SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

6

H-Index

Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation

an Open Access Journal

Inquiry-Based Chemistry Learning: An Effective Strategy to Strengthen Students' Conceptual Understanding

Khasanah Khasanah
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta ROR
Indonesia
khsnhsanah28@gmail.com
Dewimarhelly Dewimarhelly
Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri 3 Tangerang Selatan
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine whether inquiry-based chemistry learning has an effect on students' conceptual understanding, especially on colloid material, by comparing learning outcomes before and after the application of inquiry-based learning.

    Methodology: The study used a one-group pretest-posttest weak experimental design, purposive sampling technique with a sample of 40 students, instruments in the form of multiple-choice tests and questionnaires. Data analysis used the Liliefors normality test, Fisher's homogeneity test, t-test, and N-Gain quantitatively.

    Main Findings: The results of the study showed an increase in students' conceptual understanding after inquiry-based learning, with the average score increasing from pretest to posttest. The N-Gain value of 0.46 is included in the moderate category, dominated by the moderate category. Statistical tests showed that t count > t table, indicating a significant effect of inquiry-based learning.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study emphasizes specific conceptual understanding in inquiry-based chemistry learning on colloids. The novelty lies in the empirical evidence of direct classroom implementation, which demonstrates how a structured inquiry process can significantly improve students' conceptual construction, resulting in moderate improvement.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    K. Khasanah and D. Dewimarhelly, “Inquiry-Based Chemistry Learning: An Effective Strategy to Strengthen Students’ Conceptual Understanding”, Jor. Chem. Lea. Inn, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 147–154, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.37251/jocli.v1i2.3075.

    More Citation Formats

  • 22
    Abstract views
    17
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. E. Hu-Au, “Learning abstract chemistry concepts with virtual reality: An axperimental study using a VR chemistry lab and molecule simulation,” Electron., vol. 13, no. 16, pp. 1–21, 2024, doi: 10.3390/electronics13163197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163197
    2. H. O. Kapici, “From symbolic representation to submicroscopic one: Preservice science teachers’ struggle with chemical representation levels in chemistry,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 134–147, 2023, doi: 10.46328/ijres.3122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3122
    3. A. J. Dood and F. M. Watts, “Students’ strategies, struggles, and successes with mechanism problem solving in organic chemistry: A scoping review of the research literature,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 53–68, 2023, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00572
    4. I. I. Salame and A. Y. Khalil, “Examinar algunos de los desafíos que enfrentan los estudiantes al aprender sobre reacciones de reordenamiento en química orgánica,” Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.29333/ijese/13203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/13203
    5. A. Hussein, S. Dzaiy, and S. A. Abdullah, “The use of active learning strategies to foster effective teaching in higher education institutions,” Zanco J. Humanit. Sci., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 328–351, 2024, doi: 10.21271/zjhs.28.4.18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21271/zjhs.28.4.18
    6. E. Lugosi and G. Uribe, “Active learning strategies with positive effects on students’ achievements in undergraduate mathematics education,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 403–424, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2020.1773555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1773555
    7. K. M. Jegstad, “Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 251–313, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436
    8. B. Aidoo, C. Anthony-Krueger, A. O. Gyampoh, J. Tsyawo, and F. Quansah, “A mixed-method approach to investigate the effect of flipped inquiry-based learning on chemistry students learning,” Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 507–518, 2022, doi: 10.30935/scimath/12339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12339
    9. K. H. D. Tang, “Student-centered approach in teaching and learning: What does it really mean?,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 72–83, 2023, doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v2i2.218
    10. M. Treve, “Comparative analysis of teacher-centered and student-centered learning in the context of higher education: A co-word analysis,” Iberoam. J. Sci. Meas. Commun., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.47909/ijsmc.117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.117
    11. W. Sasanti, C. Hemtasin, and T. Thongsuk, “The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning to improve the analytical thinking skills of sixth-grade elementary school students,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 37–56, 2024, doi: 10.29333/aje.2024.913a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/aje.2024.913a
    12. S. Rosidah, I. Zulaeha, and A. Formen, “Cultivating critical thinking skills in early childhood through inquiry-based learning models grounded in teachers’ experiences,” Golden Age J. Ilm. Tumbuh Kembang Anak Usia Dini, vol. 9, no. 1`, pp. 159–169, 2024, doi: 10.14421/jga.2024.91-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14421/jga.2024.91-14
    13. M. Arsyad, S. Guna, and S. Barus, “Enhancing chemistry education through problem-based learning: Analyzing student engagement, motivation, and critical thinking,” Int. J. Curric. Dev. Teach. Learn. Innov., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 110–117, 2024, doi: 10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178
    14. C. D. O. Qizi, P. U. X. O’g’li, and K. X. Rajabboyovna, “Incorporating real-world applications into chemistry curriculum: Enhancing relevance and student engagement,” Integr. Sci. Educ., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 44–49, 2024, doi: http://journal.uzfi.uz/index.php/ISE/article/view/95.
    15. X. S. F. Qizi, P. U. X. O’g’li, and T. M. Umurzokovich, “Inquiry-based learning in chemistry education: Exploring its effectiveness and implementation strategies,” Integr. Sci. Educ., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 74–79, 2024, doi: http://journal.uzfi.uz/index.php/ISE/article/view/99.
    16. Z. Ahmad, M. Ammar, A. Sellami, and N. J. Al-Thani, “Effective pedagogical approaches used in high school chemistry education: A systematic eeview and meta-analysis,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 1796–1810, May 2023, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00739
    17. F. M. Bernardi and M. S. Pazinato, “The case study method in chemistry teaching: A systematic review,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 1211–1219, 2022, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00733
    18. T. Budirahayu and M. Saud, “Pedagogical innovation and teacher collaborations in supporting student learning success in Indonesia,” Cogent Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2271713. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2271713
    19. R. S. Siregar, “Students’ preferences for varied learning methods: An empirical study of the effectiveness and appeal of diverse instructional approaches,” J. Profesi Guru Indones., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 140–152, 2024, doi: 10.62945/jpgi.v1i2.679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jpgi.v1i2.679
    20. A. Franz, S. Oberst, H. Peters, R. Berger, and R. Behrend, “How do medical students learn conceptual knowledge? High-, moderate- and low-utility learning techniques and perceived learning difficulties,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03283-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03283-0
    21. E. Yıldız and Ü. Şimşek, “Identifying the subjects in which sixth-grade students have difficulty Learning in science lessons, as well as the causes of the problems and possible solutions,” J. Qual. Res. Educ., vol. 22, no. 32, pp. 33–70, 2022, doi: 10.14689/enad.32.805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.32.805
    22. B. Öztürk, M. Kaya, and M. Demir, “Does inquiry-based learning model improve learning outcomes? A second-order meta-analysis,” J. Pedagog. Res., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 201–216, 2022, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202217481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217481
    23. R. Sam, “Systematic review of inquiry-based learning: assessing impact and best practices in education,” F1000Research, vol. 13, p. 1045, 2024, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.155367.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155367.1
    24. S. Rahmah and A. H. Lubis, “Problem posing as a learning model to improve primary school students’ mathematics learning outcomes in gayo lues,” J. Indones. Prim. Sch., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 93–104, 2024, doi: 10.62945/jips.v1i4.409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jips.v1i4.409
    25. B. A. Simonsmeier, M. Flaig, A. Deiglmayr, L. Schalk, and M. Schneider, “Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 31–54, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700
    26. R. Adauyah and N. Aznam, “Guided inquiry learning model in chemistry education: A systematic review,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 77–87, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i3.6373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i3.6373
    27. M. Jamil, F. A. Hafeez, and N. Muhammad, “Critical thinking development for 21st century: Analysis of physics curriculum,” J. Soc. Organ. Matters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 01–10, 2024, doi: 10.56976/jsom.v3i1.45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56976/jsom.v3i1.45
    28. S. J. Chang, K. eun Lee, E. Yang, and H. Ryu, “Evaluating a theory-based intervention for improving eHealth literacy in older adults: a single group, pretest–posttest design,” BMC Geriatr., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-03545-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03545-y
    29. Y. H. Lai et al., “Impacts of huddle intervention on the patient safety culture of medical team members in medical qard: One-group pretest-posttest design,” J. Multidiscip. Healthc., vol. 16, pp. 3599–3607, 2023, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S434185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S434185
    30. E. I. Obilor, “Convenience and purposive sampling techniques: Are they the same?,” Int. J. Innov. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2023, [Online]. Available: www.seahipaj.org
    31. O. P. Giri, “Choosing sampling techniques and calculating sample size om,” Indones. J. Teach. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 165–176, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijotis.v4i2.75472
    32. C. Nzomo, P. Rugano, J. Njoroge Mungai, and C. Gitonga Muriithi, “Inquiry-based learning and students’ self-efficacy in Chemistry among secondary schools in Kenya,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12672
    33. U. N. Latifah and J. Suprihatiningrum, “The effect of inquiry-based learning on students’ critical thinking ability and activeness in reaction rate material,” Lect. J. Pendidik., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 95–106, 2024, doi: 10.31849/lectura.v15i1.17368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/lectura.v15i1.17368
    34. D. Buffalari, “Structured worksheets: Simple active learning strategies to increase transparency and promote communication,” J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. a241–a253, 2022, doi: 10.59390/vohj7109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59390/VOHJ7109
    35. E. D. Astuti, R. Susanto, D. Cahyono, and M. T. Astuti, “The effect of problem based learning work sheet usage on student learning outcomes,” MUDIR (Jurnal Manaj. Pendidikan), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 404–408, 2023, doi: 10.55352/mudir.
    36. K. Mikkonen, M. Tomietto, and R. Watson, “Instrument development and psychometric testing in nursing education research,” Nurse Educ. Today, vol. 119, no. October, pp. 1–6, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105603
    37. P. Cruchinho et al., “Translation, cross-cultural sdaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: A practical guideline for novice researchers,” J. Multidiscip. Healthc., vol. 17, pp. 2701–2728, 2024, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S419714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
    38. I. Kennedy, “Sample size determination in test-retest and cronbach alpha reliability estimates,” Br. J. Contemp. Educ., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 2022, doi: 10.52589/bjce-fy266hk9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52589/BJCE-FY266HK9
    39. B. Wang, P. L. P. Rau, and T. Yuan, “Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1324–1337, 2023, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768
    40. I. Fitrianto and A. Saif, “The role of virtual reality in enhancing experiential learning: A comparative study of traditional and immersive learning environments,” Int. J. Post Axial Futur. Teach. Learn., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 97–110, 2024, doi: 10.59944/postaxial.v2i2.300.
    41. M. Maros, M. Korenkova, M. Fila, M. Levicky, and M. Schoberova, “Project-based learning and its effectiveness: evidence from Slovakia,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 4147–4155, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1954036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1954036
    42. A. L. Tan, Y. S. Ong, Y. S. Ng, and J. H. J. Tan, “STEM problem solving: Inquiry, concepts, and teasoning,” Sci. Educ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 381–397, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2
    43. N. R. Mishra, “Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory,” J. Res. Dev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 22–29, 2023, doi: 10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
    44. C. Charline, S. Jo, and E. Frédéric, “Use of learning media to increase student motivation in junior high school,” World Psychol., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 176–189, 2023, doi: 10.55849/wp.v3i1.605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55849/wp.v2i3.402
    45. K. Doulougeri, J. D. Vermunt, G. Bombaerts, and M. Bots, “Challenge-based learning implementation in engineering education: A systematic literature review,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 1076–1106, 2024, doi: 10.1002/jee.20588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20588
    46. V. Sukackė et al., “Towards active evidence-based learning in engineering education: A systematic literature review of PBL, PjBL, and CBL,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 1–31, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142113955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113955
    47. W. Azura, A. Silalahi, M. Zubir, and Nurfajriani, “The science environment technology society (SETS) based e-module development with project based learning model in colloidal learning,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2022, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2157/1/012046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2157/1/012046
    48. S. Syahmani, J. Rahmatilah, A. Winarti, M. Kusasi, R. Iriani, and Y. D. Prasetyo, “Development of guided inquiry lesson based on ethnoscience e-modules to improve students’ problem-solving ability in chemistry class,” J. Innov. Educ. Cult. Res., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 670–682, 2022, doi: 10.46843/jiecr.v3i4.363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v3i4.363
    49. K. Sarwari and A. F. Kakar, “Promoting critical thinking skills through contextual teaching and learning,” J. Cogn. Emot. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–42, 2023, doi: 10.31849/lectura.v14i2.15030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/lectura.v14i2.15030
    50. E. J. Cambaya and D. A. Tan, “Enhancing students’ problem-solving skills and engagement in enhancing students’ problem-solving skills and engagement in mathematics learning through contextualized instruction,” Sci. Int.(Lahore), vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 101–109, 2022.