Keywords:
constructivist pedagogy
student engagement
distance learning
education
teaching obstacles

  • Abstract

    In a blended learning system, videos provide autonomous, anticipatory, and random access to content. Despite the rise of educational technologies, the actual effectiveness of interactive videos compared with linear videos remains insufficiently documented in secondary science education, particularly in the teaching and learning of chemistry. The aim of the present experimental research is to address major obstacles in chemistry education, such as overcrowded classrooms and inadequate infrastructure (classrooms, laboratories, materials, and chemical products, etc.), by comparing three teaching methods: two interactive video-based environments (remote and face-to-face) and one face-to-face environment using linear video. Moreover, interactive remote and face-to-face learning were conducted simultaneously. To evaluate student motivation across the three methods, a digital survey was administered via Google Forms after the experimental study was completed. The results indicated that both linear and interactive videos produced similar learning outcomes, regardless of whether they were used in distance or face-to-face contexts. However, learners reported a higher level of satisfaction when they used interactive videos. These findings suggest that there is no significant difference between face-to-face or distance learning with interactive video and face-to-face learning with linear video. The current approach contributes to resolving the challenges posed by overcrowded classrooms and insufficient infrastructure, such as the lack of experimental equipment in school laboratories. The use of educational videos to compensate for missing resources by providing virtual demonstrations accessible to all students also enhances classroom time management, allowing teachers to focus on support and concept clarification. Finally, this strategy helps reduce learning inequalities between well-equipped schools and those facing material shortages.

  • References

    1. Achuthan, K., Raghavan, D., Shankar, B., Francis, S. P., & Kolil, V. K. (2021). Impact of remote experimentation, interactivity and platform effectiveness on laboratory learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00272-z
    2. Adler, M. V., Madsen, J., Hedberg, J., Steinberg, R., & Parra, L. C. (2025). Effect of explanation videos on learning: The role of attention and academic performance. Education and Information Technologies, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13292-9
    3. Adsız, M., & Dinçer, S. (2025). The Analysis of Classroom Management Challenges Faced by Teachers in Online Classrooms. TechTrends, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01042-8
    4. Al Mamun, M. A., & Lawrie, G. (2023). Student-content interactions: Exploring behavioural engagement with self-regulated inquiry-based online learning modules. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00221-x
    5. Amin, N., & Mahabeer, P. (2021). Curriculum tinkering in situations of crises and inequalities: The case of South Africa. Prospects, 51(1–3), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-021-09564-8
    6. Anazco, D., Espinosa, M. A., Cifuentes, L., Kassmeyer, B., Schmidt, T. M., Fansa, S., Campos, A., Tama, E., Harmsen, W. S., Hurtado, M. D., Hensrud, D. D., & Acosta, A. (2024). Efficacy of in-person versus digital enhanced lifestyle interventions in adults with overweight and obesity. Obesity Pillars, 12(August), 100133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obpill.2024.100133
    7. ANTHONY S. PALOMA, M. (2023). Technology Leadership Standards of Education Leaders, Teachers’ Technological Adoption and the Integration of Technologies in the Classroom. International Journal of Research Publications, 124(1), 1275–1314. https://doi.org/10.47119/ijrp1001241520234818
    8. Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Flipped classroom in higher education: a systematic literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00430-5
    9. Barua, L., & Lockee, B. (2025). Flexible Assessment in Higher Education: A Comprehensive Review of Strategies and Implications. TechTrends, 330(Mc 0164). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01039-3
    10. Başgül, M., & Coştu, B. (2025). The effect of Education 4.0 tools on 7th grade students’ learning outcomes and attitudes in the electrical circuits unit. In Education and Information Technologies (Issue 0123456789). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13404-z
    11. Bergdahl, N., & Sjöberg, J. (2025). Attitudes, perceptions and AI self-efficacy in K-12 education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8(December 2024), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100358
    12. Cattaneo, A. A. P., Antonietti, C., & Rauseo, M. (2025). How do vocational teachers use technology? The role of perceived digital competence and perceived usefulness in technology use across different teaching profiles. Vocations and Learning, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-025-09359-4
    13. Chang, C. Y., Kuo, H. C., & Du, Z. (2023). The role of digital literacy in augmented, virtual, and mixed reality in popular science education: a review study and an educational framework development. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2461–2479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00817-9
    14. Chen, M., Salama, R., & Hinton, T. (2022). How technology enhanced learning strategies affect healthcare students’ engagement? A mixed methods study. ASCILITE Publications, e22206. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2022.206
    15. Craig, S., Stark, P., Wilson, C. B., Carter, G., Clarke, S., & Mitchell, G. (2023). Evaluation of a dementia awareness game for undergraduate nursing students in Northern Ireland: a Pre-/Post-Test study. BMC Nursing, 22(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01345-2
    16. Daniels, L. M., Ferede, S., & Scott-Ugwuegbula, Z. (2025). Black university students’ lived connections between classroom assessment and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 80(February), 102347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2025.102347
    17. Doerner, R., & Horst, R. (2022). Overcoming challenges when teaching hands-on courses about Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality: Methods, techniques and best practice. Graphics and Visual Computing, 6, 200037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gvc.2021.200037
    18. Engelbrecht, J., & Borba, M. C. (2024). Recent developments in using digital technology in mathematics education. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2
    19. Gomez-del Rio, T., & Rodriguez, J. (2022). Design and assessment of a project-based learning in a laboratory for integrating knowledge and improving engineering design skills. Education for Chemical Engineers, 40(April), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2022.04.002
    20. Gu, L. (2025). How technology influences English learning attainment among Chinese students. Acta Psychologica, 253(3), 104740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104740
    21. Hemmati, F., & Ghaderi, E. (2014). The Effect of Four Formats of Multiple-choice Questions on the Listening Comprehension of EFL Learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1994), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.462
    22. Hennessy, S., D’Angelo, S., McIntyre, N., Koomar, S., Kreimeia, A., Cao, L., Brugha, M., & Zubairi, A. (2022). Technology Use for Teacher Professional Development in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A systematic review. Computers and Education Open, 3(December 2021), 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080
    23. Itauna, A., Pereira, S., Adelton, F., Ribeiro, A., Weliton, J., Dutra, A., Jesus, A. De, & Pereira, S. (2023). Digital booklet : contextualizing chemistry experimental practices in in- tegrated high school Cartilha digital : contextualizando as práticas experimentais da quí- mica no ensino médio integrado. 1818–1835.
    24. Javid, L. (2014). The Comparison between Multiple-choice (MC) and Multiple True-false (MTF) Test Formats in Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(Mc), 784–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.482
    25. Kataoka, H., Tokinobu, A., Fujii, C., Watanabe, M., & Obika, M. (2025). Effectiveness of professional-identity-formation and clinical communication-skills programs on medical students’ empathy in the COVID-19 context: comparison between pre-pandemic in-person classes and during-pandemic online classes. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06597-3
    26. Koç, A., & Kanadlı, S. (2025). Effect of Interactive Learning Environments on Learning Outcomes in Science Education: A Network Meta-Analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-025-10202-7
    27. Körkkö, M., Lutovac, S., & Korte, S. M. (2024). The sense of inadequacy and uncertainty arising from teacher work: Perspectives of pre- and in-service teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 127(June). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102410
    28. Krishtofik, I. (2021). Criteria for the effectiveness of teaching technologies in modern practices of professional training of teachers. SHS Web of Conferences, 98, 01008. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219801008
    29. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., & Riley, K. L. (2017). Engineering Thinking in Prekindergarten Children : A Systematic Literature Review. 106(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20174
    30. Liu, M. Y., Liao, L. L., Huang, Y. T., Lee, Y. C., & Lai, I. J. (2025). Effectiveness of a scenario-based simulation course on improving the clinical communication skills of dietetic students. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06684-z
    31. Lohr, A., Sailer, M., Stadler, M., & Fischer, F. (2024). Digital learning in schools: Which skills do teachers need, and who should bring their own devices? Teaching and Teacher Education, 152(July), 104788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104788
    32. Lu, Y., Shang, Z., Zhang, W., Pang, M., Hu, X., Dai, Y., Shen, R., Wu, Y., Liu, C., Luo, T., Wang, X., Liu, B., Zhang, L., & Rong, L. (2024). Global incidence and characteristics of spinal cord injury since 2000–2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03514-9
    33. MacKenzie, A., Bacalja, A., Annamali, D., Panaretou, A., Girme, P., Cutajar, M., Abegglen, S., Evens, M., Neuhaus, F., Wilson, K., Psarikidou, K., Koole, M., Hrastinski, S., Sturm, S., Adachi, C., Schnaider, K., Bozkurt, A., Rapanta, C., Themelis, C., … Gourlay, L. (2022). Dissolving the Dichotomies Between Online and Campus-Based Teaching: a Collective Response to The Manifesto for Teaching Online (Bayne et al. 2020). In Postdigital Science and Education (Vol. 4, Issue 2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00259-z
    34. Maulana, I. (2025). Coding learning innovation : Interactive programming experience with virtual lab platform.
    35. Mayer, R. E. (2024). The Past, Present, and Future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
    36. Netland, T., von Dzengelevski, O., Tesch, K., & Kwasnitschka, D. (2025). Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Computers and Education, 224(September 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164
    37. Onyeaka, H., Passaretti, P., & Miller-Friedmann, J. (2024). Teaching in a pandemic: a comparative evaluation of online vs. face-to-face student outcome gains. Discover Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00140-8
    38. Osborne, A., Yillah, R. M., Bash-Taqi, A., & Conteh, O. (2025). A study of vulnerable student populations, exclusion and marginalization in Sierra Leonean secondary schools: a social justice theory analysis. BMC Psychology, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02554-x
    39. Photopoulos, P., Tsonos, C., Stavrakas, I., & Triantis, D. (2023). Remote and In-Person Learning: Utility Versus Social Experience. SN Computer Science, 4(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01539-6
    40. Rohmad, Z., & Wahyuni, D. S. (2016). TECH-RICH INSTRUCTION: RAISING STUDENTS’ AWARENESS AGAINST PLAGIARISM IN ACADEMIC WRITING. Leksika, 12(2), 1–23.
    41. Samuel, T., Azen, R., & Campbell-Kyureghyan, N. (2019). Evaluation of Learning Outcomes Through Multiple Choice Pre- and Post-Training Assessments. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 122. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n3p122
    42. Sentriyo, I., Sumarna, N., Rabani, L., & Arisanti, W. O. L. (2023). Integration of Digital Technology in the Learning Process Through Problem-Based Learning Models. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(2), 2266–2274. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i2.3241
    43. Shang, Y., Cao, K. F., Yue, J. Y., Zhao, S. Z., Hao, S. H., Sun, Y. Z., Cui, Q. Y., Guo, H. M., & Tang, C. H. (2025). Comparative effectiveness of various teaching modes, including PBL, CBL, and CTTM in paediatric medical education with combined online and offline approaches. BMC Medical Education, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06267-4
    44. Shlenova, M., & Kravchenko, V. (2025). Distance learning in Ukrainian higher education as an aspect of the industrial revolution 4 . 0. 0.
    45. Siyam, Y., Siyam, N., Hussain, M., & Alqaryouti, O. (2025). Evaluating technology integration in education: a framework for professional development. Discover Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00448-z
    46. Sweller, J. (2018). Measuring cognitive load. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0395-4
    47. Teng, L., Tang, Y. M., Wu, R. P. H., Tsui, G. C. P., Tsang, Y. P., & Tang, C. Y. (2024). Exploring the efficacy of collaborative learning in a remote robotics laboratory: a comparative analysis of performance and pedagogical approaches. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00305-w
    48. Tuma, F. (2021). The use of educational technology for interactive teaching in lectures. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 62(January), 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.051
    49. Vermeulen, E. J., & Volman, M. L. L. (2024). Promoting Student Engagement in Online Education: Online Learning Experiences of Dutch University Students. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(2), 941–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09704-3
    50. Vydra, M., & Kováčik, J. (2024). The use of image analysis in improving knowledge and skills on the example of teaching the biology of algae and fungi. Education and Information Technologies, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13004-3
    51. Wiitavaara, B., & Widar, L. (2025). Challenges and opportunities related to online studies in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13406-x
    52. Wu, X. Y. (2024). Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis. In Education and Information Technologies (Vol. 29, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12307-1
    53. Yazici, S. Ç., & Nakıboğlu, C. (2024). Examining experienced chemistry teachers’ perception and usage of virtual labs in chemistry classes: a qualitative study using the technology acceptance model 3. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4337–4370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11985-1
    54. Zou, W., Purington Drake, A., Masur, P. K., Whitlock, J., & Bazarova, N. N. (2024). Examining learners’ engagement patterns and knowledge outcome in an experiential learning intervention for youth’s social media literacy. Computers and Education, 216(May 2023), 105046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105046
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2026 The Authors

How to cite

Abdelali, M., Alami, A., Younas, A., & Khouna, J. (2026). A comparative study of the pedagogical effectiveness of using linear and interactive videos in high school level chemistry teaching. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 8(11), 2026708. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2026708
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
  • Article viewed - 204
  • PDF downloaded - 84