Enhanced Digital Augmented Learning Stations for Grade 10 Students’ Performance

This study determined the impact of digital augmented learning stations on Grade 10 students’ performance in gas laws at Sibonga National High School during School Year 2025–2026. It employed a mixed-method approach with a quasi-experimental pretest–post-test design. The respondents comprised 176 Grade 10 students: 86 in the control group, which used traditional learning stations, and 90 in the experimental group, which used digital augmented learning stations. A researcher-made 30-item multiple-choice test measured performance in three competencies: volume and pressure at constant temperature, volume and temperature at constant pressure, and explaining gas-law relationships using the Kinetic Molecular Theory. Interview responses were analyzed thematically to describe students’ experiences. Both groups’ post-test mean scores were higher than their pretest means across all three competencies. For the control group, the means increased from 55.81 to 78.37 in volume and pressure, from 50.47 to 81.86 in volume and temperature, and from 77.91 to 83.84 in the Kinetic Molecular Theory competency. For the experimental group, the means increased from 61.67 to 82.78, from 65.67 to 83.56, and from 78.22 to 87.00, respectively. Within-group analyses indicated significant pretest–post-test improvements for the control group in the first two competencies, but not in the Kinetic Molecular Theory competency; the experimental group showed significant improvements in all three competencies. The updated comparison of mean gains showed no significant difference between groups for volume and pressure (p = .616) or the Kinetic Molecular Theory competency (p = .541). A significant difference was found for volume and temperature (p = .009), favoring the control group. Students described digital stations as engaging and helpful for visualization, participation, enjoyment, and applying gas-law concepts. The study’s output was a set of digital activity sheets incorporating enhanced digital augmented learning stations for gas laws.

digital augmented learning stations, gas laws, Grade 10, quasi-experimental design, Kinetic Molecular Theory

1. Adeduyigbe, A. M., & Okeke, U. K. (2025). Instructional design considerations: Cognitive development and physics comprehension in secondary education. International Journal of Studies in Psychology, 5(2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.38140/ijspsy.v5i1.1598 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alqahtani, S., Alghamdi, R., Aldakhil, A., & Alzahrani, M. (2023). The effect of employing smart learning stations strategy on students’ academic achievement and motivation in science education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jets.2023.07.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. American Association of Chemistry Teachers. (2024). Gas laws unit plan: Learning stations with hands-on labs and simulations. Retrieved from https://teachchemistry.org/resources/gas-laws-unit-plan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Antony, J. P., & Arya, R. (2025). Effect Of Active Learning Versus Traditional Lecturing on The Learning Achievement Of School Students In Social Sciences: Meta Analysis. BSSS Journal of Education, 14(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.51767/je1404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aramudin, A., Mukarromah, O., Sardila, V., & Susanti, R. H. (2025). Cognitively Inclusive Learning: Exploring the influence of cognitive styles and gender on PGMI students’ academic performance. EDUKASIA Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 6(1), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.62775/edukasia.v6i1.1412] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Arriagada, V. (2025). Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle for deep learning. Heliyon, 11(3), e06321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e06321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Asif, A. U., Beathard, A. K., Bercaw, R. M., & Prilliman, S. G. (2023). Le Chatelier’s principle observed in Real-Time: a classroom demonstration using digital probeware. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(1), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Aydogmus, M., & Senturk, C. (2019). The effects of learning stations technique on academic achievement: A meta-analytic study. Research in Pedagogy, 9(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.17807/orbital.v12i4.1526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bakari, A. Z., Mensah, D. K., & Ngugi, F. L. (2023). Augmented modeling activities to support conceptual thinking in physics. International Journal of Technology and Modeling, 2(3), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.63876/ijtm.v2i3.143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Becker, J. A. H. (2023). Transforming experiential learning in the honors interpersonal communication course: Interpersonal enrichment journeys during the COVID 19 pandemic and beyond. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 7, 20–40. https://doi.org/10.31446/JCP.2023.1.03. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Borillo, J. R. (2025). Development of practical laboratory-based activities in general chemistry for Grade 11 students. International Journal of Research in Innovative Science and Society, 9(6), 5667-5707. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000433 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bouni, A., Nchia, L. N., Sigha, P., Mfeyet, B., Aimée, A. N., Ateba, J. A., Nchinmoun, M., Meli, N. D., & Soudani, M. (2024). The foundations of the nature of science as a tool for teaching and learning scientific concepts. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 13(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.1.1589 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chen, X., Wang, L., & Huang, Y. (2021). The role of experiential learning on students’ motivation, engagement, and deep learning in classrooms: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dagasaan, J. M. Y. (2025). Science spiral progression curriculum: The factors affecting secondary students' learning progress. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7150765 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Degorio, J. M. L. (2022). Teaching in the K12 science spiral curriculum: An experiential approach. Anatolian Journal of Education, 7(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.19128/ate.v7i2.3390 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Department of Education. (2016). DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016: The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dick-Bursztyn, M., Cop, E., & Indycka-Kusiak, P. (2025). English language revision through the application of learning stations and educational escape rooms: The impact on 8th graders’ motivation and engagement. Crossroads a Journal of English Studies, 48(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.15290/cr.2025.48.1.01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Echantoufi, N., Khattabi, K. E., Lamrabet, M., Fakhar, H., & Ajana, L. (2025). Enhancing conceptual understanding in physics: An innovative interactive multimedia learning environment for teaching Newtonian gravity. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(9), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.55214/2576-8484.v9i9.9769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Fabrigas, E. J. A., & Paglinawan, J. L. (2025). Digital simulation exposure and conceptual understanding in chemistry. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(XII), 741–747. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.8120061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Girón-Gambero, J. R., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2023). Atomizados: An educational game for learning atomic structure by students diagnosed with learning difficulties. Journal of Chemical Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Graham, C. R. (2015). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In Handbook of Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803738.ch21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hildayanti, J., Janati, J., & Qurtubi, G. I. (2025). Thermodynamics-Augmented Reality as a visual learning media to improve student creativity. AMPLITUDO Journal of Science & Technology Innovation, 4(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.56566/amplitudo.v4i1.248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hite, R., Childers, G., Ennes, M., & Jones, M. G. (Eds.). (2023). Developing and Sustaining STEM Programs across the K-12 Education Landscape. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7771-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hyde, J. S. (2013). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kalyuga, S. (2022). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Kong, Y., Eysink, T. H. S., & de Jong, T. (2021). The role of experiential learning on students’ motivation, engagement and deep learning in classrooms: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771272. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. McIntyre, T. J., Roberts, A. P., Wegener, M., Ponce Campuzano, J. C., Kenny, E. P., & Matthews, K. E. (2016). Dynamic, interactive simulations for enhancing student learning. 92. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/view/10840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. McLeod, S. (2025). Kolb's learning styles & experiential learning cycle. Simply Psychology. Retrieved October 19, 2025, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mohanty, A. K., Kumar, S. V. A., Thongam, R., Kawale, S. R., Jakkani, A. K., & G, V. V. (2024). Enhancing Classroom Engagement Through Iot-Enabled Smart Learning Environments. ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.2591 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Morais, C., Paiva, J. C., & Moreira, L. (2019). Learning Effects of Different Digital-Based Approaches in Chemistry: a quasi-experimental assessment. In Communications in computer and information science (pp. 267–279). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Navarro, C., Torrefranca, A., Mangolare, R., Celades, J. R., Mabuting, R. V., Tugao, J.,Sanchez, J. M. (2023). Gas Rules!: An Electronic Strategic Intervention Material for Online Learning: Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Perceptions. Kimika, 34(1), 47–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Nguyen, L. C., et al. (2023). Kolb's Experiential Learning Model in STEM Education: A Theoretical and Empirical Study with Ninth Grade Students. International Journal of Religion, 4(1), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.61707/gw8kms93 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Ningsih, Y., & Herwanis, D. (2024). The Learners’ view about the use of digital technologies in learning. International Journal of Education Language Literature Arts Culture and Social Humanities, 2(3), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.59024/ijellacush.v2i3.913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Resnick, L. B. (2017). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In Learning and Motivation in the Classroom (pp. 5–38). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315188522-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Rivera, G. M., & Sanchez, J. M. P. (2020). Use of contextualized instructional materials: The case of teaching gas laws in a public uptown high school. Orbital: The Electronic Journal of Chemistry, 12(4), 276-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.17807/orbital.v12i4.1526. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Socratica. (2015, January 23). Chemistry: Charles’s Law (Gas Laws) with 2 example problems [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZpuMBkf1Ss [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Socratica. (2015a, January 14). Chemistry: Boyle’s Law (Gas Laws) with 2 example problems [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xto88gMmDzw [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Sriyani, D., Koto, I., Defianti, A., Sakti, I., & Uliyandari, M. (2023). The Effect of Interactive Learning Media on Students Conceptual Understanding. Journal of Teaching and Learning Physics, 8(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.15575/jotalp.v8i2.27705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Mountain View, CA: Innosight Institute. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Taghvaee, M., Mirvaisi, M., & Naveer, M. (2025). Analyzing the Impact of Traditional versus Active Teaching Methods on Students’ Conceptual Learning in Theoretical. Bahāristān., 151–164. https://doi.org/10.61438/bsrqj.v3i2.217 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. The Sci Guys. (2014, July 26). The Sci Guys: Science At Home - SE2 - EP10: Charles’s Law of Ideal Gases [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NplVuTrr59U [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. The Sci Guys. (2014a, July 13). The Sci Guys: Science At Home - SE2 - EP9: Boyle’s Law of Ideal Gases [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR49g3ubTBg [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Tucker, C. (2024). Teaching resources and strategies for student agency and blended learning. Teaching Resources Archives. Retrieved October 19, 2025, from https://catlintucker.com/category/technology-in-the-classroom/teaching-resources. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Uijrt, J., et al. (2025). Effect of Station Rotation Model in Learning Grade 10 Physics. Journal of Educational Strategies, 15(3), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1234/jeas.2025.01503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Vallespin, M. R. (2021). Implementation of the 7E Lesson Model to Improve Learner's Conceptual Understanding on Gas Laws. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3907017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Wayne Breslyn (Dr. B.). (2024, January 25). Kinetic Molecular Theory: Assumptions, visualizations, and limitations [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLoR__BFuRY [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Wei, Y. (2025). Written instruction that significantly promotes science learning. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/lhjv-rq13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PHET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. Science, 322(5902), 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Yunita, Y., & Irawan, T. A. (2025). Effectiveness of interactive media in enhancing students’ science concept understanding. Riwayat Educational Journal of History and Humanities, 8(4), 6687–6697. https://doi.org/10.24815/jr.v8i4.49998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zin, Z. M., Abdullah, A. S., Ahmad, H., & Sahib, F. H. (2024). The Constructivist Learning Theory: Exploring Key Technological Advancements In Learning Management Systems. International Journal of Modern Education, 6(23), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijmoe.623040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study