International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol  17 No  14 (2023) Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Academic Achievement https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i14.38611 M. Firman Ramadhan1,2(), Mundilarto Mundilarto1, Ariswan Ariswan1, Irwanto Irwanto3, Bahtiar Bahtiar4, Syifa’ul Gummah5 1 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 2 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia 3 Department of Chemistry Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia 4 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia 5 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, Indonesia m.firman2016@student.uny.ac.id Abstract—This study aims to promote students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement using Interface Instrumentation Experiments-supported Blended Learning (IIE-BL). In this quasi-experimental study, 40 undergraduate students who took the Basic Physics II course from the Department of Physics Education at two private universities in Indonesia were assigned randomly as ex- perimental and control groups. Experimental group students were taught using blended learning based on interface instrumentation technology, while the con- trol group students were taught using conventional learning by the same lecturer. To collect data, the Critical Thinking Test (CTT) and Physics Achievement Test (PAT) were administered, which data were then analyzed in independent and paired t-tests, as well as the d-effect sizes test on SPSS 26 at a significance level of 0.05. The results showed that students in the experimental group obtained sig- nificantly higher critical thinking skills and achievement scores than students in the control group. It can be concluded that IIE-BL is effective in improving stu- dents’ critical thinking skills and achievement in the Basic Physics II course. Ed- ucators are suggested to apply IIE-BL to promote student performance and cata- lyze their learning. Keywords—interface instrumentation experiments, blended learning, critical thinking skills, academic achievement 1 Introduction The advancement of technology has brought significant impacts on human life, in- cluding in the field of education. Technology assists educators in delivering materials to students without being limited to a physical classroom setting. Technology has been extremely supportive in facilitating learning, especially during the COVID-19 pan- demic where e-learning is widely used. WhatsApp, Zoom Meeting, and other platforms iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 101 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i14.38611 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… can function as online learning platforms which facilitate distance learning. Blended learning becomes popular as it combines face-to-face meetings and online learning. Blended learning also provides relevant strategies that can help students make optimal academic achievement [1]. Blended learning is an alternative approach to learning dur- ing the COVID-19 pandemic [2] where learning has shifted to e-learning [3]. WhatsApp group applications facilitate the flipped classroom as it provides chatrooms and WhatsApp call features [4]. WhatsApp has been one of the most commonly used platforms for learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic besides Google Class- room, and Zoom Meeting [5]. Learning Management System (LMS) is another online learning platform that can assist educators in delivering teaching materials that requires an Internet connection [6]. Unfortunately, due to expensive internet packages, uncooperative students, and low student attendance rates, the use of LMS in for learning is more challenging [7]. There- fore, WhatsApp groups can be used to support LMS in online learning by making the communication between teachers and students more efficient. Communication between the teacher and students using WhatsApp groups does not require a massive internet package, making it easier for students to participate in online classes. WhatsApp is an effective communication tool for overcoming communication barriers [8] and it allows students to learn anywhere. In addition, students have a positive perception of the use of WhatsApp as a teaching medium and learning platform [9] and WhatsApp groups can also be developed as an m-learning tool [10]. Furthermore, WhatsApp can be uti- lized as an online debate medium to enhance students’ critical thinking skills during the COVID-19 pandemic [11]. Critical thinking skill is a part of 21st-century higher-level thinking skills [12] that are associated with students’ success in the future [13]. Critical thinking skills in phys- ics experiments assisted by technology and instrumentation interfaces for students are one of important thinking skills that help students solve physics problems. The physics experiment device assisted by technology and instrumentation interfaces combines software and hardware to visualize physics experiment data. Physics experiment activ- ities are conducted online and offline during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing physics experiment devices assisted by technology and instrumentation interfaces, in- volving Arduino devices and LabVIEW. Arduino devices can be used as learning media in physics education as they allow the observation of natural phenomena using sensors. The curriculum for 21st-century skills should integrate students with Arduino technol- ogy in physics experiments to improve students’ learning interests [14] which will bring a positive influence on education [15]. Arduino is a relatively inexpensive microcon- troller that is widely used by teachers [16]. The application of Arduino in basic physics laboratories can affect students’ attitudes toward performing group works [17]. The instrumentation interface is developed from Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench (LabVIEW) software that serves the data processing and vis- ualization. Physics simulations based on LabVIEW explain difficult materials that are not easy to be learned in conventional laboratories [18]. LabVIEW-based instrumenta- tion interfaces can perform graphic simulations and can be connected to Arduino de- vices [19]. LabVIEW and Arduino can serve as media for physics experiments in the 102 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… laboratory [20]. LabVIEW-based instrumentation interfaces and electronic Arduino de- vices in physics experiment activities can improve students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement in physics. Physics experiments using the interaction of hard- ware and software are practical [21] and such experiments can be the alternative to conventional physics experiment devices. The advancement of technology indeed has changed the roles of teachers into figures of intermediaries, facilitators, and guides through digital learning that functions as the main device in the education aspect [22]. Nowadays, popular cellphone applications are more attractive among 21st-century stu- dents, thereby teachers must be able to adopt technology in their teaching [23]. Virtual technology used in physics laboratory experiments has a significant effect on students’ knowledge [24]. Along with the advancement of technology, teachers are also demanded to improve educational services in order to improve the quality of edu- cation. Improvement in educational services will affect the increase in student academic achievement [25]. The use of technology can increase motivation and academic achievement [26]. The interface instrumentation technology displays natural phenom- ena on a computer screen. Digital technology has a positive influence on increasing the academic achievement of physics education students. Digital technology also provides benefits for learning activities in higher education because students are encouraged to be more active, constructive, and interactive so as to increase academic achievement [27]. Physics experimental devices that apply technology allow more effective compre- hension and good academic achievement [28]. Visual-based technology can improve students’ skills and academic achievement [29]. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the teaching and learning activities in the world, with no exception from primary education to higher education. The pandemic has shifted the learning activities into online learning [30], [31]. Universities were also compelled to terminate face-to-face learning and adopt online learning [32]. Predictions about the future of higher education vary, including predictions of dramatic and revo- lutionary changes. Some experts believed that incorporating technology in education could positively affect the expansion and equity of education [33]. However, the re- strictions prevent learning activities from being optimally carried out, resulting in a decline in science students’ critical thinking skills and learning outcomes [34]. Researchers conducted a study to address the aforementioned issues by implement- ing interface instrumentation experimental devices in basic physics courses offered through blended learning using e-learning applications and WhatsApp. In-person phys- ics experimental activities were carried out on interface instrumentation experimental devices. This study examined the effects of blended learning based on interface instru- mentation experiments on students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement of physics education. In relation to the research objectives, four research questions were formulated as follows: 1. Is there any statistically significant gap in students’ average critical thinking skills between the experiment group and the control group? 2. Is there any statistically different findings in the average scores of students’ aca- demic achievement between the experimental group and the control group? iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 103 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… 2 Literature review 2.1 Blended learning Blended learning refers to the combination between face-to-face learning and online learning [35] to support unique interpretations from groups of students and use as a variety of learning resources in carrying out discussions [36] [37] to support excellent learning quality [38]. Some supporting factors and constraints follow the implementa- tion of blended learning related to the smoothness of communication, discipline func- tion, rewind learning, media adaptation, and learning programs [39]. Face-to-face learn- ing is carried out in the classroom while online learning utilizes internet facilities and online discussion forums [40]. Online learning can use LMS supported by the WhatsApp group application. Meanwhile, face-to-face learning can be done in the classroom or laboratory. Blended learning can make classroom attendance more effi- cient while it maintaining the learning plans and providing effective teaching experi- ences [41]. Blended learning combines synchronous and asynchronous learning to facilitate ef- fective learning activities. The synchronous learning was conducted on Zoom meetings where direct interaction between students and lecturer occurred, while asynchronous learning through YouTube videos facilitated indirect interaction [42] [43]. Synchro- nous learning activities were real-time, while asynchronous activities can be completed at different times [44]. Popular synchronous and asynchronous communication tools used worldwide include Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, Cisco, Webex, Zoom, and Moodle [45]. WhatsApp can also facilitate both synchronous and asynchronous learning communication [46] and it is an interactive technology tool that fosters dy- namic, engaging, interactive, and independent learning to support students in acquiring meaningful knowledge [47]. In this study, LMS in the form of Moodle and WhatsApp groups were employed for online learning, while face-to-face learning is facilitated by interface instrumentation technology. 2.2 Interface instrumentation technology Interface instrumentation technology interacts with the software and hardware. In this study, the Laboratory Virtual Instrumentation Engineering Workbench (LabVIEW) is the software that is integrated to the hardware in the Arduino board. LabVIEW con- trolled the Arduino in performing measurements [48]. Arduino microcontroller control and several electronic components were controlled via a computer using the LabVIEW interface [49]. The interaction between LabVIEW and Arduino software is part of a data acquisition system that can be developed into an experimental device for students in the laboratory [50], [51], [52] as a modern experimental equipment [53]. LabVIEW is a graphical interface device that facilitates the easy ordering and acqui- sition of data from Arduino [55]. LabVIEW connects the Arduino control board to sen- sors and transmits data from the Arduino hardware to the LabVIEW program designed for experiments [54]. Arduino serves as a data acquisition system that can be controlled 104 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… by LabVIEW to conduct experiments [56]. The use of Arduino-based LabVIEW inter- action is a modern experiment, as it utilizes a computer-based control system [57]. The computer system equipped with LabVIEW software controls the processing of infor- mation obtained from the Arduino hardware [58]. In this study, physics experiments were carried out using the LabVIEW software interaction designed to abridge the elec- tronic devices installed on the Arduino board. Physics experiments in this study were carried out on the material of the diffraction grating, the intensity of the Light Emitting Diode (LED) light, and the thickness of the plastic material. 2.3 Critical thinking skills Critical thinking skills are part of higher-order thinking skills. Critical thinking skills are major skills to acquire through learning process [59]. Critical thinking is a thinking process that directs all knowledge and skills in solving problems, making decisions, analyzing problems, and conducting research based on the information and data ob- tained to draw comprehensible conclusions [60]. Students need to develop strong criti- cal thinking skills to understand information, solve problems in everyday life, make decisions logically, think reflectively, and have an initial knowledge about the problems [61]. As one of the 21st century skills, the critical thinking skill should be developed through meaningful learning experiences [62]. The use of inquiry-discovery method has been capable of improving students’ critical thinking skill [63]. The integration of inquiry-based learning approach for science subject can stimulate students’ critical thinking skills [64]. The inquiry-based learning can enhance critical thinking skills by improving stu- dents’ abilities to interpret, analyze, evaluate, infer, explain, and self-regulate the infor- mation that they acquire. These are the core skills of critical thinking [65]. A teacher should possess adequate critical thinking skill in order to be capable of teaching these abilities to the students [66]. Engaging students in inquiry-based science activities, the lecturer can help students develop their critical thinking skills [67]. In addition, exper- imental activities conducted in the laboratory using an inquiry-based approach can also foster critical thinking skills in students [68]. In this study, students’ critical thinking skills were measured using a rubric developed by Hohmann and Grillo [69] based on several indicators: questions and problems, information, intellectual persistence, and intellectual independence. Assessment of students’ critical thinking skills was carried out in two stages before and after the lectures. 2.4 Academic achievement Academic achievement describes the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes ac- quired and demonstrated by students as part of educational outcomes through a learning process based on cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains [70]. The con- structivism theory applies the subjective principles that allow for different interpreta- tions and can lead to varied learning outcomes [71]. Schools and other education pro- grams need to directly promote academic development and indirectly enhance students’ iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 105 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… cognitive development by prompting cognitive-academic direction [72]. Learning out- comes are affected by the interaction between educators and students, where educators play a crucial role in enhancing student achievement [73]. Improving students’ learning outcomes requires teachers to apply student-centered learning method and integrate the technology to facilitate learning activities. Computer- based learning provides opportunities for students to participate actively, increase their curiosity, and achieve higher academic performance in physics [74]. Integrating Infor- mation and Communication Technology (ICT) into teaching and learning processes through the use of digital learning tools can improve students’ academic achievement [75]. Some factors influence students’ academic achievement, including the learning method [76]. Computer-based learning media can be used to improve students’ aca- demic achievement [77]. Meanwhile, online laboratory learning also enhances aca- demic achievement [78], [79], [80]. Furthermore, blended learning, the use of science experiments and the use of technology that assists learning can also increase students’ academic achievement [81], [82]. 3 Methods This section describes the research method, samples, instruments, and data analysis used to measure students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement. 3.1 Design This quasi-experimental study was conducted at two private universities in Mataram City, West Nusa Tenggara province, Indonesia. Blended learning based on interface instrumentation technology was applied in the experimental group, while the control group was taught using conventional learning by the same model teacher. The research- ers observed how the lecturer taught during the treatment. In this study, blended learn- ing based on interface instrumentation experiments is the independent variable, while critical thinking skills and academic achievement are the dependent variables. The re- search was carried out in the even semester of the 2020/2021 school year in six meet- ings with 100 minutes each. The learning topics were the diffraction grating, the inten- sity of the LED light to the rotating angle, and the thickness of the plastic material to the intensity of the LED light. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. t-test was carried out to analyze the influence, while Cohen’s d was employed to determine the gap before and after learning. 3.2 Samples Samples of this study were 40 students from the Department of Physics Education at two private universities in the city of Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara province, Indo- nesia. The two universities were selected using a convenience sampling technique. One of the classes (22 students) was randomly assigned as the experimental group, while the other class (18 students) was assigned as the control group. Samples aged between 106 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… 18 to 21 years. There were 9 males and 13 females in the experimental group, while the control group consisted of 4 males and 14 females. 3.3 Data collection instruments The Critical Thinking Test (CTT) developed by Hohmann and Grillo [69] was used to assess students’ critical thinking skills. Meanwhile, the Physics Achievement Test (PAT) was used to measure student academic achievement. The Delphi technique was used for CTT and PAT validation to gather expert views regarding the instrument being developed [83]. CTT is a rubric used to measure students’ critical thinking skills before and after learning. Domains in CTT consist of questions and problems, information, intellectual persistence, and intellectual independence. The rubric was validated for its instrument instructions, language, writing, and aspects of critical thinking skills by rel- evant experts. Experts’ suggestions were then applied to improve the instrument and to determine the validity and reliability coefficients of the instrument. The validity of the instrument was measured using the Gregory formula [84], while the reliability was cal- culated using Cohen’s Kappa formula [85]. The validity of the CTT was 1.00 (high) and the reliability of 1.00 with an approximate significance of 0.000 (<0.05). Hence, the CTT can be regarded as valid and reliable. PAT consisted of five open-ended questions to predict the wavelength, the distance between slits, and the band distance to the m-order to the central light on the diffraction grating. Students were required to predict the diffraction phenomenon of monochro- matic light and the magnitude of the LED light intensity for various angles of incidence on the surface of the light sensor and proved the thickness of the plastic through light absorption. The PAT instrument was validated by experts to measure the validity and reliability of the instrument. The validity of the PAT was 1.00 and Cronbach’s alpha reliability was 0.68. Therefore, PAT was regarded as valid and reliable. 3.4 Procedures Treatment in the experimental group. There were six meetings for the experi- mental group, each of which consisted of three stages: introduction, core, and closing. Meeting 1 (lecturers and students carried out teaching and learning activities face-to- face), preliminary activity (5 mins.): The lecturer explained the learning objectives and learning materials. Core activity (90 mins.): Pre-test was performed and students were given usernames to log in to their e-learning accounts. Students listen to the lecture about statistical analysis for physics experiments and material and conducted discus- sions on the e-learning portal and the WhatsApp Group application. Closing activity (5 mins.): the lecturer assessed the thinking processes and gave assignments for students to be later performed on the e-learning portal or WhatsApp Group. Meeting 2 and Meet- ing 3 (online learning session), preliminary activity (15 mins.): the lecturer explained the learning objectives and learning materials. Core activity (70 mins.): lecturer helped students to understand the material and experimental analysis. Problems and hypothe- ses physics were also given to students through the e-learning portal on the iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 107 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… www.perkuliahanfisia.com page. Closing activity (15 mins.): the lecturer made reflec- tions and feedback and reviewed conclusions and assignments through chats. Students were also directed to download practicum guidelines and used interface instrumentation experiments on the portal e-learning. Meeting 4 (classroom session), preliminary activ- ity (15 mins.): the lecturer re-explained the objectives of the practicum using interface instrumentation experiments and the functions of interface instrumentation experi- mental devices used as learning media in the laboratory. Core activity (70 mins.): the lecturer directed students to conduct experiments using the experimental instrumenta- tion interface provided, and the lecturer asked questions about data collection. Closing activity (15 mins.): the lecturer evaluated the activities and asked students to make re- views and conclusions regarding the materials that they had learned, the task of making a practicum report, and discussed data analysis related to use through the e-learning portal or WhatsApp (practicum assistant). Meeting 5 (online session), preliminary ac- tivity (15 mins.): the lecturer explained the purpose of data analysis, and the function of the interface instrumentation experimental device used as a learning medium in the laboratory. Core activity (70 mins.): the lecturer explained the data analysis that would be used in practicum reports (online student guidance to analyze experimental results). Closing activity (15 mins.): the lecturer evaluated the activities and students submitted their practicum reports through their respective accounts on the e-learning portal or the WhatsApp application to be assessed. After that, a post-test was conducted. Meeting 6 (offline session) was the post-test. Students’ scores were published on their Moodle. Treatment in the control group. Six meetings consisting of three stages each were performed. Face-to-face learning activities were conducted via Zoom meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Meeting 1, preliminary activity (5 mins.): The lecturer ex- plained the learning objectives and the material to be studied. Core activity (90 mins.): pre-test was conducted followed by an explanation of statistical analysis for physics experiments. Furthermore, the lecturer explained the materials of the diffraction grat- ing, the intensity of the LED light to the rotating angle, and the thickness of the plastic material to the intensity of the LED light which would be studied and discussed at the next meeting. Closing activity (5 mins.): the lecturer made an evaluation and gave as- signments to students to study practicum materials. Meeting 2, preliminary activity (15 mins.): the lecturer explained the learning objectives of the material on the diffraction grating and the intensity of the LED light on the rotating angle to students. Core activity (70 mins.): the lecturer explained the material on the diffraction grating and the inten- sity of the LED light on the rotating angle and gave some problems and opportunities for students to hypothesize the problems. Closing activity (15 mins.): the lecturer eval- uated the learning, provided feedback, reviews, and conclusions, as well as assignments to students about the material that has been studied. At meeting 3, students studied the thickness of the plastic material against the intensity of the LED light. The preliminary, main, and closing activities were the same as the second meeting. Meeting 4, prelimi- nary activity (15 mins.): the lecturer re-explained the objectives of the practicum using conventional experimental devices used as learning media in the laboratory. Core ac- tivity (70 mins.): experiments were conducted using conventional devices that have been provided followed by a question and answer session. Closing activity (15 mins.): 108 https://www.i-jim.org http://www.perkuliahanfisia.com/ Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… the lecturer made the evaluation and asked for students’ reviews and conclusions re- garding the material being practiced. Next, the lecturer assigned the students to write practicum reports and discuss data analysis (face-to-face-based practicum assistance using the zoom meeting application). Meeting 5, preliminary activity (15 mins.): the lecturer explained the purpose of data analysis. Core activity (70 mins.): the lecturer explained the data analysis that would be used in the practicum report. Closing activity (15 mins.): the lecturer evaluated the learning and students submitted practicum reports to be assessed. Meeting 6 was the post-test. Preliminary activity (5 mins.): the lecturer asked students to pray and then explained the exam rules. Core activity (90 mins.): lecturer distributed the post-test questions to students. Closing activity (5 mins.): the lecturer informed the results of the student’s final grades through the study program announcement board. 3.5 Data analysis Students’ critical thinking skills were measured based on an assessment rubric be- fore and after learning activities. The t-test examined the differences in pre-test and post-test data between the experimental and control groups, while Cohen’s d measured the increase in students’ pre-test and post-test scores. Normality and homogeneity tests had been first conducted prior to the t-test. The normality and homogeneity of the data were tested in the Shapiro-Wilk test and Levene’s test. Table 1 presents the pre-test and post-test scores on critical thinking skills and academic achievement, showing that data were normally distributed and homoge- neous (p > 0.05), thereby t-test could be performed. An independent t-test was con- ducted to see any statistically significant difference in the average critical thinking skill scores between the experimental group and the control group. Paired samples t-test was carried out to find increases in critical thinking skills after treatment. The gap in stu- dents’ critical thinking skill scores before and after treatment was measured using the effect size (d) [86]. Cohen’s d value describes the length of the gap in students’ critical thinking skill scores before treatment and after treatment. These coefficients were grouped into four: 0.20 to 0.40 (small), 0.50 to 0.70 (moderate), 0.8 to 1.2 (large), and greater than 1.30 (very large) [87]. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26 software at a significance level of 5%. Table 1. Normality and homogeneity tests on students’ pre-test and post-test scores for critical thinking skills and academic achievement Variable Groups Pre-test Post-test Normality Homogeneity Normality Homogeneity Critical thinking Experimental 0.107 0.956 0.111 0.856 Control 0.209 0.150 Achievement Experimental 0.287 0.580 0.313 0.098 Control 0.364 0.453 Note: p > 0.05 = Data are normally distributed and are homogenous iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 109 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… 4 Results The significant difference in the average scores of student’s critical thinking skills between the experimental group and the control group was measured in the independent sample t-test. The t-test compared students’ initial abilities and average scores of criti- cal thinking skills between the experimental group and the control group as summarized in Table 2. No significant difference was found in students’ initial abilities related to critical thinking skills between the experimental group and the control group. The crit- ical thinking skills test was based on the framework proposed by Hohmann and Grillo [69] consisting of questions and problems, information, intellectual perversion, and in- tellectual autonomy. In general, there was no statistically significant difference in the overall mean score pre-test between the experimental group and the control group (t(40) = -0.124; p = 0.902). Hence, students had equal initial critical thinking skills. Table 2. The gap in the pre-test scores between the experimental and control groups for critical thinking skills Group n M SD t p Experimental 22 37.216 7.081 -0.124 0.902 Control 18 37.500 7.426 Note: p > 0.05 = no significant difference The results of the t-test for students’ final scores were compared with the average scores of critical thinking skills between the experimental group and the control group as summarized in Table 3. There were differences in students’ final critical thinking skills between the experimental group and the control group. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall post-test mean scores between the experimental and control groups (t(40) = 8.772; p = 0.000). Table 3. The gap in the post-test scores between the experimental and control groups for critical thinking skills Group n M SD t p Experimental 22 87.500 6.954 8.772 0.000 Control 18 68.750 6.431 Note: p < 0.05 = there is a significant gap The second research question on whether there is a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test average scores of students’ critical thinking skills which were answered in the paired sample t-test. In addition, the effect of interface instrumentation experiment-based blended learning on students’ critical thinking skills was reflected in Cohen’s d scores as presented in Table 4. 110 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… Table 4. The gap in the pre-test and post-test scores between the experimental and control groups on critical thinking skills Group M SD t p Cohen’s d Experimental Pre-test 37.216 7.081 -44.718 0.000 7.165 Post-test 87.500 6.954 Control Pre-test 37.500 7.426 -13.186 0.000 4.499 Post-test 68.750 6.431 Students’ average score in critical thinking skills for the experimental group in- creased from pre-test to post-test. There was a significant difference found between the mean pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group from 37.216 to 87.500 (increased by 50.284; t = -44.718; p = 0.000), while for the control group, it increased from 37.500 to 68.750 (increased by 31.250; t = -13.186; p = 0.000). Based on the results of the paired t-test, students in the experimental group showed an increase in the average value of critical thinking skills greater than that of the control group after the treatment. The effect size of the intervention on critical thinking skills in the experi- mental group was 7.165 and in the control group was 4.499. Therefore, the instrumen- tation experiments-supported blended learning interface is more effective in promoting students’ critical thinking skills compared to conventional learning. To answer the first research question on the presence of a significant difference in the average academic achievement scores of students between the experimental and control groups, an independent sample t-test was employed. The results of the t-test for students’ initial abilities obtained were compared with the average academic achieve- ment scores between the experimental group and the control group which s summarized in Table 5. There was no difference in students’ initial abilities related to academic achievement between the experimental group and the control group. In general, no sta- tistically significant difference was found in the overall pre-test mean scores between the experimental and control groups (t(40) = 0.000; p = 1.000). Therefore, students’ academic achievement at the beginning of the lecture was equal. Table 5. The gap in pre-test scores between experimental and control groups for academic achievement Group n M SD t p Experimental 22 30.000 5.623 0.000 1.000 Control 18 30.000 6.174 Note: p < 0.05 = there is a significant gap The results of the t-test for students’ final scores were compared to the average aca- demic achievement scores between the experimental group and the control group as summarized in Table 6. There were differences in students’ final scores between the experimental group and the control group. In general, there was a statistically signifi- cant difference in the post-test scores obtained by the experimental and control groups (t(40) = 9.402; p = 0.000), indicating that the academic achievement of students after the treatment differed. iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 111 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… Table 6. The gap in post-test scores between experimental and control groups for academic achievement Group n M SD t p Experimental 22 80.364 7.188 9.402 0.000 Control 18 61.556 4.973 Note: p < 0.05 = there is a significant gap The presence of a significant difference between the average scores of students’ pre- test and post-test academic achievement was measured in a paired sample t-test. The effect of interface instrumentation experiment-based blended learning on student aca- demic achievement was seen in Cohen’s d values as presented in Table 7. Table 7. The gap in the pre-test and post-test scores between experimental and control groups for academic achievement Group M SD t p Cohen’s d Experimental Pre-test 30.000 5.623 -74.158 0.000 7.805 Post-test 80.364 7.188 Control Pre-test 30.000 6.174 -23.744 0.000 5.629 Post-test 61.556 4.973 The average academic achievement score of the experimental group students has increased from pre-test to post-test. The average pre-test and post-test academic achievement scores for the experimental group significantly increased from 30,000 to 80,364 (an increase of 50.364; t = -74.158; p = 0.000), while for the control group, it increased from 30.000 to 61,556 (an increase of 31.556; t = -23.744; p = 0.000). The paired t-test shows that students in the experimental group had higher average academic achievement scores than that of the control group after the treatment. The effect size of the treatment on achievement in the experimental group was 7.805 and in the compar- ison group was 5.629. It can be concluded that the instrumentation experiments-sup- ported blended learning interface is more effective in promoting students’ academic achievement than traditional learning. 5 Discussion This study examined the effect of blended learning based on interface instrumenta- tion experiments on students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement com- pared to the application of conventional learning. The independent sample t-test showed a significant difference in the critical thinking skills between students in the experi- mental group and the control group. The experimental group taught using blended learning based on interface instrumentation experiments had an average value of critical thinking skills greater than the control group. Positive support during lecture activities contributed to the findings of this study [88]. Students carried out discussions and worked in groups to design, investigate, and communicate research results so that build- 112 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… ing their knowledge is learning based on constructivism. Inquiry-based learning activ- ities are active learning strategies that can improve critical thinking skills [89]. Blended learning can enhance students’ knowledge and make learning more efficient, effective, and interesting [90]. Blended learning based on project-based learning can improve students’ thinking skills, including independent thinking, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills better than conventional learning [91]. Blended learning based on in- quiry activities appears as the most significant treatment compared to real and virtual experiments [92]. The use of technology is one of the factors and measurements in increasing students’ academic achievement [93]. The findings of this study confirm the findings in previous studies stating that blended learning and experimental technology based on interface instrumentation are more effective than conventional learning (blended learning for example [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]; experimental technology based on interface instrumenta- tion [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]). This finding makes sense because the blended learning interface instrumentation experiment is one of the 21st-century learning fol- lowing technological development 4.0. Furthermore, blended learning promotes critical thinking skills and academic achievement during the COVID-19 pandemic [106]. Blended learning is an alternative solution to overcome the shortcomings of face-to- face learning to provide effective, efficient, and fun learning [107]. Blended learning provides a positive role and makes students more independent in carrying out learning [108]. The results of the paired sample t-test showed an increase in the scores of students in the experimental group. Cohen’s d scores on critical thinking skills and academic achievement showed that the use of blended learning based on interface instrumentation experiments is more effective than conventional learning. Blended learning is an effec- tive method for improving critical thinking skills and academic achievement in physics learning [106], [109]. The development of software and hardware interaction as an ex- perimental instrumentation media interface can increase cost efficiency and it allows a better comprehension of physics [110]. Computer-assisted physics instrumentation also helps students gain knowledge about programming and instrumentation, as well as in- creasing students’ self-confidence and motivation to learn physics and programming languages [101]. Hammoumi et al [111] claim that instrumentation techniques provide easy access to collected data for further analysis. Likewise, Suwondo and Sulisworo [112] found the interaction of LabVIEW software and Arduino hardware effective in learning physics. Ishafit et al. [113] found the Arduino and LabVIEW system a solution to the limited access to experimental devices as a physics learning medium which pro- vides opportunities for students to control instrumentation devices and conduct real- time experiments remotely using the website. On the other side, students in the control group also improved their critical thinking skills and academic achievement. However, the average score of the experimental group is greater than the average score of the control group. Teaching and learning activities that utilize information and communication technology are believed more ef- fective in improving the critical thinking skills and academic achievement of students. Student-centered technology enables student-student interaction and lecturer-student interaction which can increase academic achievement better than using conventional iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 113 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… laboratories [114]. In addition, Karmakar [115] also found virtual instrumentation and ICT capable of increasing students’ learning interest through direct experiments. Re- mote laboratory activities using the interaction between software and hardware posi- tively contribute to cognitive, behavioral, and affective academic achievement [116]. The blended learning was performed using the interface instrumentation experiments by combining online and face-to-face learning both synchronously and asynchronously, using Moodle and WhatsApp. The face-to-face learning was conducted in the physics laboratory, where interface instrumentation experiments were conducted using the Home and Student version of LabVIEW software and electronic devices installed on Arduino. It was further explained that students acquire conceptual knowledge, can be directly involved in the laboratory, and are satisfied with distant learning that utilizes the inter- action of software and hardware. Thus the physics experimental set is a factor that in- fluences the critical thinking skills and academic achievement of students in both groups in this study. One of the challenges was to familiarize students with the use of ICT in learning activities, particularly in the context of LabVIEW software and Arduino hardware development. It is essential to introduce these technologies to students to get them familiar with ICT in supporting both classroom learning and the physics labora- tory sessions. 6 Conclusions This study revealed that students in the experimental group had significantly higher scores than those in the control group as shown by statistically significant gap in the mean scores of students’ critical thinking skills between the two groups. A statistically significant gap was also found in the average academic achievement of students be- tween the two groups, in favor of the experimental group. This study concludes that blended learning based on interface instrumentation ex- periments is better at improving students’ critical thinking skills and academic achieve- ment than conventional teaching. Blended learning based on interface instrumentation experiments is a constructivist learning method that is effective in improving students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement in Basic Physics II courses. This method provides students the opportunity to integrate Basic Physics II material into interactive learning media based on LabVIEW and Arduino into the physics experiment process. In the broader context, the use of interface instrumentation experiment-based blended learning positively contributes to students’ success in higher education and in their professional domain. Therefore, blended learning based on interface instrumenta- tion experiments should be included in the higher education curriculum, particularly in the teaching and learning activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, in- terface instrumentation helps students solve problems in everyday life by utilizing and implementing robotic industrial devices. More importantly, this research can be used as a guide for physics educators to design and implement more effective instruction in 114 https://www.i-jim.org Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… Basic Physics courses that can be applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. These re- sults can also be implemented in an optics course to provide a more contextual learning experience. In addition, this study also provides new insights about effective Basic Physics teaching strategies for lecturers and higher education institutions on how to significantly improve students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement using blended learning based on interface instrumentation experiments. This study involved university students as samples in a small-scale experiment. Fu- ture researchers are suggested to involve a larger number of participants to make the findings generalizable and to gain more significant results by extending the implemen- tation of the blended learning method based on interface instrumentation. In addition, this study focuses only on students’ critical thinking skills and academic achievement of students. Therefore, future researchers may examine the effect of the blended learn- ing method based on interface instrumentation experiments to improve students’ prac- tical skills and scientific attitudes and gain more comprehensive findings. In addition, future researchers can also compare the effectiveness of blended learning models based on interface instrumentation experiments to other non-conventional teaching methods. Since this study is the first study that investigated the effect of blended learning based on interface instrumentation experiments on students’ critical thinking skills and aca- demic achievement in the Basic Physics II course, the findings of this study add up to the body of knowledge in the field of learning and technology and open up new direc- tions for future research. 7 Limitations Based on the results of the research, it is hoped that it can help educators and re- searchers, especially in the field of physics education, regarding blended learning mod- els and learning in laboratories assisted by software and hardware interaction in pub- lishing and carrying out their work in the field of learning technology. Although this research as a whole succeeded in improving critical thinking skills and learning out- comes of physics education students, some limitations of this study need to be con- cerned. This study involved limited number of students for only the Basic Physics II course. Future researchers need to involve larger number of participants and conduct the experiment on advanced physics courses as there will be more laboratory experi- ments to be conducted. More face-to-face learning can be applied to optimize the phys- ics experimental activities. This present study only regarded quantitative data, thereby future researchers are encouraged to use qualitative data for more comprehensive re- sults. In addition, this research only improves critical thinking skills and learning out- comes. Future researchers are advised to involve a larger number of participants so that their findings can be generalized and in order to obtain a more significant effect. The blended learning model based on interface instrumentation experiments can be applied. Furthermore, it is also recommended for different physics materials. Future researchers are also expected to test the effect of the blended learning model based on interface instrumentation experiments to improve the practical skills and scientific attitudes of physics education students and to obtain more comprehensive findings. In addition, iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 115 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… future studies need to compare the effectiveness of blended learning models based on interface instrumentation experiments with other non-conventional teaching methods. 8 References [1] U. A. Chaeruman, B. Wibawa, and Z. Syahrial, “Development of an instructional system design model as a guideline for lecturers in creating a course using blended learning ap- proach,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 14, pp. 164–181, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i14.14411 [2] M. Anwar, H. Hidayat, I. P. Yulistiowamo, K. Budayawa, Zulwisli, O. A. Osumah, Z. Ardi, “Blended learning based project in electronics engineering education courses: A learning innovation after the Covid-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Tech- nologies, vol. 16, no. 14, pp. 107–122, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i14.33307 [3] I. Irwanto, D. Wahyudiati, A. D. Saputro, and S. D. Laksana, “Research trends and applica- tions of gamification in higher education: A bibliometric analysis spanning 2013–2022”, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 18, no. 05, pp. 19–41, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i05.37021 [4] Reflianto, P. Setyosari, D. Kuswandi, and U. Widiati, “Reading comprehension skills: The effect of online flipped classroom learning and student engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1613–1624, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.1613 [5] F. Ariani, N. Ulfatin, A. Supriyanto, and I. Arifin, “Implementing online integrated character education and parental engagement in local cultural values cultivation,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1699–1714, 2022. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu- jer.11.3.1699 [6] M. Tubagus, S. Muslim, and Suriani, “Development of learning management system-based blended learning model using claroline in higher education,” International Journal of Inter- active Mobile Technologies, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 186–194, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ IJIM.V14I06.13399 [7] S. Noor, F. M. Isa, and F. F. Mazhar, “Online teaching practices during the COVID-19 pan- demic,” Educational Process: International Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 169–184, 2020. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2020.93.4 [8] M. A. A. Pozin, M. N. M. Nawi, M. A. O. Mydin, S. R. M. Riazi, and A. I. Imran, “An ability of whatsapp usage in industrialised building system (IBS) construction project,” In- ternational Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 188–197, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i04.10548 [9] I. F. Rahmadi, “Whatsapp group for teaching and learning in Indonesian higher education what’s up?,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 150–160, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i13.14121 [10] D. Lyken-Segosebe, G. Gamariel, and K. Bagai, “Boundary crossing for education continu- ity: Exploring whatsapp’s potential in Botswana during and beyond the pandemic,” Interna- tional Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 59–81, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i02.27283 [11] P. Pahmi and S. Niah, “Students’ voices towards online debate through whatsapp as alter- native media to enhance critical thinking skills during Covid-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 205–221, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i05.18759 116 https://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i14.14411 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i14.33307 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i05.37021 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.1613 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1699 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1699 https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I06.13399 https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I06.13399 https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2020.93.4 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i04.10548 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i13.14121 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i02.27283 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i05.18759 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [12] D. Wahyudiati, I. Irwanto, and H. K. Ningrat, “Improving pre-service chemistry teachers’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills using project-based learning”, World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1291–1304, 2022. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7268 [13] M. Erna, Elfizar, and C. A. Dewi, “The development of e-worksheet using kvisoft flipbook maker software based on lesson study to improve teacher’s critical thinking ability,” Inter- national Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 15, no. 01, pp. 39–55, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V15I01.15679 [14] A. Coban and N. Coban, “Using arduino in physics experiments: determining the speed of sound in air,” Physics Education, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1 – 5, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6552/ab94d6 [15] E. Lee, “A meta-analysis of the effects of arduino-based education in Korean primary and secondary schools in engineering education,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1503–1512, 2020. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.9.4.1503 [16] E. Lee, “Developing a low-cost microcontroller–based model for teaching and learning,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 921–934, 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.921 [17] E. B. Kırıkkaya and B. Başaran, “Investigation of the effect of the integration of arduino to electrical experiments on students’ attitudes towards technology and ICT by the mixed method,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31–48, 2019. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.31 [18] V. Haris, H. Idrus, and R. Zamora, “Developing LabVIEW-based experimental simulation application on teaching materials of gas kinetic theory in senior high school,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1185, no. 012038, pp. 1–9, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1742-6596/1185/1/012038 [19] O. A. Rusanu, “LabVIEW instruments for creating brain- computer interface applications by simulating graphical animations and sending text messages to virtual and physical LEDs based display systems connected to arduino board,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Sci- ence and Engineering, vol. 1262, no. 012037, pp. 1–13, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757- 899X/1262/1/012037 [20] M. Thepnurat, P. Saphet, and A. Tong-On, “Low-cost DIY vane anemometer based on Lab- VIEW interface for arduino,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1144, no. 012028, pp. 1–4, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1144/1/012028 [21] S. Motahhir, A. E. Hammoumi, A. E. Ghzizal, and A. Derouich, “Open hardware/software test bench for solar tracker with virtual instrumentation,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.11.003 [22] S. Tzur, A. Katz, and N. Davidovich, “Learning supported by technology: Effectiveness with educational software,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1137–1156, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1139 [23] I. Irwanto, A. D. Saputro, W. Widiyanti, and S. D. Laksana, “Global trends on mobile learn- ing in higher education: A bibliometric analysis (2002–2022),” International Journal of In- formation and Education Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 373-383, 2023. https://doi.org/ 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1816 [24] M. Thees, S. Kapp, M. P. Strzys, F. Beil, P. Lukowicz, and J. Kuhn, “Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 1–11, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020. 106316 iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 117 https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v14i5.7268 https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V15I01.15679 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab94d6 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab94d6 https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.9.4.1503 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.921 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.921 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.1.31 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1185/1/012038 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1185/1/012038 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1262/1/012037 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1262/1/012037 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1144/1/012028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.11.003 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1139 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1816 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1816 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [25] H.-V. T. Dinh, Q. A. T. Nguyen, M.-H. T. Phan, K. T. Pham, T. Nguyen, and H. T. Nguyen, “Vietnamese students’ satisfaction toward higher education service: The relationship be- tween education service quality and educational outcomes,” European Journal of Educa- tional Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1397–1410, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer. 10.3.1397 [26] A. Syakroni, Zamroni, C. Muali, H. Baharun, M. Z. Sunarto, B. Musthofa, and M. Wijaya, “Motivation and learning outcomes through the internet of things; learning in Pesantren,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1363, no. 012084, pp. 1–5, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/1363/1/012084 [27] C. Wekerle, M. Daumiller, and I. Kollar, “Using digital technology to promote higher edu- cation learning: The importance of different learning activities and their relations to learning outcomes,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1799455 [28] F. Bakri, R. Kusuma, and A. H. Permana, “TPACK and augmented reality in kinematics practicum module: Forming HOTS physics education students,” Journal of Physics: Con- ference Series, vol. 2019, no. 012041, pp. 1–7, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/ 2019/1/012041 [29] H. Hasrati, S. Ilyas, I. Irwandi, A. Munawir, and O. Kaosaiyaporn, “Effectiveness of visual programming implementation in thermodynamic experiments with the ISLE-based STEM approach model,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1882, no. 012152, pp. 1–7, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012152 [30] I. Irwanto, D. Wahyudiati, A. D. Saputro, and I. R. Lukman, “Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in higher education: A bibliometric analysis (2012-2022),” International Journal of Information and Education Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 223-231, 2023. https://doi.org/ 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1799 [31] S. Z. Salas-Pilco, Y. Yang and Z. Zhang, “Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 593-619, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/bjet.13190 [32] W. Bao, “COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of peking university,” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 113-115, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 [33] N. Guppy, D. Verpoorten, D. Boud, L. Lin, J. Tai and S. Bartolic, “The post-COVID-19 future of digital learning in higher education: Views from educators, students, and other professionals in six countries,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1750-1765, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13212 [34] V. Rossi, J. D. de Lima, B. Sabatke, M. A. F. Nunes, G. E. Ramirez and . M. I. Ramirez, “Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 888-903, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21574 [35] I. K. Suartama, P. Setyosari, Sulthoni, and S. Ulfa, “Development of an instructional design model for mobile blended learning in higher education,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, vol. 14, no. 16, pp. 4–22, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet. v14i16.10633 [36] K. Qamar, S. Riyadi, and T. C. Wulandari, “Utilization of whatsapp application as discus- sion media in blended learning,” Journal of Education and Learning, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 370– 378, 2019. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v13i3.8412 118 https://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1397 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1397 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1363/1/012084 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1363/1/012084 https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1799455 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2019/1/012041 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2019/1/012041 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012152 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1799 https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1799 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190 https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13212 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21574 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i16.10633 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i16.10633 https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v13i3.8412 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [37] N. K. Nida, B. Usodo, and D. R. S. Saputro, “The blended learning with whatsapp media on mathematics creative thinking skills and math anxiety,” Journal of Education and Learning, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 307–314, 2020. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i2.16233 [38] R. D. Hardianti, I. U. Wusqo, E. N. Savitri, S. D. Pamelasari, A. Yanitama, A. Suanto, and A. S. Widyatama, “LMS-supported science blended learning design workshop as an effort to improve learning quality for science teachers,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1918, no. 052089, pp. 1–6, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052089 [39] Sriwati, M. Delina, and Y. Supriyati, “Evaluation of blended learning program physics of mechanical wave materials using CSE-UCLA model,” Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries, vol. 2019, no. 012015, pp. 1–8, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2019/1/ 012015 [40] Y. Yennita and A. Y. Zukmadini, “Problem-based learning (PBL) and blended learning in improving critical thinking skills and student learning activities in biochemistry courses,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1731, no. 012007, pp. 1–6, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/1731/1/012007 [41] A. Kumar, R. Krishnamurthi, S. Bhatia, K. Kaushik, N. J. Ahuja, A. Nayyar, and M. Masud, “Blended learning tools and practices: A comprehensive analysis,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 85151–85197, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085844 [42] P. Phanphech, T. Tanitteerapan, N. Mungkung, S. Arunrungrusmi, C. Chunkul , A. Songruk, T. Yuji and H. Kinoshita, “An analysis of student anxiety affecting on online learning on conceptual applications in physics: Synchronous vs. asynchronous learning,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 278, pp. 1-20, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040278 [43] I. Skliarova, I. Meireles, N. Martins, T. Tchemisova and I. Cação, “Enriching traditional higher stem education with online teaching and learning practices: Students’ perspective,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 806, pp. 1-19, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci– 12110806 [44] L. J. López-Reyes, A. L. Jiménez-Gutiérrez and D. Costilla-López, “The effects of blended learning on the performance of engineering students in mathematical modeling,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 931, pp. 1-11, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120931 [45] S. Silva, J. Fernandes , P. Peres, V. Lima and C. Silva, “Teachers’ perceptions of remote learning during the pandemic: A case study,” Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 698, pp. 1- 17, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100698 [46] C. Chaka, T. Nkhobo and M. Lephalala, “Leveraging MoyaMA, whatsapp and online discussion forum to support students at an open and distance e-learning university,” The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 494-515, 2020. https://doi.org/10.34190/ JEL.18.6.003 [47] W. E. M. Chiparra, G. R. Suca-Apaza, E. G. Rosales-Dominguez, D. . F. Mosquera-Torres, A. Y. Alarcón-Trillo and J. P. Suazo-Zárate, “Use of whatsapp in synchronous and asynchronous education in students of the IV cycle of peruvian basic education,” Webology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1958-1965, 2022. https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V19I1/WEB19132 [48] M. Patel, A. Sakaamini, M. Harvey, and A. J. Murray, “An experimental control system for electron spectrometers using arduino and LabVIEW interfaces,” Review of Scientific In- struments, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 1–8, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021229 [49] Y. González, A. Abelenda, O. De Melo, C. Calvo-Mola, L. García-Pelayo, B. J. García, and M. Sánchez, “Automated system for surface photovoltage spectroscopy,” Review of Scien- tific Instruments, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0035179 iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 119 https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v14i2.16233 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052089 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2019/1/012015 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2019/1/012015 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1731/1/012007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1731/1/012007 https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085844 https://doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040278 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci%E2%80%9312110806 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci%E2%80%9312110806 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120931 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100698 https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.6.003 https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.18.6.003 https://doi.org/10.14704/WEB/V19I1/WEB19132 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021229 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0035179 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [50] D. A. Quintero, H. Claro, F. Regino, and J. A. Gómez, “Development of a data acquisition system using LabVIEW and arduino microcontroller for a centrifugal pump test bench con- nected in series and parallel,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1257, no. 012002, pp. 1–7, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1257/1/012002 [51] T. Jinakheiw, W. Ratchakham, M. Thepnurat, and A. Tong-On, “Using the arduino with LabVIEW on moment of inertia experiment,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1144, no. 012017, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1144/1/012017 [52] A. D. Rincón-Quintero, L. A. Del Portillo-Valdés, A. Meneses-Jacomé, C. G. Cárdenas- Arias, C. L. Sandoval-Rodriguez, J. G. Ascanio-Villabona, B. E. Tarazona-Romero, J. A. Sandoval-Baldión, J. C. Ortiz-Ríos, and R. A. Mantilla-Olejua, “Manufacture of hybrid pieces using recycled R-PET, polypropylene PP and cocoa pod husks ash CPHA, by pneu- matic injection controlled with LabVIEW software and arduino hardware,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 844, no. 012054, pp. 1–12, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/844/1/012054 [53] R. Puantha, W. Khammarew, A. Tong-On, and P. Saphet, “The speed of sound in air of pipe acoustic resonance via the arduino with LabVIEW interface,” Physics Education, vol. 54, no. 015009, pp. 1–4, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aaea12 [54] D. M. Atia, . H. . T. El-Madany, Y. Atia and M. . B. Zahran, “Real-time implementation of energy management for photovoltaic/battery/diesel hybrid system based on LabVIEW,” Intertional Journal of Renewable Energy Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1105-1116, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v12i2.12889.g8498 [55] D. Nichols, “Arduino-based data acquisition into Excel, LabVIEW, and MATLAB,” The Physics Teacher, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 226-227, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4978720 [56] P. Saphet, A. Tong-on and M. Thepnurat, “One dimensional two-body collisions experiment based on LabVIEW interface with arduino,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 901, no. 012115, pp. 1-6, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012115 [57] O. A. Rușanu, L. Cristea and M. C. Luculescu, “Arduino based mobile robot controlled by voluntary eye-blinks using LabVIEW GUI & NeuroSky mindwave mobile headset,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 997, no. 012059, pp. 1-8, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/997/1/012059 [58] Tong-on, P. Saphet and M. Thepnurat, “Simple harmonics motion experiment based on Lab- VIEW interface for arduino,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 901, no. 012114, pp. 1-6, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012114 [59] I. Irwanto, A. D. Saputro, E. Rohaetı, and A. K. Prodjosantoso, “Using inquiry-based laboratory instruction to improve critical thinking and scientific process skills among preservice elementary teachers”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, no. 80, pp. 151-170, 2019. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.80.8 [60] Kriswantoro, B. Kartowagiran, and E. Rohaeti, “A critical thinking assessment model inte- grated with science process skills on chemistry for senior high school,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 285–298, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU- JER.10.1.285 [61] T. Lestari, Z. A. I. Supardi, and B. Jatmiko, “Virtual classroom critical thinking as an alter- native teaching model to improve students’ critical thinking skills in pandemic coronavirus disease era,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2003–2015, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.2003 [62] E. Evendi, A. K. A. Kusaeri, M. H. H. Pardi, L. Sucipto, F. Bayani and S. Prayogi, “Assessing students’ criticalthinking skills viewed from cognitive style: Study on implementation of problem-based e-learning model in mathematics courses,” EURASIA 120 https://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1257/1/012002 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1144/1/012017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/844/1/012054 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aaea12 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v12i2.12889.g8498 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4978720 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012115 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/997/1/012059 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/901/1/012114 https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.80.8 https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.285 https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.285 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.2003 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1-15, 2022. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12161 [63] I. Irwanto, A. D. Saputro, E. Rohaeti, and A. K. Prodjosantoso, “Promoting critical thinking and problem solving skills of preservice elementary teachers through process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL),” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 777-794, 2018. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11449a [64] M. Duran and İ. Dökme, “The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student’s critical-thinking skills,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Educa- tion, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 2887-2908, 2016. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a [65] B. D. Wale and K. S. Bishaw, “Effects of using inquiry-based learning on EFL students’ critical thinking skills,” Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1-14, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00090-2 [66] I. Irwanto, E. Rohaeti, and A. K. Prodjosantoso, “Analyzing the relationships between pre- service chemistry teachers’ science process skills and critical thinking skills,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 299-313, 2019. [67] K. Spernes and H. W. Afdal, “Scientific methods assignments as a basis for developing a profession-oriented inquiry-based learning approach in teacher education,” European Jour- nal of Teacher Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-15, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768. 2021.1928628 [68] E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, “Evaluating instructional labs’ use of deliberate practice to teach critical thinking skills,” Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 16, no. 020150, pp. 1-17, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020150 [69] J. W. Hohmann and M. C. Grillo, “Using critical thinking rubrics to increase academic per- formance,” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 35–51, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2014.949551 [70] UNESCO, Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. France: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015. [71] S. P. Maj, “A practical new 21st century learning theory for significantly improving STEM learning outcomes at all educational levels,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1-11, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.29333/ejmste/ 11510 [72] P. Peng and . R. A. Kievit, “The development of academic achievement and cognitive abilities: A bidirectional perspective,” Child Development Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 15–20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352 [73] C. S. Ugwuanyi, C. I. O. Okeke and T. A. Ageda, “Psychological predictors of physics learners’ achievement: The moderating influence of gender,” Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 834 - 842, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i4.4635 [74] M. S. Abdusselam and H. Karal , “The effect of using augmented reality and sensing technology to teach magnetism in high school physics,” Technology, Pedagogy and Educa- tion, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1-18, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1766550 [75] K. Altawalbeh and I. Irwanto, “Game-based learning: The impact of Kahoot on a higher education online classroom,” Journal of Educational Technology and Instruction, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30-49, 2023. [76] A. D. Saputro, I. Irwanto, S. Atun, and I. Wilujeng, “The impact of problem solving instruc- tion on academic achievement and science process skills among prospective elementary teachers,” Elementary Education Online, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 496-507, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.561896 iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 121 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12161 https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11449a https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00090-2 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1928628 https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1928628 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020150 https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2014.949551 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11510 https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11510 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352 https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i4.4635 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1766550 https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.561896 https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.561896 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [77] A. Rahmawati, “The use of computer-based interactive game to make the imaginary logic of structural analysis more real,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 15, pp. 1–12, 2018. [78] S. N. Yeşİloğlu, S. Gençer, F. Ekİcİ, and B. Işik, “Examining pre-service teachers’ views about online chemistry laboratory learning experiences amid the Covid-19 pandemic,” Jour- nal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 18, pp. 108–124, 2021. [79] A. Astalini, D. Darmaji, D. A. Kurniawan, D. Chen, R. Fitriani, M. Wulandari, S. Maryani, N. N. Simamora, and A. Ramadhanti, “A study for student perception of mathematical phys- ics e-module based on gender,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 911–936, 2022. [80] I. Irwanto, “The impact of research-oriented collaborative inquiry learning on pre-service teachers’ scientific process skills and scientific attitudes” Journal of Technology and Science Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 410-425, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1583 [81] R. Sefriani, R. Sepriana, I. Wijaya, P. Radyuli, and Menrisal, “Blended learning with ed- modo: The effectiveness of statistical learning during the Covid-19 pandemic,” International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 293–299, 2021. https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V10I1.20826 [82] N. Papadimitropoulos and E. A. Pavlatou, “Exploring learning outcomes of science experi- ments using physical instrument and substances assisted by digital entities,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1–17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820. 2021.1975302 [83] M. Niederberger and S. Koberich, “Coming to consensus: The delphi technique,” European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 692-695, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab059 [84] G. Robert J., Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications, Seventh Edition. England: Pearson Education Limited, 2015. [85] M. L. McHugh, “Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic,” Biochemia Medica, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 276–282, 2012. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 [86] I. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison. Research methods in education, 8th Edition. London: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 [87] G. M. Sullivan and R. Feinn, “Using effect size—or Why the P value is not enough,” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 279–282, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4300/ jgme-d-12-00156.1 [88] D. I. Ekici, “The effects of online communities of practice on pre-service teachers’ critical thinking dispositions,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Educa- tion, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 3801-3827, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00759a [89] I. Irwanto, “Improving preservice chemistry teachers’ critical thinking and science process skills using research-oriented collaborative inquiry learning,” Journal of Technology and Science Education, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 23-35, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1796 [90] W. D. Dwiyogo and C. L. Radjah, “Effectiveness, efficiency and instruction appeal of blended learning model,” International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 91–108, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i04.13389 [91] Husamah, “Thinking skills for environmental sustainability perspective of new students of biology education department through blended project based learning model,” Jurnal Pen- didikan IPA Indonesia, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 110–119, 2015. [92] S. Gumilar, A. Ismail, D. M. Budiman, and S. Siswanto, “Inquiry instructional model in- fused blended experiment: Helping students enhance critical thinking skills,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1157, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1157/3/032009 122 https://www.i-jim.org http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1583 https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V10I1.20826 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1975302 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1975302 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab059 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvab059 https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539 https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00156.1 https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00156.1 https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00759a https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1796 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i04.13389 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032009 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032009 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [93] C. A. Dewi, N. Awaliyah, N. Fitriana, S. Darmayani, Nasrullah, J. Setiawan, and I. Irwanto, “Using android-based e-module to improve students’ digital literacy on chemical bonding”, International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 16, no. 22, pp. 191–208, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i22.34151 [94] I. G. P. Sudiarta and I. W. Widana, “Increasing mathematical proficiency and students char- acter: Lesson from the implementation of blended learning in junior high school in Bali,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1317, no. 012118, pp. 1–7, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012118 [95] R. P. Murtikusuma, Hobri, A. Fatahillah, S. Hussen, R. R. Prasetyo, and M. A. Alfarisi, “Development of blended learning based on google classroom with osing culture theme in mathematics learning,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1165, no. 012017, pp. 1– 8, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1165/1/012017 [96] D. Mulhayatiah, A. Kindi, and Y. Dirgantara, “Moodle-blended problem solving on student skills in learning optical devices,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1155, no. 012073, pp. 1–6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012073 [97] N. Jalinus, U. Verawardina, Krismadinata, R. A. Nabawi, and Y. Darma, “Developing blended learning model in vocational education based on 21st century integrated learning and industrial revolution 4.0,” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1239–1254, 2021. [98] N. R. Alsalhi, M. E. Eltahir, and S. S. Al-Qatawneh, “The effect of blended learning on the achievement of ninth grade students in science and their attitudes towards its use,” Heliyon, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1–11, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02424 [99] C. H. Huang, “Using pls-sem model to explore the influencing factors of learning satisfac- tion in blended learning,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1–17, 2021. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci11050249 [100] B. Sugiharto, A. D. Corebima, H. Susilo, and Ibrohim, “The pre-service biology teacher readiness in blended collaborative problem based learning (BCPBL),” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 113–130, 2019. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1248a [101] W. H. Kuan, C. H. Tseng, S. Chen, and C. C. Wong, “Development of a computer-assisted instrumentation curriculum for physics students: Using LabVIEW and arduino platform,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 427–438, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9603-y [102] C. W. J. Chen and K. M. J. Lo, “From teacher-designer to student-researcher: A study of attitude change regarding creativity in STEAM education by using makey makey as a plat- form for human-centred design instrument,” Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 75–91, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0010-6 [103] I. Irwandi, I. M. Sari, R. Oktavia, and M. Syukri, “MEMS and IoT applications in ISLE- based STEM physics learning media for mechanics topic with LabVIEW integration,” Jour- nal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1462, no. 012066, pp. 1–11, 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1742-6596/1462/1/012066 [104] A. Salsabila and M. Khairudin, “Analysis of the need for the development of learning media for IOT-based smart building installation systems,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1833, no. 012064, pp. 1–6, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1833/1/012064 [105] M. Park, “Effects of simulation-based formative assessments on students’ conceptions in physics,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1–18, 2019. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586 iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 123 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i22.34151 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012118 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012118 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1165/1/012017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012073 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02424 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050249 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050249 https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1248a https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9603-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0010-6 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1462/1/012066 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1462/1/012066 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1833/1/012064 https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103586 Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… [106] Prihadi, Murtono, and G. Setiadi, “Effectiveness of blended learning to improve critical thinking skills and student science learning outcomes,” Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries, vol. 1823, no. 012095, pp. 1–6, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/ 012095 [107] Z. Faraniza, “Blended learning best practice to answers 21 st century demands,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1940, no. 012122, pp. 1–9, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1742-6596/1940/1/012122 [108] N. Siregar, T. M. Siregar, and B. H. Siregar, “Blended learning in students’ view,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1188, no. 012099, pp. 1–6, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1742-6596/1188/1/012099 [109] W. Suana, W. S. A. Ningsih, N. Maharta, and N. M. A. A. Putri, “The effect of blended learning setting on students’ critical thinking skills in physics,” Journal of Physics: Confer- ence Series, vol. 1572, no. 012073, pp. 1–7, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1572/1/012073 [110] W. Sukmak and P. Musik, “Development of a computer-based simple pendulum experiment set for teaching and learning physics,” International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21307/ijssis-2021-014 [111] A. El Hammoumi, S. Motahhir, A. Chalh, A. El Ghzizal, and A. Derouich, “Real-time virtual instrumentation of arduino and LabVIEW based PV panel characteristics,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 161, no. 012019, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-1315/161/1/012019 [112] N. Suwondo and D. Sulisworo, “Hands-on learning activity using an apparatus for transient phenomena in RC circuit based on arduino uno R3-LINX-LabVIEW,” International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 116–124, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.3991/ijoe.v13i01.6317 [113] I. Ishafit, T. K. Indratno, and Y. D. Prabowo, “Arduino and LabVIEW-based remote data acquisition system for magnetic field of coils experiments,” Physics Education, vol. 55, no. 025003, pp. 1–7, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab5ed6 [114] K. P. S. Rana, V. Kumar, and J. Mendiratta, “An educational laboratory virtual instrumen- tation suite assisted experiment for studying fundamentals of series resistance–inductance– capacitance circuit,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1–20, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1284764 [115] S. Karmakar, “Virtual-instrument-based online monitoring system for hands-on laboratory experiment of partial discharges,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2016.2586754 [116] L. S. Post, P. Guo, N. Saab, and W. Admiraal, “Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behav- ioral, and affective learning outcomes in higher education,” Computers & Education, vol. 140, no. 103596, pp. 1 – 9, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103596 9 Authors M. Firman Ramadhan is a PhD student in Educational Sciences concentrating on Physics Education at Universitas Negeri Yogyakrta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia. He is also a lecturer in Physics Education Program at Universitas Muhammadiyah Mata- ram, Mataram 83127, Indonesia. His research interest is on physics education, technol- ogy for education, instrumentation physics and computational physics (Email: m.fir- man2016@student.uny.ac.id). 124 https://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/012095 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1823/1/012095 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1940/1/012122 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1940/1/012122 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012099 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012099 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1572/1/012073 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1572/1/012073 https://doi.org/10.21307/ijssis-2021-014 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/161/1/012019 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/161/1/012019 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v13i01.6317 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v13i01.6317 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab5ed6 https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1284764 https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2016.2586754 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103596 mailto:m.firman2016@student.uny.ac.id mailto:m.firman2016@student.uny.ac.id Paper—The Effect of Interface Instrumentation Experiments-Supported Blended Learning on Students’… Mundilarto Mundilarto is a full professor in the Physics Education at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia. The scope of his research includes physics education, evaluation of physics teaching, and technology for teaching. Ariswan Ariswan is a full professor in the Physics Education at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia. He is interested in conducting research on physics electronic materials, instrumentation physics, and computational physics. Irwanto Irwanto is an assistant professor in the Department of Chemistry Educa- tion, at Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta 13220, Indonesia. He has been an active member of editorial board committees and reviewer committees of international jour- nals and proceedings. He is currently also serving as a reviewer for several highly re- spected journals in Indonesia. His main research interests include TPACK, ICT in sci- ence education, and affective science education. Bahtiar Bahtiar is a lecturer of Educational Sciences Program concentrating on Physics Education at Universitas Islam Negeri Mataram, Mataram 83116, Indonesia. His research scope includes physics education, evaluation in physics education, and technology for physics learning. Syifa’ul Gummah is a lecturer of Educational Sciences Program concentrating on Physics Education at Mandalika Mataram, Mataram 83114, Indonesia. She is into re- search on physics education, technology for teaching, and evaluation of physics learn- ing. Article submitted 2023-02-05. Resubmitted 2023-03-18. Final acceptance 2023-03-18. Final version pub- lished as submitted by the authors. iJIM ‒ Vol. 17, No. 14, 2023 125