Three levels of chemical representation-integrated and structured inquiry-based reaction rate module: Its effect on students’ mental models

Hutdia Putri  Murni; Minda  Azhar; Ellizar Ellizar; Umar Kalmar Nizar; Guspatni Guspatni

doi:10.36681/tused.2022.148

Authors

Hutdia Putri Murni Universitas Negeri Padang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7574-865X
Minda Azhar Universitas Negeri Padang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5343-7562
Ellizar Ellizar Universitas Negeri Padang
Umar Kalmar Nizar Universitas Negeri Padang
Guspatni Guspatni Universitas Negeri Padang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8926-9131

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.148

Keywords:

Module, structured inquiry, three levels of chemical representation, Mental Models, Reaction Rate

Abstract

Previous studies showed that structured inquiry-based learning is suitable for novice learners, chemical multiple representations facilitate meaningful learning, and modules are organized and complete learning materials for students. Modules designed with a structured inquiry-based model and completed with chemical multiple representations could be media to help students learn. This study aims to determine the effects of the structured inquiry-based reaction rate module that is integrated within three levels of chemical representation on senior high school students' mental models and learning outcomes. The study used a Posttest Control and Experimental Group Design where the research subjects were 137 students from two different ranks of public senior high schools in the city of Padang, Indonesia. Research instruments used were learning achievement test and two-tier diagnostic test as well as a semi-structured interview sheet. T-test results of the research hypotheses showed that the mean of the mental models and learning outcomes of students in the experimental class were significantly higher than those of students in the control class at both low-ranked and high-ranked schools. The integration of three levels of chemical representation on reaction rate topic in a structured inquirybased module during learning affects mental models which they then relate to the learning outcomes of both low and high achiever students in senior high schools.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adriani, D., Azhar, M., Dj, L., & Putra, A. (2021). Validity and practicality level of acid-base electronic module based on structured inquiry containing three levels of chemical representation for senior high school student. In B. Oktavia et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1788, No. 1 (p. 012038). IOP Publishing. https://doi.10.1088/1742-6596/1788/1/012038

Ajoke, O. D. (2019). Effects of structured-inquiry teaching method on Secondary School students’ academic performance in basic science for attaining sustainable goals in disoriented society. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, 8(12), 62-72.

Akin, F. N., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2018). The nature of the interplay among components of pedagogical content knowledge in reaction rate and chemical equilibrium topics of novice and experienced chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 80-105.

Asyhar, R. (2012). Kreatif Mengembangkan Media Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Referensi Jakarta.

Bain, K., & Towns, M. H. (2016). A review of research on the teaching and learning of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 246-262.

Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 3033.

Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: The role of representations in problem-solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30.

Borges, A. T., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental Models of Electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 95-117.

Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J.K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Ed.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 11-29). Springer, Dordrecht.

Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Ng Lan Kong, J., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 19371959.

Cakmakci, G., Donnelly, J., & Leach, J. (2005). A cross-sectional study of the understanding of the relationships between concentration and reaction rate among Turkish secondary and undergraduate students. In K. Boersma et al. (Ed.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 483-497). Springer, Dordrecht.

Chairam S., Somsook, E., Coll, R.K. (2009). Enhancing Thai students’ learning of chemical kinetics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(1), 95–115.

Chairam, S., Klahan, N., & Coll, R. (2015). Exploring secondary students' understanding of chemical kinetics through inquiry-based learning activities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 937-956.

Chittleborough, G. (2004). The role of teaching models and chemical representations in developing students' mental models of chemical phenomena [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Curtin University.

Chittleborough, G. & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The modelling ability of non-major chemistry students and their understanding of the sub-microscopic level. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 274-292.

Chiu, Y. C., Jen, C. H., Chang, C. Y., Lee, P. L., & Yeh, T. K. (2016). Learning seismology through inquiry: Structured, guided, or both?. Seismological Research Letters, 87(4), 998-1007.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.

Daryanto, D & Dwicahyono, A. (2014). Pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran. Gava Media.

Depdiknas. (2008). Penulisan modul. Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan Indonesia.

Effendi-Hasibuan, M. H., & Sulistiyo, U. (2019). Inquiry-based learning in Indonesia: Portraying supports, situational beliefs, and chemistry teachers’ adoptions. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(4), 538-553.

Fahmi, F., & Irhasyuarna, Y. (2017). Misconceptions of Reaction Rates on High School Level in Banjarmasin. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(1), 54-61.

Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., Chang, H. Y., Chang, W. H., Wu, H. K., & Chen, C. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of structured and guided inquiry on students’ development of conceptual knowledge and inquiry abilities: a case study in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1945-1971.

Femintasari, V., Effendy & Munzil. (2015). The effectiveness of two-tier multiple choice test and multiple choice test followed with interview in identifying misconception of students with different scientific reasoning skills in reaction rate. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 21 (2), 192-197.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.

Gegios, T., Salta, K., & Koinis, S. (2017). Investigating high-school chemical kinetics: the Greek chemistry textbook and students' difficulties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 151-168.

Gilbert, J.K & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Multiple representation in chemical education. In J.K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Ed.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8). Springer, Dordrecht.

Greca, I.M., & Moreira, M.A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1-11.

Guspatni, G. (2021). Student-generated PowerPoint animations: a study of student teachers’ conceptions of molecular motions through their expressed models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 312-327.

Habiddin, H., & Page, E. M. (2021). Examining students’ ability to solve algorithmic and pictorial style questions in chemical kinetics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(1), 65-85.

Hakimah, N., Muchson, M., Herunata, H., Permatasari, M. B., & Santoso, A. (2021). Identification student misconceptions on reaction rate using a Google forms three-tier tests. In H. Suwono et al. (Eds.), AIP Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2330, No. 1 (p. 020020). AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043114

Jaber, L. Z & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A Macro-micro-symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973-998.

Jespersen, N.D., Brady, J.E., & Hyslop, A. (2012). Chemistry The molecular nature of matter. John Willey & Sons.

Jiun, L. T., Kamarudin, N., Talib, O., & Hassan, A. (2018). The effect of structured inquiry-based teaching on biology students’ achievement test. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 3(12), 81-89.

Johnstone, A.H. (1993). The Development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701-705.

Kirik, Ö. T., & Boz, Y. (2012). Cooperative learning instruction for conceptual change in the concepts of chemical kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 221-236.

Koc, Y., Doymuş, K., Karaçöp, A., & Şimşek, Ü. (2010). The effects of two Cooperative learning strategies on the teaching and learning of the topics of chemical kinetics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 52-65.

Lathifa, U. (2020). Improving chemistry teacher candidates’ mental models in the kinetics course using SiMaYang type II learning. In R Rahadian et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1594, No. 1 (p. 012018). IOP Publishing. https://doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1594/1/012018

Llewellyn, D. (2013). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-and argument-based science standards in grades 3-8. Corwin Press.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121-133.

Murni, H.P., Azhar M., & Ulianas A. (2019). Mental model and understanding of grade XI high school in the reaction rate material. International Journal of Progressive Science and Technologies. 13(2), 238-244.

Murni, H. P., Azhar, M., & Ulianas, A. (2020). Validity and practicality level of structured inquirybased reaction rate module containing macro, submicro and symbolic representation. In R. Ramli et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1481. No. 1 (p. 012080). IOP Publishing. https://doi.10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012080

Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In J. van den Akker et al. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 125-135). Springer, Dordrect.

Nurhasanah, N., Azhar, M., & Ulianas A. (2020). Validity and practicality of chemical equilibrium module based on structured inquiry with three levels representation for students grade XI of senior high school. In R. Ramli et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1481. No. 1 (p. 012084). IOP Publishing. https://doi.10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012084

Park, E. J., Light, G., Swarat, S., & Denise, D. (2009, June). Understanding learning progression in student conceptualization of atomic structure by variation theory for learning. In Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference.

Penttilä, J., Kallunki, V., Niemi, H. M., & Multisilta, J. (2016). A structured inquiry into a digital story: Students report the making of a superball. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 8(3), 19-34.

Qualters, D. (2002). Do students want to be active learners? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 51-60.

Quilez, J. (2009). From chemical forces to chemical rates: A historical/philosophical foundation for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Science & Education, 18(9), 1203-1251.

Rachmawati, T., Azhar, M., Aini, S., & Azra, F. (2021, February). Validity and practicality of the salt hydrolysis electronic module based on structured inquiry with interconnection of three levels of chemicals representation. In B. Oktavia et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1788, No. 1 (p. 012039). IOP Publishing. https://doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1788/1/012039

Rahayu, S., & Kita, M. (2010). An analysis of Indonesian and Japanese students’ understandings of macroscopic and submicroscopic levels of representing matter and its changes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 667-688.

Sagita, R., Azra, F., & Azhar, M. (2018). Development of mole concept module based on structured inquiry with interconnection of macro, submicro, and symbolic representation for grade x of senior high school. In R. Ramli et al. (Eds.), IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering: Vol. 335. No. 1 (p. 012104). IOP Publishing. https://doi:10.1088/1757899X/335/1/011002

Salim, K., & Tiawa, D. H. (2015). Implementation of structured inquiry-based model learning toward students' understanding of geometry. International journal of research in education and science, 1(1), 75-83.

Schmid, S & Bogner, F. X. (2015). Effects of students’ effort scores in a structured inquiry unit on longterm recall abilities of content knowledge. Education Research International, 2015, 1-11.

Sunyono, S., Leny, Y., & Muslimin, I. (2015). Supporting students in learning with multiple representations to improve student mental models on atomic structure concepts. Science Education International, 26(2), 104-125.

Sunyono, S., Yuanita, L., & Ibrahim, M. (2015). Mental models of students on stoichiometry concept in learning by method based on multiple representation. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5(2), 30-45.

Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning at the symbolic level. In J.K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Ed.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 75-105). Springer, Dordrecht.

Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168.

Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: the many face of the chemistry ‘triplet’. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179-195.

Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Linking the macroscopic, submicroscopic and symbolic levels: The case of inorganic qualitative analysis. In J.K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Ed.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 137-150). Springer, Dordrecht.

Toma, R. B. (2022). Effect of confirmation and structured inquiry on attitudes toward school science. School Science and Mathematics, 122(1), 16-23.

Treagust, D. F. (2018). The importance of multiple representations for teaching and learning science. Education Research Highlights in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2018, 215-222.

Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., Vine, M. M., & Liao, X. (2011). Inquiry learning: level, discipline, class size, what matters?. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-11.

Wang, C.Y. (2007). The role of mental-modeling ability, content knowledge, and mental models in general chemistry student’s understanding about molecular polarity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Missouri-Colombia.

Wang, C. Y., & Barrow, L. H. (2011). Characteristics and levels of sophistication: An analysis of chemistry students’ ability to think with mental models. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 561586.

Wang, H. H., Hong, Z. R., She, H. C., Smith, T. J., Fielding, J., & Lin, H. S. (2022). The role of structured inquiry, open inquiry, and epistemological beliefs in developing secondary students’ scientific and mathematical literacies. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-17.

Whitten, K. W., Davis, R. E., Peck, M. L., & Stanley, G. G. (2013). General chemistry. Cengage Learning Whitworth, B. A., Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Differentiating inquiry. Science Scope, 37(2), 10-17.

Wiyarsi, A., Sutrisno, H., & Rohaeti, E. (2018). The effect of multiple representation approach on students’ creative thinking skills: A case of ‘Rate of Reaction’ topic. In A.W. Subiantoro et al. (Eds.), Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Vol. 1097, No. 1 (p. 012054). IOP Publishing. https://doi.10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012054

Yalcinkaya, E., Taştan-Kırık, Ö., Boz, Y., & Yıldıran, D. (2012). Is case-based learning an effective teaching strategy to challenge students’ alternative conceptions regarding chemical kinetics?. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(2), 151-172.

Yanto, B. E., Subali, B., & Suyanto, S. (2019). Improving students' scientific reasoning skills through the three levels of inquiry. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 689-704.

Zamnah, L. N., & Ruswana, A. M. (2018). Meningkatkan kemampuan pemahaman matematis dan self-confidence melalui pembelajaran peer instruction with structured inquiry (PISI). Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran Matematika, 11(1), 49-62.