry fostered engagement, while carefully structured scaffolding cultivated independent reasoning. Although some students encountered moments of frustration and uncertainty, peer collaboration and responsive teacher support enabled them to persist and develop transferable skills. The findings demonstrate how thoughtfully implemented PBL can disrupt entrenched passive traditions in science education, fostering confident, inquiry-driven learners capable of tackling complex, real-world problems beyond the classroom.
5. Discussion of key findings
The findings from this study demonstrate the significant impact of problem-based learning (PBL) supported by mobile technology on students' understanding of chemical kinetics. Quantitative data revealed considerable improvements in students’ conceptual understanding, particularly in Group 1, which experienced PBL integrated with mobile technology. Their average post-test score of 44.24 notably surpassed those of Group 2 (37.03) and Group 3 (31.00). The effect size (partial η2 = 0.445) observed in this study indicates a large and practically meaningful effect, underscoring the educational relevance of technology-enhanced PBL environments. These improvements are not merely statistical but reflect significant pedagogical implications. Enhanced post-test scores demonstrate that integrating mobile-supported PBL fosters deeper conceptual understanding, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and learner autonomy. Importantly, this study addresses the core educational challenge that chemical kinetics, as an abstract and conceptually difficult topic, is often perceived as disconnected from students' everyday experiences. PBL's emphasis on real-world, open-ended problem scenarios provides a pedagogical strategy that makes these abstract topics meaningful, relevant, and contextually situated offering a more suitable solution than conventional lecture methods focused on computational exercises alone.Furthermore, the observed differences among the three groups reveal critical insights for instructional design. The stark contrast between Group 1's performance and that of Groups 2 and 3 implies that while PBL alone offers notable benefits, its effectiveness is substantially amplified when coupled with mobile technology. This supports Hunegnaw et al. (2025) assertion that digital simulations and mobile applications enrich students' conceptual understanding of complex scientific processes by making abstract phenomena tangible and interactive. The integration of mobile simulations enables real-time visualization of chemical reactions, rates of change, and dynamic processes otherwise challenging to convey through traditional means.
Post hoc analysis results further confirmed that Group 1 significantly outperformed both Group 2 and Group 3, indicating a synergistic effect of combining PBL with mobile-supported scaffolding. The study's design ensured that students in the PBL groups engaged in iterative problem-solving cycles, starting with open-ended problem triggers, followed by hypothesis generation, collaborative investigation, and synthesis of findings activities rarely facilitated in conventional Ethiopian classrooms. The problems were deliberately designed with multiple viable solutions and outcomes, empowering students to make decisions, test alternative approaches, and creatively negotiate solutions.
In the broader African context, this study's findings resonate with existing regional literature. Ramaila and Mpinga (2022) in South Africa and Komenda (2023) in Kenya reported that mobile-based educational interventions significantly improve student motivation, engagement, and achievement in STEM subjects. These regional studies validate the relevance and transferability of the current findings within Sub-Saharan Africa, where technology-enhanced learning holds immense promise for transforming science education amid infrastructural and resource constraints. This is especially relevant when considering that the open-ended, contextualized nature of the PBL problems in this study encouraged students to draw on familiar cultural and socio-economic realities, such as food preservation, industrial production, and pharmaceutical applications, thereby fostering local relevance and contextual learning transfer.
When examining the specific Ethiopian educational context, it is crucial to consider the nation's distinctive systemic characteristics and persistent challenges. Ethiopia's education system, especially at the secondary level, has historically struggled with limited access to well-equipped laboratories, a high student-to-teacher ratio, and a continued reliance on didactic, lecture-based instruction (Alemu et al., 2017; Chala, 2019). These limitations have impeded effective science education delivery, particularly in resource-intensive disciplines like chemistry. However, recent government initiatives, supported by international collaborations, have sought to integrate mobile technologies into classrooms, capitalizing on the increasing availability of smartphones and tablets among students and teachers.
This study contributes important empirical evidence supporting these policy directions. The significant quantitative improvements observed in Group 1 suggest that even in environments constrained by limited physical infrastructure, mobile-supported PBL can bridge instructional gaps by providing interactive simulations and virtual laboratory experiences. This finding echoes the work of Abraha (2024), who emphasized the pivotal role of mobile applications in enhancing conceptual learning and student motivation in Ethiopian secondary schools.
However, the suggestion that mobile-based PBL could replace traditional laboratory instruction should be interpreted cautiously. While the intervention showed promise as a supplemental instructional tool, it is not a full substitute for hands-on laboratory experiences. This aligns with studies such as Hawkins and Phelps (2013), who emphasize that virtual simulations can complement—but not replace—the tactile and procedural knowledge gained in actual lab settings. Additionally, the intervention's structured scaffolding approach where teachers progressively withdrew support as students gained confidence mirrored Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. This deliberate facilitation strategy, including guided questions, clues, and prompts during inquiry cycles, was notably more structured and sustained than routine PBL facilitation practices, as students consistently reported its value in overcoming conceptual and mathematical challenges.
The qualitative data from this study further illuminate the mechanisms through which mobile-supported PBL enhances learning. Students reported heightened engagement and motivation when using tablets and mobile simulations, frequently noting that simulations made abstract chemical reactions rich and comprehensible, transforming textbook concepts into interactive, real-time experiences. This aligns with findings by Hunegnaw et al. (2025) who observed that digital simulations foster a positive learning environment, increase motivation, and enhance comprehension by embedding learning within student-centered, inquiry-driven tasks.
Teacher support also emerged as a crucial enabling factor. Students consistently acknowledged the importance of guided prompts, structured scaffolding, and real-time feedback in fostering critical thinking, perseverance, and self-directed learning. Unlike traditional PBL implementations where facilitation is often minimally directive, in this study, facilitators employed a structured scaffolding matrix personalized to each inquiry phase: from brainstorming, hypothesis formation, data interpretation, to reflection. This feature, informed by training workshops for teachers, proved critical in sustaining engagement, particularly in managing the mathematical reasoning required in kinetics topics. This reflects the conclusions of Ramaila and Mpinga (2022), who emphasized that effective instructional guidance in technology-enhanced environments, is essential for sustaining student engagement and promoting independent inquiry.
Collaborative learning played an equally pivotal role in promoting conceptual understanding and problem-solving abilities. Students frequently highlighted the value of peer discussions and teamwork in broadening their perspectives, clarifying misconceptions, and fostering mutual support. This finding is consistent with Jeong et al. (2019), who argued that collaborative learning in technology-supported settings deepens engagement, fosters mutual understanding, and enhances academic outcomes. The open-ended, real-world problem structures encouraged students to engage in authentic argumentation, defend alternative strategies, and build collective knowledge a practice largely absent from Ethiopia's predominantly lecture-driven classrooms.
Despite these positive experiences, one limitation noted during the intervention was inconsistent internet access. While the use of mobile simulations offered students greater autonomy and conceptual clarity, connectivity issues occasionally disrupted learning—particularly in rural or poorly networked areas. This challenge was both reported by participants and directly observed by researchers. In some focus groups, students described how simulations would freeze or fail to load, requiring repeated attempts or delays in completing tasks. One teacher recounted that in a particular session, two-thirds of students were temporarily unable to run a simulation due to a network outage. However, students and teachers adapted using collaborative strategies—such as pairing students, switching to offline resources, or preloading simulations ahead of class sessions. These workarounds minimized learning loss but underscore the importance of infrastructural readiness when implementing mobile-supported pedagogies (Asabere and Ahmed, 2013).
Another critical theme emerging from the qualitative findings was the connection between theoretical content and real-world applications. Students often cited relatable examples of reaction rates in food preservation, pharmaceutical production, and industrial processes, explaining how these contextualized applications made chemistry more relevant, understandable, and engaging. This aligns with the conclusions of Smith et al. (2022) and Al-Zahrani (2024), who advocated for problem-based, real-world scenarios to enhance student agency, interest, and knowledge transfer. Students expressed that this contextualization transformed chemistry from a memorization-based subject into one that directly connected to their daily lives and future careers, a critical outcome in settings where curriculum relevance has been a longstanding concern.
Mathematical challenges inherent in chemical kinetics initially posed difficulties for many students. However, qualitative responses indicated that collaborative problem-solving efforts, supported by teacher scaffolding and mobile simulations, helped students gradually overcome these obstacles. This finding repeats Johnson et al. (2014) assertion that resilience, perseverance, and iterative problem-solving are critical to mastering complex STEM subjects. In Ethiopia, where students frequently encounter curriculum-related challenges in both mathematics and science, integrating collaborative, technology-supported problem-solving activities offers a promising strategy for addressing persistent learning gaps and improving STEM outcomes.
The transformative learning experiences reported by students suggest that PBL integrated with mobile technology fosters a deeper, inquiry-driven approach to learning. Many students described a shift from passive memorization to active, critical engagement with scientific problems, reporting enhanced problem-solving abilities, conceptual understanding, and knowledge application skills. This outcome is consistent with findings by Ramaila and Mpinga (2022) and Hattie (2020), who noted that active, technology-supported instructional strategies promote critical thinking, inquiry skills, and lifelong learning competencies. In the Ethiopian context, where traditional didactic methods have long dominated, the study provides evidence that carefully structured, inquiry-based, mobile-supported PBL can realistically address both conceptual abstraction and the practical limitations of resource-constrained science classrooms. The study confirms the utility of mixed-methods approaches to triangulate cognitive, affective, and social learning outcomes. The pre/post-test design, paired with in-depth thematic analysis, proved effective in capturing nuanced shifts in understanding and engagement.
In summary, this study's findings underscore the efficacy of integrating PBL with mobile technology in enhancing secondary school chemistry education. The observed quantitative improvements, coupled with rich qualitative insights into student engagement, collaboration, scaffolding practices, open-ended inquiry, and real-world contextualization, provide compelling evidence for adopting such innovative instructional strategies. However, rather than proposing mobile-based PBL as a replacement for laboratory instruction, this study supports its role as a scalable supplement capable of bridging infrastructural limitations. These results offer valuable guidance for educators, policymakers, and curriculum developers in Ethiopia and similar contexts, where mobile-supported PBL could play a transformative role in modernizing science education and addressing systemic challenges. The findings are supported by an extensive body of international and regional research (Johnson et al. 2014; Alemu et al., 2017; Hattie, 2020), further affirming the practical, theoretical, and contextual relevance of this pedagogical approach.
6. Conclusion, recommendations, implications and limitations of the study
6.1. Conclusion
This study demonstrates the significant educational benefits of integrating problem-based learning (PBL) with mobile technology in teaching chemical kinetics. Quantitative findings revealed a substantial improvement in students’ post-test scores, indicating that this approach effectively enhances academic performance and deepens conceptual understanding. The observed effect size affirms the meaningful impact of this instructional strategy on student learning outcomes.Importantly, this research addresses a central problem in science education—how to make abstract and conceptually demanding topics like chemical kinetics relevant and accessible to secondary school students. By grounding learning in real-world, open-ended problem scenarios and integrating interactive mobile simulations, this study's PBL model enabled students to connect theory with everyday experiences, fostering both conceptual mastery and practical relevance.
Qualitative data further enriched these results by highlighting increased student engagement, active collaboration, and improved ability to relate abstract chemical principles to real-world scenarios. Students reported moving beyond rote memorization to develop a more meaningful and applied understanding of chemistry concepts. They also emphasized the value of structured scaffolding through guided prompts, problem-structuring prompts, and collaborative brainstorming activities—an instructional approach intentionally aligned with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development.
The combined quantitative and qualitative insights confirm that PBL supported by mobile technology creates a dynamic and effective learning environment. Notably, the study demonstrated that this approach's impact is amplified when problem scenarios are designed to be open-ended with multiple possible solutions, allowing students to exercise agency, creativity, and decision-making. The evidence advocates for broader adoption and continued refinement of this approach in chemistry and other STEM subjects, as it cultivates critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and a sustained interest in learning Furthermore, the composition of student groups was representative of the range of abilities present in the whole class population, enhancing the generalizability of the findings.
6.2. Recommendations
In light of these findings, several recommendations can be proposed to improve the application of PBL in chemistry education, particularly when integrating mobile technology.Technology integration should be strategic and purposeful, selecting mobile applications and digital tools that directly enhance inquiry-based learning processes. Tools such as simulations, interactive problem-solving platforms, and data collection apps should be aligned with well-designed, open-ended problem scenarios to promote authentic investigation cycles. Teachers should receive comprehensive training on both the technical and pedagogical uses of these technologies.
Structured, phase-based scaffolding frameworks should be embedded within PBL activities to guide students as they tackle complex, abstract topics like chemical kinetics. Scaffolding should be personalized to different stages of inquiry from brainstorming and hypothesis formulation to data interpretation and reflection through structured prompts, guiding questions, and collaborative discussion protocols. This deliberate facilitation approach ensures that students progressively build independence while remaining supported throughout the problem-solving process.
Classroom environments should also actively promote collaborative, inquiry-based learning. Facilitators should foster teamwork, peer-led discussions, and collective problem-solving opportunities. Group size, facilitator assignment, and student agency should be deliberately managed to maximize participation and interaction. Including structured reflection sessions can further enhance mutual learning and reinforce collaborative problem-solving skills. Additionally, PBL problems should be explicitly connected to real-world contexts. Problem scenarios should reflect everyday social, environmental, and industrial challenges that students can relate to, thereby increasing engagement and demonstrating the practical value of chemistry. Culturally relevant and locally meaningful contexts are particularly important in African and Ethiopian settings to make science education inclusive and contextually valid. Regular, formative assessment should accompany PBL implementation, enabling teachers to monitor students’ progress and provide timely feedback. New assessment frameworks should measure not only conceptual knowledge but also students' problem-solving strategies, collaboration, and inquiry processes. Performance-based tasks, reflective journals, and inquiry reports can provide a more comprehensive picture of student learning outcomes than traditional tests alone.
Finally, continuous professional development for teachers is vital. Educational institutions should invest in ongoing training programs focusing on PBL design, mobile technology integration, scaffolding strategies, and collaborative inquiry management. These programs should feature model lessons, case-based discussions, and workshops on ethical considerations in classroom-based educational research. Strengthening teachers' capacity in these areas will ensure effective and sustainable PBL implementation across diverse classrooms.
6.3. Implications of the study
The results of this study carry several important implications for educational practice, curriculum design, assessment, teacher professional development, and policy formulation. Firstly, the findings confirm the instructional value of integrating mobile technology and structured scaffolding within PBL frameworks. Teachers should deliberately design open-ended, context-based problem scenarios supported by inquiry cycles and strategic scaffolding personalized to the demands of each learning stage. Such practices can deepen conceptual understanding and bridge the persistent gap between theoretical content and real-world applications in secondary chemistry education.From a curriculum perspective, this study highlights the necessity of embedding real-world problems into science education frameworks. Curriculum designers should prioritize PBL projects addressing pressing environmental, health, and industrial challenges to enhance student motivation and contextual learning. National education policy frameworks, especially in Ethiopia and Sub-Saharan Africa, should formally encourage the integration of inquiry-based, student-centered approaches into secondary science curricula.
Regarding teacher professional development, the study emphasizes the critical need for continuous training programs that build teachers’ capacity to design, facilitate, and assess PBL activities enhanced with mobile technologies. Professional development initiatives should not only focus on technical skills but also cover problem design, inquiry facilitation, scaffolding methods, and collaborative inquiry management. Training should be practical, context-relevant, and include opportunities for teachers to observe, plan, and reflect on PBL lessons in action.
The study also supports a broader pedagogical shift toward student-centered, inquiry-driven learning environments that emphasize peer collaboration, active problem solving, and meaningful application of knowledge. In settings where conventional didactic approaches predominate, such as Ethiopia, adopting these methods could substantially improve learning outcomes, especially in challenging STEM subjects.
Revised assessment practices are likewise necessary. Traditional summative exams often fail to capture the full breadth of skills developed through PBL. Educational institutions should develop more holistic assessment models incorporating inquiry reports, peer evaluations, reflection essays, and practical performance tasks to evaluate both conceptual understanding and applied problem-solving abilities. Methodological implications are significant: the pre/post-test design effectively measured student understanding, and the mixed-methods approach was critical in capturing qualitative insights into scaffolding and collaboration.
Finally, this study identifies future research opportunities. Further studies should investigate the long-term effects of mobile-supported PBL on learning outcomes, student attitudes, and academic persistence across diverse contexts. Additional research is needed on the scalability of PBL in large classes, the influence of group size and facilitator experience, and the effectiveness of different types of mobile technologies in STEM education. Exploring culturally relevant, open-ended problem scenarios could also enhance the contextual applicability of PBL in Ethiopian and Sub-Saharan African education systems.
At the policy level, these findings offer valuable guidance for educational leaders. Policymakers should support the adoption of innovative instructional models by providing resources for technology integration, professional development, and the creation of collaborative, inquiry-based learning environments. Formal policy frameworks promoting inquiry-based, technology-enhanced pedagogies could play a transformative role in modernizing science education and improving STEM outcomes nationally.
6.4. Limitations and future research directions
Like any educational intervention study, this research has several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. One notable limitation concerns the relatively small and localized sample size. The study was conducted in a limited number of secondary schools within a specific Ethiopian urban context, which may constrain the generalizability of the findings to other educational settings. Although the positive outcomes observed here align with broader regional and international studies, future research involving a more diverse and representative sample including rural schools, varied socio-economic backgrounds, and multiple regions would be valuable in verifying the broader applicability of these results.Another limitation lies in the logistical constraints associated with implementing mobile-supported PBL in resource-constrained settings. While the study demonstrated promising outcomes using mobile technology, access to reliable devices, network connectivity, and digital resources remains uneven across Ethiopian schools. This challenge may limit the scalability of this instructional model, particularly in rural or underserved regions. Future studies should explore the adaptability of PBL frameworks using locally available, low-cost technology solutions and investigate their effectiveness in less digitally resourced environments.
Ethical considerations in the assignment of students to different instructional groups also represent a limitation that warrants careful reflection. Although appropriate ethical clearances and student consent processes were observed, the allocation of students to groups with known differences in instructional quality, without offering immediate alternatives, raises important pedagogical equity questions. Subsequent studies should adopt ethically responsive designs, such as crossover models or post-study access to effective instructional strategies for all participants, ensuring that educational research interventions benefit every learner equitably.
Moreover, the study did not examine the long-term effects of PBL-supported mobile learning on students’ retention of chemistry concepts, academic persistence, or progression in STEM fields. It remains uncertain whether the gains observed in post-test scores translate into sustained academic improvement, long-term conceptual understanding, or enhanced career interest in science-related disciplines. Longitudinal studies tracking students’ academic routes beyond the intervention period would provide valuable insights into the enduring impact of these instructional strategies.
Another limitation pertains to the teacher training model used in this study. While the study included a three-day training workshop for teachers on PBL facilitation and mobile technology use, this training period may have been insufficient for participants to develop comprehensive instructional mastery. Future research should examine the effects of extended, iterative professional development programs and mentorship models on the quality of PBL implementation and student outcomes.
Additionally, the study primarily relied on a pre-test and post-test design supplemented by qualitative interviews. While this mixed-methods approach captured immediate learning gains and student perceptions, it did not assess broader affective or metacognitive outcomes such as changes in learning attitudes, problem-solving confidence, or resilience in the face of academic challenges. Future studies should incorporate validated instruments to measure these outcomes, providing a more holistic understanding of how PBL-supported mobile learning shapes students’ cognitive, affective, and social-emotional development.
Finally, while collaborative learning emerged as a critical feature of this intervention, the study did not systematically explore the effects of group size, group dynamics, or facilitator involvement on student learning experiences and outcomes. Future research should investigate optimal group sizes, facilitator-to-group ratios, and peer interaction patterns to refine collaborative inquiry practices within mobile-supported PBL environments, particularly in large, overcrowded classrooms common in many Ethiopian schools.
In summary, while this study provides robust evidence supporting the educational benefits of integrating PBL with mobile technology in secondary chemistry education, addressing these limitations through future research will enhance the reliability, scalability, and pedagogical equity of this instructional approach. Longitudinal, multi-site studies, expanded teacher training programs, and ethically responsive designs are especially recommended to advance the practical and theoretical contributions of PBL-supported mobile learning in Ethiopia and comparable educational contexts.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this study. This research was conducted with integrity and transparency, free from any financial or personal relationships that could influence the interpretation of results or bias the study's outcomes.Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions, but may be obtained from the corresponding author upon request and with appropriate institutional approvals.Appendices
A Sample pre-test and post-test questions on chemical kinetics
(a) The amount of product formed per unit time
(b) The energy required to initiate a reaction
(c) The speed at which the reaction equilibrium is reached
(d) The amount of reactant consumed per unit time
2. What is the effect of temperature on the rate constant (k) in a chemical reaction, according to the Arrhenius equation?
(a) It decreases exponentially as temperature increases
(b) It increases with temperature
(c) It remains constant regardless of temperature
(d) It is not related to temperature
3. Which of the following is true about the rate law for a reaction?
(a) It is determined only by the concentration of reactants at equilibrium
(b) It can be determined experimentally and does not depend on the reaction mechanism
(c) It gives the exact time at which equilibrium is reached
(d) It is the same for all reactions, regardless of the conditions
4. The rate-determining step in a multi-step reaction is:
(a) The slowest step that controls the overall rate of the reaction
(b) The step with the highest activation energy
(c) The first step in the reaction mechanism
(d) The step with the most reactants involved
6. For the reaction 2A + B → C, the rate law is found to be rate = k[A]2[B]. What is the order of the reaction with respect to each reactant and the overall order?
7. Consider a reaction where the rate constant k is found to be 5.2 × 104 s−1 at 300 K. If the temperature is increased to 350 K, the rate constant becomes 2.1 × 106 s−1. Use the Arrhenius equation to calculate the activation energy of the reaction.
9. The half-life of a reaction is 250 seconds. If the reaction follows second-order kinetics, calculate the initial concentration of the reactant, assuming the half-life was measured for a concentration of 0.15 M.
B Supplementary tables, figures, and problem samples
Tables 6, 7 and Fig. 2.| Feature | Group 1: PBL + mobile tech + scaffolding | Group 2: PBL + scaffolding (no tech) | Group 3: traditional instruction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instructional approach | PBL supported by mobile technology and scaffolding | PBL with scaffolding (no mobile technology) | Traditional teacher-centered instruction |
| Teacher role | Facilitator with digital tools and scaffolding | Facilitator with scaffolding (no tech) | Lecturer delivering content |
| Problem type | Open-ended, real-world problems with multiple solutions | Same open-ended problems | Textbook and lecture-based problems |
| Use of mobile technologies | Yes (smartphones, apps, simulations, videos) | No | No |
| Learning materials | Digital tools, textbooks, printed worksheets | Textbooks, printed problem sets, lab apparatus | Textbooks, chalkboard |
| Scaffolding strategies | Guiding questions, hints, feedback systematically reduced | Similar scaffolding without digital support | Minimal; teacher explanations |
| Group formation | Groups of 4–5 students, assigned by teacher | Same as Group 1 | No formal grouping |
| Instructor training | 3-day training on PBL, scaffolding, tech use | 3-day training on PBL and scaffolding | No special training |
| Assessment methods | Pre- and post-tests, qualitative interviews | Pre- and post-tests, qualitative interviews | Pre- and post-tests only |
| Group | Instructional approach | Learning activities | Resources used |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PBL + mobile technology + scaffolding | – Students worked on an open-ended case study about temperature and concentration effects on reaction rates. | – PhET reaction rate simulator (interactive virtual lab) |
| – Group brainstorming and hypothesis formulation. | – Educational videos illustrating reaction dynamics | ||
| – Virtual lab simulations using PhET Reaction Rate Simulator. | – Online articles related to real-world applications (e.g., food preservation) | ||
| – Collaborative data analysis and group presentations. | – Smartphones/tablets for accessing simulations | ||
| – Scaffolded inquiry with guided prompts and feedback during all phases. | – Standard chemistry textbooks | ||
| 2 | PBL + scaffolding (No technology) | – Same open-ended case study as Group 1. | – Standard chemistry textbooks |
| – Group brainstorming and hypothesis formulation. | – Printed scaffolding worksheets with guided questions | ||
| – Hands-on physical lab experiments measuring reaction rates (e.g., iodine clock reaction). | – Physical lab equipment and materials for reaction rate experiments | ||
| – Completion of scaffolding worksheets with stepwise questions. | – Chalkboard for teacher facilitation | ||
| – Group presentations and discussions. | |||
| 3 | Traditional instruction | – Instructor-led lectures explaining factors affecting reaction rates. | – Standard chemistry textbooks |
| – Textbook reading assignments. | – Chalkboard and markers | ||
| – Teacher demonstrations on chalkboard. | – Printed lab instructions for experiments | ||
| – Individual note-taking. | – No use of technology or collaborative scaffolding tools | ||
| – Follow-up printed lab instructions for a basic experiment without guided scaffolding or group work. |
 | ||
| Fig. 2 Example of mobile technology resources used in group 1 PBL sessions. | ||
Scenario: A local soap-making business reports that its production process is too slow during rainy months, delaying deliveries. Students are tasked with investigating how to increase reaction rates during soap preparation.
• What changes could be recommended to the business?
Expected outcome: Multiple investigative approaches encouraged (e.g. increasing reactant concentration, raising temperature, adding catalysts). Students present different, viable solutions, promoting creative decision-making.
C Teacher training workshop agenda and materials (Summary)
Workshop Duration: 3 DaysParticipants: 2 Chemistry Teachers (Experimental Groups)
Facilitators: Lead Researcher, Educational Technology Specialist
Purpose: Equip teachers with skills to implement Problem-Based Learning (PBL), scaffolding strategies, and (for Group 1) mobile technology integration for teaching Chemical Kinetics.
| Day | Topics covered | Activities & methods |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PBL principles & problem scenario design | Overview of PBL and inquiry cycle stages, critique of sample problems, group activity designing draft problem scenarios. |
| 2 | Scaffolding, questioning & facilitation | Demonstration lessons, scaffolding strategies (Vygotsky's ZPD), questioning practice, peer teaching, and facilitation role-play. |
| 3 | Mobile technology integration (Group 1 only) | Tutorials on mobile apps (e.g., PhET Simulations, Reaction Kinetics Simulator), troubleshooting tech issues, piloting sample PBL lessons using simulations and virtual labs. |
– List of Recommended Mobile Apps & Simulations (Group 1 only)
– Guiding Question Templates (for all PBL stages)
– Facilitation & Scaffolding Checklists
– Mobile Device Troubleshooting Guide (Group 1 only)
– Facilitate a 30-minute PBL inquiry session.
– Compile a list of selected mobile resources (Group 1).
– Submit a reflection log on anticipated challenges and strategies
D Interview protocol questions for experimental groups
2. In your own words, how would you describe the role of mobile technology (if applicable to your group) in helping you learn chemical kinetics? Were there any specific tools or resources you found particularly useful?
3. What was your experience with scaffolding in this study? How did the teacher support your learning throughout the problem-solving process, and did you find this support helpful?
4. Do you feel that PBL helped you understand chemical kinetics better compared to traditional methods of teaching? Why or why not?
6. In what ways did the PBL process help you develop critical thinking skills? Were there any moments when you realized your thinking had become more analytical or systematic?
7. Do you feel that you were more confident in applying chemical kinetics concepts to solve real-world problems after participating in this PBL-based learning? Why or why not?
9. How did you feel when working collaboratively with your peers in the group? Did group discussions help in your understanding of difficult concepts related to chemical kinetics?
10. Do you think that the teacher's use of scaffolding techniques helped you become more independent in solving problems by the end of the unit? Could you give an example of a time when you solved a problem on your own after receiving guidance?
12. Can you describe any specific mobile app or tool that helped you in solving problems or understanding concepts better during this course?
14. Would you recommend this method of learning (PBL with or without mobile technology and scaffolding) to others? Why or why not?
E Sample scoring rubric for open-ended items in chemical kinetics
The following rubric was used to evaluate students’ responses to short-answer questions in the pre-test and post-test. Each response was assessed based on three main criteria: understanding of key concepts, correct application of principles, and scientific justification. Each item carried a maximum of 3 points.| Criterion | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identification of key concept | 1 point | Correctly identifies the chemical kinetics factor or concept involved. |
| 2. Application of scientific principle | 1 point | Applies the relevant theory or law (e.g., rate law, collision theory). |
| 3. Justification or explanation | 1 point | Provides a scientifically accurate and logical justification for example. |
Acknowledgements
The authors extend heartfelt gratitude to all research participants whose valuable insights and contributions made this study possible. Your willingness to share experiences and perspectives enriched our understanding of chemistry education, particularly in the context of reaction kinetics. We appreciate your time, cooperation, and dedication to advancing educational research.References
- Abadi A. M., Hendrowibowo L. and Kurdhi N. A., (2024), Characteristics of the mobile problem based learning flipped classroom (mPBLFC) mathematics learning model: a systematic literature review, Persp. Sci. Educ., 2(68), 261–277.
- Abraha M., (2024), Effects of concept mapping on students’ science learning: secondary schools of Habru Woreda, Amhara Region-Ethiopia, Cogent Educ., 11(1), 2426109 DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2024.2426109.
- Adauyah R. and Aznam N., (2024), Guided Inquiry Learning Model in Chemistry Education: A Systematic Review, J. Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 10(3), 77–87 DOI:10.29303/jppipa.v10i3.6373.
- Ahmed K. A., Mekuria Y. S., Zinabu S. A. Z. A. and Abo G. B., (2025), Science education curriculum implementation: classroom instruction perspectives in middle-level schools of eastern Ethiopia, Multidiscip. Sci. J., 7(5), 2025257–2025257 DOI:10.31893/multiscience.2025257.
- Alemu M., Kind P., Tadesse M., Atnafu M. and Michael K., (2017), Challenges of science teacher education in low-income nations-The case Ethiopia, Part 13: Strand, 13, 1782.
- Alkan F., (2021), Examining the high school students’ chemistry motivation, chemistry laboratory anxiety and chemistry laboratory self-efficacy beliefs towards different variables, JETT, 12(3), 30–40.
- Al-Zahrani A. M., (2024), Enhancing postgraduate students' learning outcomes through flipped mobile-based microlearning, Research in Learning Technology, 32, 3110 DOI:10.25304/rlt.v32.3110.
- Arthamena V. D., Ayubi M., Atun S. and Putri S. E., (2025), Effectiveness of a Problem-Based Learning Model Integrated with Socio-Scientific Issues to Improve Science Process Skills of High School Students, JKPK (Jurnal Kimia dan Pendidikan Kimia), 10(1), 203–219 DOI:10.20961/jkpk.v10i1.92581.
- Asabere N. Y. and Ahmed A. M., (2013), Towards Enhancing Quality in Education through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), Int. J. Comput. Appl., 62(8), 10–18.
- Bain K. and Towns M. H., (2016), A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(2), 246–262 10.1039/C5RP00176E.
- Barrows H. S., (1986), A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods, Med. Educ., 20(6), 481–486 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x.
- Bati T. B. and Workneh A. W., (2021), Evaluating integrated use of information technologies in secondary schools of Ethiopia using design-reality gap analysis: a school-level study, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Countries, 87(1), e12148 DOI:10.1002/isd2.12148.
- Belland B. R., Walker A. E., Kim N. J. and Lefler M., (2017), Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: a meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res., 87(2), 309–344 DOI:10.3102/0034654316670999.
- Berhanu K. Z., (2025), Strategies principals used to develop teachers’ psychological empowerment in primary schools, Ethiopia: qualitative study, Curr. Psychol., 44(2), 864–881 DOI:10.1007/s12144-025-07566-9.
- Bodner G. M., (2018), It gets me to the product: How students propose organic mechanisms, J. Chem. Educ., 95(8), 1263–1270 DOI:10.1021/ed082p1402.
- Braun V. and Clarke V., (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Res. Psychol., 3(2), 77–101 DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
- Bruner J., (1996), The culture of education, Harvard University Press.
- Bucat B. and Mocerino M., (2009), Learning at the sub-micro level: structural representations, Multiple representations in chemical education, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 11–29 DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_2.
- Byeon J. H. and Kwon Y. J., (2023), The Effect of Outdoor Inquiry Program for Learning Biology Using Digital Twin Technology, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 22(5), 781–798.
- Cakmakci G., (2010), Identifying alternative conceptions of chemical kinetics among secondary school and undergraduate students in Turkey. J. Chem. Educ., 87(4), 449–455 DOI:10.1021/ed8001336.
- Calik M., Kolomuç A. and Karagölge Z., (2010), The effect of conceptual change pedagogy on students’ conceptions of rate of reaction, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 19, 422–433 DOI:10.1007/s10956-010-9208-9.
- Çalik M. and Kurt S., (2024), The Effect of Interventions Teaching Chemical Kinetics on Students’ Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis Study, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 1–26 DOI:10.1007/s10763-024-10523-w.
- Castro-Alonso J. C. and Fiorella L., (2019), Interactive science multimedia and visuospatial processing, Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences, pp. 145–173 DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_6.
- Chala A. A., (2019), Practice and challenges facing practical work implementation in Natural Science subjects at secondary schools, Practice, 10(31), 1–17.
- Choi-Lundberg D. L., Butler-Henderson K., Harman K. and Crawford J., (2023), A systematic review of digital innovations in technology-enhanced learning designs in higher education, Australas. J. Educ. Technol., 39(3), 133–162, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-2108.
- Cohen J., (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Cook M., Wiebe E. N. and Carter G., (2008), The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations, Sci. Educ., 92(5), 848–867 DOI:10.1002/sce.20262.
- Creswell J. W. and Creswell J. D., (2017), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 6th edn, SAGE Publications.
- Dagnew A., (2023), Implementation of active learning strategies: the case of secondary schools, J. Elementary Educ., 16(1), 108–125 DOI:10.18690/rei.16.1.1315.
- Díaz-Sainz G., Pérez G., Gómez-Coma L., Ortiz-Martínez V. M., Domínguez-Ramos A., Ibañez R. and Rivero M. J., (2021), Mobile learning in chemical engineering: an outlook based on case studies, Educ. Chem. Eng., 35, 132–145 DOI:10.1016/j.ece.2021.01.013.
- Dolmans D. H. J. M., De Grave W., Wolfhagen I. H. A. P. and Van Der Vleuten C. P. M., (2005), Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research, Med. Educ., 39(7), 732–741 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x.
- Dong Z., Chiu M. M., Zhou S. and ZhangZ., (2024), The effect of mobile learning on school-aged students’ science achievement: a meta-analysis, Educ. Inf. Technol., 29(1), 517–544 DOI:10.1007/s10639-023-12240-3.
- Ertmer P. A. and Glazewski K. D., (2019), Scaffolding in PBL environments: structuring and problematizing relevant task features, The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning, pp. 321–342 DOI:10.1002/9781119173243.ch14.
- Esparza D., Lynch-Arroyo R. L. and Olimpo J. T., (2022), Empowering current and future educators: Using a scalable action research module as a mechanism to promote high-quality teaching and learning in STEM, Frontiers in Education, Frontiers Media SA, vol. 6, p. 754097 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2021.754097.
- Felder R. M. and Brent R., (2009), Active learning: an introduction, ASQ Higher Educ. Brief, 2(4), 1–5.
- Ferk Savec V. and Mlinarec K., (2021), Experimental work in science education from green chemistry perspectives: a systematic literature review using PRISMA, Sustainability, 13(23), 12977 DOI:10.3390/su132312977.
- Fischer F., Hmelo-Silver C. E., Goldman S. R. and Reimann P., (2018), International handbook of the learning sciences, New York, NY: Routledge.
- Fitria D., Asrizal A., Dhanil M. and Lufri L., (2024), Impact of Blended Problem-Based Learning on Students' 21st Century Skills on Science Learning: A Meta-Analysis, Int. J. Educ. Math., Sci. Technol., 12(4), 1032–1052 DOI:10.46328/ijemst.4080.
- Fung J. T. C., Chan S. L., Takemura N., Chiu H. Y., Huang H. C., Lee J. E., Preechawong S., Hyun M. Y. Sun M., Xia W., Xiao J. and Lin, C. C., (2023), Virtual simulation and problem-based learning enhance perceived clinical and cultural competence of nursing students in Asia: A randomized controlled cross-over study, Nurse Education Today, 123, 105721 DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105721.
- Gao F., Li L. and Sun Y., (2020), A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 68, 1791–1827 DOI:10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0.
- Ge X. and Chua B. L., (2019), The role of self-directed learning in PBL: implications for learners and scaffolding design, The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning, pp. 367–388 DOI:10.1002/9781119173243.ch16.
- Gegios T., Salta K. and Koinis S., (2017), Investigating high-school chemical kinetics: the Greek chemistry textbook and students' difficulties, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(1), 151–168 10.1039/C6RP00192K.
- Gijbels D., Dochy F., Van den Bossche P. and Segers M., (2005), Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis from the angle of assessment, Rev. Educ. Res., 75(1), 27–61 DOI:10.3102/00346543075001027.
- Gijbels D., Dochy F., Van den Bossche P. and Segers M., (2014), The effectiveness of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 26(1), 27–50 DOI:10.3102/00346543075001027.
- Guo P., Jeyaraj J. J. and Razali A. B., (2024), A systematic review of collaborative mobile-assisted language learning (C-MALL) practices using bibliometric, content, and scientometric analyses, Human. Soc. Sci. Commun., 11(1), 1–15 DOI:10.1057/s41599-024-03940-3.
- Hattie J., (2020), Visible Learning: Feedback.
- Hawkins I. and Phelps A. J., (2013), Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(4), 516–523 10.1039/C3RP00070B.
- Haynes C. C. and Ericson B. J., (2021), Problem-solving efficiency and cognitive load for adaptive parsons problems vs. writing the equivalent code, Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15 DOI:10.1145/3411764.3445292.
- Hmelo-Silver C. E., (2004), Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ. Psychol. Rev., 16, 235–266 DOI:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.
- Hoidn S. and Klemenčič M., (2021), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education, Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- Hunegnaw T., Hailegebreal T. D., Getahun D. A. and Atlabachew M., (2025), Effect of Virtual Experiments Compared to Physical Experiments on Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Kinetics Concepts, Eur. J. STEM Educ., 10(1), 03 DOI:10.20897/ejsteme/16261.
- Jalani N. H. and Sern L. C., (2015), The example-problem-based learning model: applying cognitive load theory, Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci., 195, 872–880 DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.366.
- Jamil M. R. M., Hasyim A. T. M., Othman M. S., Ahmad A. M., Noh N. R. M. and Kamal M. F. M., (2023), Digital pedagogy policy in technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in Malaysia: Fuzzy delphi approach, J. Tech. Educ. Training, 15(2), 1–10.
- Jegstad K. M., (2024), Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review, Studies Sci. Educ., 60(2), 251–313 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436.
- Jemberie L. W., (2021), Teachers’ perception and implementation of constructivist learning approaches: focus on Ethiopian Institute of textile and fashion technology, Bahir Dar, Cogent Educ., 8(1), 1907955 DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2021.1907955.
- Jeong H., Hmelo-Silver C. E. and Jo K., (2019), Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: a meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014, Educ. Res. Rev., 28, 100284 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284.
- Ješková Z., Lukáč S., Šnajder Ľ., Guniš J., Klein D. and Kireš M., (2022), Active learning in STEM education with regard to the development of inquiry skills, Educ. Sci., 12(10), 686 DOI:10.3390/educsci12100686.
- Jin H., Yan D. and Krajcik J., (2024), Handbook of Research on Science Learning Progressions, Routledge.
- Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. and Smith K. A., (2014), Cooperative learning: improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory, J. Excellence College Teaching, 25(3&4), 85–118.
- Junker R., Janeczko J., Lehmkuhl A., Zucker V., Holodynski M. and Meschede N., (2025), Modeling and prompting professional vision in a virtual learning environment: effects on pre-service teachers’ cognitive load and motivation, Educ. Inf. Technol., 1–26 DOI:10.1007/s10639-025-13559-9.
- Jusniar J., Effendy E., Endang B. and Sutrisno S., (2020), Misconceptions in rate of reaction and their impact on misconceptions in chemical equilibrium, Eur. J. Educ. Res., 9(4), 1405–1423.
- Kefalis C., Skordoulis C. and Drigas A., (2025), Digital Simulations in STEM Education: Insights from Recent Empirical Studies, a Systematic Review, Encyclopedia, 5(1), 3–18 DOI:10.3390/encyclopedia5010010.
- Kek M. Y. C. A. and Huijser H., (2011a), The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow's digital futures in today's classrooms, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 30(3), 329–341 DOI:10.1080/07294360.2010.501074.
- Kek M. Y. C. A. and Huijser H., (2011b), The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow's digital futures in today's classrooms, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 30(3), 329–341 DOI:10.1080/07294360.2010.501074.
- Kim N. J., Belland B. R. and Walker A. E., (2018), Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev., 30, 397–429 DOI:10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1.
- Kimberlin S. and Yezierski E., (2016), Effectiveness of inquiry-based lessons using particulate level models to develop high school students’ understanding of conceptual stoichiometry, J. Chem. Educ., 93(6), 1002–1009, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b01010.
- Kırık Ö. T. and Boz Y., (2012), Cooperative learning instruction for conceptual change in the concepts of chemical kinetics, Chem. Educ. Res. Practice, 13(3), 221–236 10.1039/C1RP90072B.
- Komenda E. N., (2023), Impact of advance organizers teaching approach on student's achievement and motivation in biology in secondary schools in Kitui central sub-county, Kitui, Kenya, (Doctoral dissertation).
- Kuş M., (2025), A meta-analysis of the impact of technology related factors on students’ academic performance, Front. Psychol., 16, 1524645 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1524645.
- Laurillard D., (2020), Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology, Routledge.
- Liu C., Zowghi D., Kearney M. and Bano M., (2021a), Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary school science education: a systematic review, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 37(1), 1–23 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12505.
- Liu C., Zowghi D., Kearney M. and Bano M., (2021b), Inquiry-based mobile learning in secondary school science education: a systematic review, J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 37(1), 1–23 DOI:10.1111/jcal.12505.
- Loyens S. M., Magda J. and Rikers R. M., (2008), Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 20, 411–427 DOI:10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7.
- Loyens S. M. M., Jones S. H., Mikkers J. and van Gog T., (2015), Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change, Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002.
- Matovu H., Ungu D. A. K., Won M., Tsai C. C., Treagust D. F., Mocerino M. and Tasker R., (2023), Immersive virtual reality for science learning: design, implementation, and evaluation, Stud. Sci. Educ., 59(2), 205–244 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2022.2082680.
- Mazur E., (1997), Peer instruction: A user's manual, Prentice Hall.
- McCormick R., Murphy P. and Hennessy S., (1994a), Problem-solving processes in technology education: a pilot study, Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 4, 5–34 DOI:10.1007/BF0119758.
- McCormick R., Murphy P. and Hennessy S., (1994b), Problem-solving processes in technology education: a pilot study, Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 4, 5–34 DOI:10.1007/BF01197581.
- Meister E. C., Willeke M., Angst W., Togni A. and Walde P., (2014), Confusing Quantitative Descriptions of Brønsted-Lowry Acid-Base Equilibria in Chemistry Textbooks–A Critical Review and Clarifications for Chemical Educators, Helv. Chim. Acta, 97(1), 1–31 DOI:10.1002/hlca.201300321.
- Mishra P. and Koehler M. J., (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge, Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
- Moust J. H. C., Van Berkel H. J. M. and Schmidt H. G., (2005), Signs of erosion: reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University, High. Educ., 50(4), 665–683 DOI:10.1007/s10734-004-6371-z.
- Muntholib M., Ibnu S., Rahayu S., Fajaroh F., Kusairi S. and Kuswandi B., (2020), Chemical literacy: performance of first year chemistry students on chemical kinetics, Indones. J. Chem., 20(2), 468–482.
- Nemtsov L. A. and Booker C. J., (2024), Implementation and evaluation of a team-based electrochemistry module in a large undergraduate class, Can. J. Chem., 102(8), 499–512 DOI:10.1139/cjc-2023-0138.
- Pardiñan E. G. and Loremia R. A., (2020), Digital pedagogy analysis on technology trend relevant to education 4.0, Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., 9(08), 390–399.
- Peng Z. and Jimenez J. L., (2019), KinSim: a research-grade, user-friendly, visual kinetics simulator for chemical-kinetics and environmental-chemistry teaching, J. Chem. Educ., 96(4), 806–811 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00033.
- Piaget J., (1973), To understand is to invent: The future of education, Grossman.
- Ramaila S. and Mpinga N. P., (2022), The Effect of digital learning on the academic achievement and motivation of Natural Sciences learners: a case study of a South African independent School, Int. J. High. Educ., 11(7), 71–78 DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p.
- Sahin A., Waxman H. C., Demirci E. and Rangel V. S., (2020), An investigation of harmony public school students’ college enrollment and STEM major selection rates and perceptions of factors in STEM major selection, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 18(7), 1249–1269 DOI:10.1007/s10763-019-10017-0.
- Savery J. R., (2015), Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions, Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9(2), pp. 5–15.
- Savery J. R., (2006), Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions, Interdiscip. J. Probl.-based Learn., 1(1), 9–20 DOI:10.7771/1541-5015.1002.
- Savery J. R. and Duffy T. M., (1995), Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework, Educ. Technol., 35(5), 31–38, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428296.
- Schmidt H. G., Rotgans J. I. and Yew E. H. J., (2009), The process of problem-based learning: What works and why, Med. Educ., 43(8), 792–806 DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04035.x.
- Shin S., Brush T. A. and Glazewski K. D., (2020), Examining the hard, peer, and teacher scaffolding framework in inquiry-based technology-enhanced learning environments: impact on academic achievement and group performance, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 68, 2423–2447 DOI:10.1007/s11423-020-09763-8.
- Smith K., Maynard N., Berry A., Stephenson T., Spiteri T., Corrigan D., Mansfield J., Ellerton P. and Smith T., (2022), Principles of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in STEM education: Using expert wisdom and research to frame educational practice, Education Sciences, 12(10), 728 DOI:10.3390/educsci12100728.
- Sokolova E. V., Blaginin V. A. and Shatrova A. Y., (2025), Evolution and current trends in STEM education: a retrospective and bibliometric analysis, J. Hypermedia Technol.-Enhanced Learn., 3(1), 90–107 DOI:10.58536/j-hytel.169.
- Stieff M. and Wilensky U., (2003), Connected chemistry—incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 12, 285–302 DOI:10.1023/A:1025085023936.
- Stroumpouli C. and Tsaparlis G., (2022), Chemistry students’ conceptual difficulties and problem solving behavior in chemical kinetics, as a component of an introductory physical chemistry course, Chem. Teacher Int., 4(3), 279–296 DOI:10.1515/cti-2022-0005.
- Sweller J., (1988), Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning, Cogn. Sci., 12(2), 257–285 DOI:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.
- Talan T., (2020), The effect of mobile learning on learning performance: a meta-analysis study, Educ. Sci.: Theory Practice, 20(1), 79–103 DOI:10.12738/jestp.2020.1.006.
- Tegegn A. T., (2024), STEM Education in the STEM Centers in Ethiopia: Implementation Practices, Challenges and Prospects, Eur. J. STEM Educ., 9(1), 12 DOI:10.20897/ejsteme/15131.
- Telore T. and Damtew A., (2023), New challenges to the implementation of active learning methods at secondary schools in Kambata Tambaro zone, Ethiopia, J. Eng. Educ. Soc., 8(2), 1773 DOI:10.21070/jees.v8i2.1773.
- Tsaparlis, G., Pappa, E. T. and Byers, B., (2018), Teaching and learning chemical bonding: research-based evidence for misconceptions and conceptual difficulties experienced by students in upper secondary schools and the effect of an enriched text. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19(4), 1253–1269 10.1039/C8RP00035B.
- Ubben M. S., Kremer F. E., Heinicke S., Marohn A. and Heusler S., (2023), Smartphone usage in science education: a systematic literature review, Educ. Sci., 13(4), 345 DOI:10.3390/educsci13040345.
- Vo K., Sarkar M., White P. J. and Yuriev E., (2025), Exploring Problem-Solving Scaffolds in General Chemistry: A Systematic Review of Scaffolding Goals and Instructional Approaches, J. Chem. Educ., 102(3), 1004–1018 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01327.
- Vygotsky L. S., (1978), Mind in society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Wiggins T., (2021), Use of Technology to Promote Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Learning in Elementary Classrooms, Doctoral dissertation, Walden University.
- Wood D., Bruner J. S. and Ross G., (1976), The role of tutoring in problem solving, J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2025 |