Linking The Physical and Digital: QR-Code–Powered Teaching ‎Resources for Advancing Electrical Circuit Literacy

  • Authors

    • Faried Wadjdi Department of Electrical Engineering Vocational Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, East Jakarta, Indonesia
    • Jarudin Department of Information Engineering, Institut Bina Sarana Global, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7176-3580
    https://doi.org/10.14419/6m4vj678

    Received date: September 5, 2025

    Accepted date: October 11, 2025

    Published date: October 22, 2025

  • Electrical-Circuit Literacy; Engineering Education; Interactive Learning; QR Codes; Technology-Enhanced Learning

  • Abstract

    Electrical‐circuit concepts often remain abstract for novices, and conventional print‐based resources provide limited interactivity. ‎This study examined whether QR-code, powered teaching materials, which seamlessly link physical worksheets to digital simula-‎tions and micro-videos, enhance students' electrical-circuit literacy compared with traditional instruction. A quasi-experimental pre-‎test/post-test design involved 128 first-year engineering students divided into experimental (QR) and control groups. Both groups ‎received identical content over four weeks; only the experimental group accessed QR-embedded tasks that triggered circuit simula-‎tors, schematic animations, and instant quizzes. Data were collected with the validated Electrical-Circuit Literacy Test (ECLT) and an ‎engagement questionnaire. Controlling for prior knowledge, ANCOVA evaluated learning gains, and thematic analysis explored ‎student perceptions. After adjustment, the QR group outperformed the control group on the ECLT, representing a significant effect ‎‎(Hedges g = 0.85). Engagement scores were significantly higher for interactivity (M = 4.32/5). Qualitative feedback highlighted ‎‎"on-demand clarifications" and "self-paced troubleshooting" as significant benefits. Embedding QR codes into circuit worksheets ‎effectively bridges physical and digital learning spaces, yielding measurable conceptual mastery and engagement gains. Educators ‎are encouraged to adopt scaffolded QR tasks and iterative feedback loops to promote deeper, self-regulated learning in STEM ‎courses.

  • References

    1. P. Weis, L. Smetanka, S. Hrček, and M. Vereš, “Interactive Application as a Teaching Aid in Mechanical Engineering,” Computers, vol. 13, no. 7, Jul. 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13070170.
    2. D. D. Shen and C. S. Chang, “Exploring College Students’ Deeper Learning Perceptions in the Blended Learning Environment: Scale Development, Validation, and Experimental Comparison,” International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, vol. 18, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.313184.
    3. W. F. A. Fahmy, N. Haron, S. C. Lim, A. Jackson-Morris, and F. I. Mustapha, “Building the capacity of community health volunteers for noncom-municable disease prevention in low-income urban communities in Malaysia,” J Glob Health Rep, vol. 6, 2022, https://doi.org/10.29392/001c.38511.
    4. Jarudin, N. Ibrahim, and S. Muslim, “Develop of Hyperlink Media to Learn Basic Wushu Techniques,” Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, vol. 17, no. 2/3, pp. 825–832, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1166/jctn.2020.8725.
    5. J. Wastira, E. Tekad, and B. Waluyo, “Integrating Technology into Teaching to Foster Student Engagement and Interaction,” Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 464–486, 2025, https://doi.org/10.21009/jtp.v27i2.56835.
    6. K. Weiszhaupt, K. Bastedo, and M. Macy, “Play-based assessment through a simulation-based widget: Reflection to practice,” J Early Child Teach Educ, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 177–191, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2024.2302624.
    7. S. Cheeseman and R. Walker, Pedagogies for leading practice. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia: Taylor and Francis, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351266925.
    8. O. Halabi, “Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education,” Multimed Tools Appl, vol. 79, no. 3–4, pp. 2987–3004, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08214-8.
    9. N. H. B. Nordin and M. H. Bin Azahari, “Integrating Digital Content to Promote Collaborative Learning in A physical Classroom Context,” Inter-national Journal of Research in Education, Humanities and Commerce, vol. 05, no. 02, pp. 91–101, 2024, https://doi.org/10.37602/IJREHC.2024.5207.
    10. M. M. Bait-Suwailam, J. Jervase, H. Al-Lawati, and Z. Nadir, “An Active Learning Computer-Based Teaching Tool for Enhancing Students’ Learning and Visualisation Skills in Electromagnetics,” International Journal of Electronics and Telecommunications, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2023, https://doi.org/10.24425/ijet.2023.144331.
    11. C. Tokatlidis, S. Tselegkaridis, S. Rapti, T. Sapounidis, and D. Papakostas, “Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories in Electronic Circuits Learning—Knowledge and Skills Acquisition,” Information (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 11, Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/info15110672.
    12. A. Skulmowski and G. D. Rey, “Subjective cognitive load surveys lead to divergent results for interactive learning media,” Hum Behav Emerg Technol, vol. 2, no. October 2019, pp. 149–157, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.184.
    13. T. Lee et al., “Investigation of virtual & augmented reality classroom learning environments in university STEM education,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 2617–2632, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2155838.
    14. A. S. Lim and S. W. H. Lee, “Is Technology-Enhanced Learning Cost-Effective to Improve Skills?: The Monash Objective Structured Clinical Ex-amination Virtual Experience,” Simulation in Healthcare, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 131–135, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000526.
    15. R. E. Mayer, “The Past, Present, and Future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning,” Educ Psychol Rev, vol. 36, no. 1, Mar. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1.
    16. U. Nagasundram, M. M. Mahmud, N. I. Mustamam, Y. Yaacob, R. Ahmad, and M. S. M. A’Seri, “From Connectivity to Dependency: Smartphones in Higher Education Mobile Learning (M-learning),” in Proceedings of the 2024 16th International Conference on Education Technol-ogy and Computers, ICETC 2024, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., Jan. 2025, pp. 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1145/3702163.3702447.
    17. T. Evans, B. Kensington-Miller, and J. Novak, “Effectiveness, efficiency, engagement: Mapping the impact of pre-lecture quizzes on educational exchange,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6258.
    18. T. Naqash, O. Lawanto, Z. ul Abideen, and A. Minichiello, “Unmasking Cognitive Engagement: A Systematised Literature Review of the Rela-tionships Between Students’ Facial Expressions and Learning Outcomes,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85202079366&partnerID=40&md5=e8b28ced39dbf885a9d8fc90ae44a424.
    19. C. Sellberg, Z. Nazari, and M. Solberg, “Virtual Laboratories in STEM Higher Education: A Scoping Review,” Nordic Journal of Systematic Re-views in Education, vol. 2, Mar. 2024, https://doi.org/10.23865/njsre.v2.5766.
    20. E. Tsoukala, I. Lefkos, and N. Fachantidis, “Exploring the Applications of QR Codes in STEM Subjects,” in Lecture Notes in Networks and Sys-tems, Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2024, pp. 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2_13.
    21. P. Sağıt, E. Ucak, and A. S. Gencer, “A Systematic review on the pedagogical use of QR codes,” Journal of STEM Teacher Institutes, vol. 4, pp. 106–126, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385698309.
    22. X. Zhang, “Internet of Things and Cloud Computing Powered Virtual Laboratories for Enhanced STEM Education,” Journal of the Institution of Engineers, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-024-01192-y.
    23. P. Singh, “Virtual Reality (VR) and Immersive Labs in STEM Education,” International Journal for Research in Education, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 36–46, Jun. 2025, https://doi.org/10.63345/ijre.v14.i6.5.
    24. A. Sypsas, E. Paxinou, V. Zafeiropoulos, and D. Kalles, “Virtual Laboratories in STEM Education: A Focus on Onlabs, a 3D Virtual Reality Biolo-gy Laboratory,” Online Laboratories in Engineering and Technology Education, pp. 323–337, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70771-1_16.
    25. R. Padilla Perez and Ö. Keleş, “Immersive Virtual Reality Environments for Embodied Learning of Engineering Students,” Hum Comput Interact, 2025.
    26. H. Song, “Evaluation of a Virtual Laboratory Platform in General Education on Quantum Information Science,” Phys Educ, 2025.
    27. P. Sağıt, E. Ucak, and A. S. Gencer, “A Systematic review on the pedagogical use of QR codes,” Journal of STEM Teacher Institutes, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 106–126, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385698309.
    28. L. Guo, M. Jafri, P. J. Williams, and C. Wang, “Students’ sense-making in technology-enhanced interactive environments,” EMI Educ Media Int, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 267–287, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2022.2153991.
    29. M. Dildabayeva and L. Zhaydakbayeva, “Enhancing Geometry Teaching in STEAM Education with Interactive Learning Environments,” Interna-tional Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1239–1251, 2024, https://doi.org/10.18178/IJIET.
    30. Z. Zuhairi, S. Andayani, and J. Wastira, “Online Learning Model to Improve the Students’ Achievement in Design of Information and Communi-cation Technology,” 2024. https://doi.org/10.18316/rcd.v16i42.11680.
    31. J. S. You, H. S. Chung, S. P. Chung, J. W. Park, and D. G. Son, “QR code: Use of a novel mobile application to improve performance and percep-tion of CPR in public,” Resuscitation, vol. 84, no. 9, pp. e129–e130, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.05.024.
    32. Jarudin, N. T. Sunggono, and Zamroni, “Integrating Digital Health Solutions to Enhance Public Health Services: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Computational Analysis and Applications, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 485–499, 2024.
    33. L. C. Bauman, B. Hansen, L. M. Goodhew, and A. D. Robertson, “Student conceptual resources for understanding electric circuits,” Phys Rev Phys Educ Res, vol. 20, no. 2, Jul. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020128.
    34. O. Kravchenko, H. Shpynta, O. Nikolaienko, S. Dovbenko, and O. Diachok, “Dual Education Models in Modern Educational Institutions,” Jour-nal of Technical Education and Training, vol. 15, no. 3 Special Issue, pp. 257–267, Sep. 2023, https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2023.15.03.023.
    35. A. H. Espera and N. P. Pitterson, “Teaching circuit concepts using evidence-based instructional approaches: A systematic review,” in ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85078745522&partnerID=40&md5=f47b84bd5ea724f1d0ba86cae5839357.
    36. O. Olaogun, A. Skelton, M. Zafar, N. Hunsu, and I. Idowu, A Systematic Review of Student Misconceptions about Electricity and Electric Circuit Concepts. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343239.
    37. S. Nuriyah, N. Winarno, I. Kaniawati, W. Fadly, and S. Sujito, “Analysing students’ conceptions in simple electric circuits topic using four-tier di-agnostic test,” Journal of Research in Instructional, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 295–313, Jun. 2024, https://doi.org/10.30862/jri.v4i1.339.
    38. D. A. Albarracin-Acero, F. A. Romero-Toledo, C. E. Saavedra-Bautista, and E. A. Ariza-Echeverri, “Virtual Reality in the Classroom: Transform-ing the Teaching of Electrical Circuits in the Digital Age,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 8, Aug. 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/fi16080279.
    39. A. D. Yasa, S. Rahayu, S. K. Handayanto, and R. Ekawati, “Evaluating the Impact of Smart Learning-Based Inquiry on Enhancing Digital Litera-cy and Critical Thinking Skills,” Ingenierie des Systèmes d’Information, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 219–233, Feb. 2024, https://doi.org/10.18280/isi.290122.
    40. H.-H. Chuang, C.-Y. Weng, and C.-H. Chen, “Which students benefit most from a flipped classroom approach to language learning?,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 56–68, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12530.
    41. B. Capili and J. K. Anastasi, “An Introduction to Types of Quasi-Experimental Designs,” American Journal of Nursing, vol. 124, no. 11, pp. 50–52, Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0001081740.74815.20.
    42. M. Sailer and M. Sailer, “Gamification of in-class activities in flipped classroom lectures,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 75–90, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12948.
    43. M. Sailer, R. Maier, S. Berger, T. Kastorff, and K. Stegmann, “Learning activities in technology-enhanced learning: A systematic review of meta-analyses and second-order meta-analysis in higher education,” Learn Individ Differ, vol. 112, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102446.
    44. M. T. Chai, A. S. Malik, M. N. M. Saad, and M. A. Rahman, “Application of digital technologies, multimedia, and brain-based strategies: Nurtur-ing adult education and lifelong learning,” in Research Anthology on Adult Education and the Development of Lifelong Learners, IGI Global, 2021, pp. 837–860. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8598-6.ch042.
    45. A. Balderas, R. Baena-Pérez, T. Person, J. M. Mota, and I. Ruiz-Rube, “Chatbot-Based Learning Platform for SQL Training,” International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 135–145, 2024, https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2022.05.003.
    46. C.-Y. Chang, D.-C. Lee, K.-Y. Tang, and G.-J. Hwang, “Effect sizes and research directions of peer assessments: From an integrated perspective of meta-analysis and co-citation network,” Comput Educ, vol. 164, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104123.
    47. Á. Gómez-Cambronero, I. Miralles, A. Tonda, and I. Remolar, “Immersive Virtual-Reality System for Aircraft Maintenance Education: A Case Study,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 8, Apr. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/app13085043.
    48. W. P. Rey and K. E. R. Defensor, “VirtualTechLab (VTL): Innovative Pedagogy for Integrating Virtual Labs into E-Learning for Computer Hard-ware Fundamentals,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, pp. 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3678392.3678399.
    49. S. Alcaraz-Dominguez and M. Barajas, “Conceiving socioscientific issues in STEM lessons from science education research and practice,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 11, no. 5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050238.
    50. M. Zahid Iqbal and A. G. Campbell, “AGILEST approach: Using machine learning agents to facilitate kinesthetic learning in STEM education through real-time touchless hand interaction,” Telematics and Informatics Reports, vol. 9, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2022.100034.
    51. S. Y. Chen and Y. R. Hsu, “Effect of Experiential Education on College Students’ Psychological Capital Development,” Journal of Research in Education Sciences, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 103–140, 2024.
    52. B. Chen, Y. Fan, G. Zhang, M. Liu, and Q. Wang, “Teachers’ networked professional learning with MOOCs,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 7, Jul. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235170.
    53. H. T. Crogman et al., “Ungrading: The Case for Abandoning Institutionalised Assessment Protocols and Improving Pedagogical Strategies,” Educ Sci (Basel), vol. 13, no. 11, Nov. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111091.
    54. Z. Chen, J. Jiao, and K. Hu, “Formative assessment as an online instruction intervention: Student engagement, outcomes, and perceptions,” Interna-tional Journal of Distance Education Technologies, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 50–65, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.20210101.oa1.
    55. N. A. A. Tuah and L. Naing, “Is Online Assessment in Higher Education Institutions during the COVID-19 Pandemic Reliable?” Siriraj Med J, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 61–68, 2021, https://doi.org/10.33192/Smj.2021.09.
    56. S. Maizora, D. Suryadi, D. Juandi, D. Dasari, and E. E. Muchlis, “Integration of Geogebra and Web: An Innovative Solution for Guided Discovery Learning on Triangle Congruence Material to Improve Conceptual Understanding for Prospective Mathematics Teacher Students,” Journal of Engi-neering Science and Technology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 25–32, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105002408991&partnerID=40&md5=aab2733322430c0ee96239eaf75b360a.
    57. H. M. Chen, B. A. Nguyen, Y. W. Chang, and C. R. Dow, “A Gamified Method for Teaching Version Control Concepts in Programming Courses Using the Git Education Game,” Electronics (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 24, Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13244956.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Wadjdi, F., & Jarudin. (2025). Linking The Physical and Digital: QR-Code–Powered Teaching ‎Resources for Advancing Electrical Circuit Literacy. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(6), 472-481. https://doi.org/10.14419/6m4vj678