Statistical Characterisation of Retention Decay in Chemistry Learning Under Simulation-Driven Instruction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65820/ejes-7vol2-issue1-2026Keywords:
Simulation-based instruction, retention modelling, chemistry education, statistical analysis, learning decayAbstract
Purpose: This study examined retention decay in chemistry learning under simulation-based instruction using a time-dependent modelling approach. It compared retention dynamics between simulation-based and lecture-based instruction, assessed the predictive effect of instructional method on retention after controlling for post-test achievement, and examined the influence of gender.
Methodology: A quasi-experimental pre-test, post-test, and retention control group design was used. The sample comprised 126 Senior Secondary II chemistry students assigned to simulation-based (n = 57) and lecture-based (n = 69) groups. Retention was measured immediately after instruction (T₁), after four weeks (T₂), and after eight weeks (T₃). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, repeated measures ANOVA, multiple regression, two-way ANOVA, and exponential decay modelling. The Chemistry Achievement Test demonstrated high reliability (KR-20 = 0.87).
Results: Simulation-based instruction produced significantly higher retention than lecture-based instruction across all time points. Instructional method significantly predicted retention after controlling for post-test achievement (β = 0.394, p < 0.05), explaining 65.9% of the variance (R² = 0.659). Exponential decay modelling showed a lower decay rate for the simulation group (λ = 0.08) than the lecture group (λ = 0.18), indicating slower forgetting. Gender had no significant effect on retention.
Novelty and Contribution: The study introduces exponential decay modelling to quantify learning retention over time under different instructional approaches.
Social and Practical Implications: The findings support wider adoption of simulation-based chemistry instruction, teacher training, and delayed assessments to strengthen long-term learning for all students.
References
Cooper, M. M., Posey, L. A., & Underwood, S. M. (2022). Core ideas and topics: Building coherence in the chemistry curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00900
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Ebbinghaus, H. (2013). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (A. Ruger & C. Bussenius, Trans.). Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885) https://doi.org/10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408
Klepsch, M., & Seufert, T. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09502-9?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Teaching and learning of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(7), 737–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1625572
Makransky, G., Petersen, G. B., & Immersive Learning Research Group. (2020). Immersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355
Murre, J. M. J., & Dros, J. (2015). Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. PLOS ONE, 10(7), e0120644. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120644
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-CFE-09-16/publication/13165
Osborne, J., Rafanelli, S., & Kind, P. (2022). Towards a more coherent model of science education. Science Education, 106(5), 1041–1068. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21460
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Surbakti, R., Umboh, E. S., Pong, M., & Dara, S. (2024). Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for Instructional Design in Digital Classrooms. International Journal of Educational Narrative, 2(6), 483-493. https://doi.org/10.70177/ijen.v2i6.1659
Taber, K. S. (2020). Chemical misconceptions: Prevention, diagnosis and cure (2nd ed.). Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p491.1
van Gaalen, A. E. J., Brouwer, J., Schönrock-Adema, J., et al. (2021). Gamification of health professions education: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 21, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10000-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdulkadir Halliru, Suwaiba Sa’id Ahmad (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
