ABSTRACT
Teaching mitosis at the tertiary level is often undermined by rote learning, weak visualization, and limited lab access. This mixed‑methods study designed and validated an interactive e‑module (built in Kotobee) using the ADDIE model to improve conceptual understanding of mitosis among biology majors. Expert and learner checklists (α=.92 and .81) established instrument reliability. Four experts completed the final module appraisal; 22 students rated acceptability; a separate cohort of 25 students took pre/post tests. Experts judged the module “Excellent” overall (M=4.73/5), and learners rated both format and content “Excellent” (M=4.9/5). Pre/post testing showed a significant gain (Mpre=31.84, Mpost=33.96; t(24)=−2.86, p=.0087). Interviews with teachers highlighted persistent misconceptions (e.g., PMAT sequence), visualization gaps, and resource constraints; they also endorsed animations, simulations, and immediate feedback. Grounded in cognitive load and multimedia principles, findings indicate the e‑module is usable, pedagogically sound, and improves short‑term learning outcomes. Future work should broaden samples, track retention, and enhance accessibility features.
INTRODUCTION
Complex, microscopic processes such as mitosis are hard to “see,” inviting memorization over understanding. Cognitive Load Theory warns that poorly sequenced, dense materials can overload working memory; well‑designed instruction should minimize extraneous load and support germane processing (Sweller et al., 2022). Multimedia learning principles further suggest animations, narration, and signaling improve comprehension of dynamic processes when used judiciously (Mayer & Fiorella, 2023). This study reports the design and validation of an interactive e‑module on mitosis for tertiary biology students and evaluates its impact on learning and perceived usability. The work draws on these two frameworks and on recent evidence that interactive e‑modules can improve biology outcomes (Gultom et al., 2024). Core details, instruments, and data are taken from the dissertation text and tables.
METHODS
Design and setting. A sequential exploratory mixed‑methods design guided development and evaluation. The module followed ADDIE (Figure on PDF p. 44), targeting the cell cycle, interphase, PMAT stages, and cytokinesis, and embedding animations, interactive simulations, drag‑and‑drop labeling, formative quizzes, and summative checks.
Participants. Four groups participated at a state university: (1) three instructors for pilot reliability of the expert tool; (2) experts (three content specialists, two instructional‑materials specialists) engaged across development, with four completing the final evaluation; (3) twelve 1st‑year BSED Biology students for pilot reliability of the learner tool; (4) twenty‑two BSED Biology students (2nd–4th year) for acceptability ratings. For learning gains, a separate sample of 25 students completed pre/post tests on mitosis.
Instruments. The expert checklist (33 items, six criteria) and learner checklist (20 items, two criteria) used five‑point Likert scales. Piloting yielded α=.92 (expert) and α=.81 (learner) (Table 2, PDF p. 39). Pre/post tests covered cells, cell cycle, and mitosis (Appendix M).
Procedures and analysis. After needs analysis (teacher interviews; Table 4, PDF pp. 51–56), the team iteratively developed the module, incorporated expert feedback, and then collected learner acceptability ratings. Quantitative data were analyzed via means and a paired t‑test for the 25‑student pre/post cohort (Tables 9–10, PDF p. 76). Qualitative interview statements were thematically grouped (e.g., confusion of PMAT, visualization gaps).
RESULTS
Instrument reliability. Cronbach’s alpha indicated excellent reliability for the expert tool (α=.92) and high reliability for the learner tool (α=.81) (Table 2, PDF p. 39).
Expert validation. Experts rated the module “Excellent” across all six criteria: Objectives 4.85, Content 4.89, Sequence 4.60, Graphical Presentation 4.56, Evaluation Activities 4.75, Consistency 4.75; Overall M=4.73 (Table 7, PDF p. 69). Visual design, while excellent, offered room for refinement (lowest sub‑mean 4.56).
Learner acceptability. Students rated both Format and Content at M=4.9/5 (Table 8, PDF p. 74), citing readable layout, helpful illustrations, clear instructions, and enjoyable activities (Appendix J, PDF pp. 98–99).
Learning gains. In the 25‑student cohort, post‑test scores exceeded pre‑test scores (Mpre=31.84, SD=5.77; Mpost=33.96, SD=5.33). The paired t‑test was significant, t(24)=−2.86, p=.0087 (Tables 9–10, PDF p. 76), indicating short‑term improvement.
Teacher‑reported needs. Interviews underscored frequent misconceptions (e.g., confusing PMAT steps, mitosis vs. meiosis), challenges in visualizing subcellular events, and limited lab access. Desired features included phase‑by‑phase animations, virtual labs, immediate feedback, and case links to health and disease (Table 4, PDF pp. 51–56).
DISCUSSION
Findings show strong usability and pedagogical soundness, with experts and students converging on high acceptability and clear goals. The significant pre/post gain, while modest in magnitude, aligns with expectations from multimedia learning and cognitive load principles: animations, segmentation, and guided practice can reduce extraneous load and support schema construction for dynamic processes like mitosis (Mayer & Fiorella, 2023; Sweller et al., 2022). Similar to recent e‑module studies in biology, structured interactivity here appears to translate into measurable learning benefits (Gultom et al., 2024).
Areas for refinement mirror the lowest expert sub‑rating: graphical presentation. Applying signaling, spatial contiguity, and accessibility (e.g., alt‑text, high‑contrast figures, transcripted audio) may yield further gains. Teachers’ calls for offline access and training suggest that institutional support (stable connectivity, device access, faculty workshops) will matter for scaling.
Limitations. The study used convenience samples within one institution and a short intervention window; long‑term retention and transfer were not assessed. The pre/post improvement, while significant, reflects immediate effects; follow‑up testing would clarify durability. Finally, the expert sample completing the final appraisal was small (n=4).
CONCLUSION
An interactive, theory‑informed e‑module on mitosis—developed via ADDIE and validated by experts and students—improved short‑term understanding and was rated highly for quality and usability. Strengthening visuals and accessibility, broadening samples, and tracking longer‑term outcomes are practical next steps for adoption at scale.
References (2021–2025)
Gultom, R. S., Syahputra, A., & Lubis, R. H. (2024). The development of interactive e‑modules to improve learning outcomes in biology. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 22(4), 155–170.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2023). Principles for multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 1–28.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2022). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1–33.
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17432717
