SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

6

H-Index

Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation

an Open Access Journal

Learning Cycle 7E-Based Chemistry Learning: Its Impact on Grade X Students’ Achievement and Motivation

Eli Aprianingsih
Universitas Islam Negeri Mataram
Indonesia
eliningsihh25@gmail.com
Cinintya Ramanda
Brang Rea 1 State High School
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine the effect of implementing the Learning Cycle 7E learning model on student learning outcomes and motivation in chemistry learning for class X, especially on the material of electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions, and to compare its effectiveness with conventional learning models applied in schools.

    Methodology: The study used a quasi-experimental method with a posttest control group design. Samples were taken using a saturated sampling technique on grade X students of State Senior High School 1 Brang Rea. The research instruments included a learning motivation questionnaire and a learning outcome test on electrolyte-nonelectrolyte solutions. Data analysis used the Lilliefors, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney normality tests, and IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 software.

    Main Findings: The results of the study showed that the Learning Cycle 7E learning model did not have a significant effect on students' chemistry learning outcomes (sig. 0.392 > 0.05) or student learning motivation (sig. 0.386 > 0.05). Multivariately, the application of this model also did not show better effectiveness than conventional learning in improving the learning outcomes and motivation of class X students.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this research lies in the simultaneous analysis of the influence of the 7E Learning Cycle model on two important variables, namely the learning outcomes and motivation of 10th grade chemistry students on the topic of electrolyte and nonelectrolyte solutions.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    E. Aprianingsih and C. . Ramanda, “Learning Cycle 7E-Based Chemistry Learning: Its Impact on Grade X Students’ Achievement and Motivation”, Jor. Chem. Lea. Inn, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 108–114, May 2026, doi: 10.37251/jocli.v3i1.3190.

    More Citation Formats

  • 42
    Abstract views
    16
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. T. Tusriyanto, S. Siminto, and H. K. Azzaakiyyah, “Innovative strategies to enhance the quality of higher education management: Human resource development and the critical role of communication,” J. Contemp. Adm. Manag., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 331–336, 2024, doi: 10.61100/adman.v2i1.128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v2i1.128
    2. N. Van Hiep, “High quality human resources development,” J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Technol., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 119–130, 2021, doi: 10.51201/jusst12546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51201/jusst12546
    3. L. Sumardi, A. Rohman, and D. Wahyudiati, “Does the teaching and learning process in primary schools correspond to the characteristics of the 21st century learning?,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 357–370, 2020, doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13325a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13325a
    4. M. P. Osiesi, “Educational evaluation: Functions, essence and applications in primary schools’ teaching and learning,” Soc. Sustain., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–9, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.38157/society_sustainability.v2i2.134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38157/society_sustainability.v2i2.134
    5. M. Mudzakkir and D. Darmawan, “The influence of teacher teaching styles and leaning motivation on The learning achievement,” EDU-RILIGIA J. Ilmu Pendidik. Islam dan Keagamaan, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79–91, 2024, doi: 10.47006/er.v8i1.19707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47006/er.v8i1.19707
    6. M. Hooda, C. Rana, O. Dahiya, A. Rizwan, and M. S. Hossain, “Artificial intelligence for assessment and feedback to enhance student success in higher education,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2022, pp. 1–19, May 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/5215722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5215722
    7. J. Musengimana, E. Kampire, and P. Ntawiha, “Factors affecting secondary schools students’ attitudes toward learning chemistry: A review of literature,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/9379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9379
    8. M. A. Abukari, H. A. Marifa, J. A. Samari, P. Dorsah, and F. Abudu, “Senior high school students’ difficulties in learning hybridisation in chemistry,” Probl. Educ. 21st Century, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 630–651, 2022, doi: 10.33225/pec/22.80.630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/22.80.630
    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. C. Ngendabanga, J. B. Nkurunziza, and L. R. Mugabo, “Innovative approaches in chemistry teaching: A systematic review on the use of improvised chemicals for student engagement and performance,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 566–577, 2025, doi: 10.1039/D4RP00302K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00302K
    11. G. M. Chans and M. Portuguez Castro, “Gamification as a strategy to increase motivation and engagement in higher education chemistry students,” Computers, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.3390/computers10100132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100132
    12. 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
    13. M. Masfufah and U. Chasanah, “Student learning outcomes determined by self-efficacy and learning motivation,” ISSE Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2023.
    14. M. G. Eriyanto, M. V. Roesminingsih, S. Soedjarwo, and I. K. Soeherma, “The effect of learning motivation on learning independence and learning outcomes of students in the package c equivalence program,” IJORER Int. J. Recent Educ. Res., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 455–467, 2021, doi: 10.46245/ijorer.v2i4.122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v2i4.122
    15. A. Zainudin, “Teacher strategies to increase student learning motivation,” ZAHRA Res. Tought Elmentary Sch. Islam J., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 137–148, 2024, doi: 10.37812/zahra.v5i2.1487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37812/zahra.v5i2.1487
    16. F. Kurniawan, Y. Erita, D. Syahrir, and V. Q. N. Utami, “The influence of the campus environment on students learning motivation,” J. Digit. Learn. Distance Educ., vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 297–305, 2022, doi: 10.61730/yqzh4437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56778/jdlde.v1i8.58
    17. J. Zhang, G. Sun, L. Xu, I. Khan, W. Lv, and S. P. Philbin, “The moderating effect of learning experience on learning motivation and learning outcomes of international students,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, no. June, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913982
    18. R. Peng and R. Fu, “The effect of Chinese EFL students’ learning motivation on learning outcomes within a blended learning environment,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 61–74, 2021, doi: 10.14742/ajet.6235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6235
    19. A. O. Gyampoh, B. Aidoo, G. A. Nyagblormase, M. Kofi, and S. K. Amoako, “Investigating the effect of 7e learning cycle model of inquiry-based instruction on students’ achievement in science,” Issue 5 Ser. I, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 39–44, 2020, doi: 10.9790/7388-1005013944.
    20. Z. Noreen, M. Iqbal, and K. Hayat, “Effect of the 7e learning cycle model on students’ achievement in the subject of science at the elementary school level,” Qlantic J. Soc. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 34–45, 2024, doi: 10.55737/qjss.315497375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.315497375
    21. T. O. Abiodun, A. Asanre, and C. Taurayi, “Impact of the elicit, engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate, and extend (7e) learning model on senior secondary school students’ mathematics achievement,” ASEAN J. Sci. Eng. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 117–126, 2025, doi: 10.17509/ajsee.v5i2.89029.
    22. M. Musfiroh, I. R. Suwarma, and R. Efendi, “Enhancing physics learning through the 7E learning cycle model : A systematic literature review Implementasi model pembelajaran siklus 7E dalam pembelajaran fisika : Tinjauan pustaka sistematis,” Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 07, no. November, pp. 531–544, 2024, doi: 10.24042/ijsme.v5i1.24125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24042/ijsme.v7i3.24125
    23. F. Z. Chen et al., “Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes in life sciences: implementing interactive learning environments and flipped classroom models,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00501-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00501-x
    24. H. A. El-Sabagh, “Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students’ engagement,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4
    25. A. Adam, U. Lameed, and S. Ayodele, “Attaining meaningful learning of ecological concept: A test of the efficacy of 7e learning cycle model,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 05, no. 04, pp. 18–29, 2022.
    26. S. Meldayani, F. Farida, N. Azizah, M. I. Saputra, and R. T. Kuswanto, “Student learning activeness: An experimental study on the effectiveness of the 9e learning cycle model,” J. Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1008–1020, 2025, doi: 10.31258/jes.9.2.p.1008-1020.
    27. H. B. Issa and A. Khataibeh, “The effect of asing project based learning on improving the critical thinking among upper basic students from teachers’ perspectives,” Pegem Egit. ve Ogr. Derg., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 52–57, 2021, doi: 10.14527/pegegog.2021.00.
    28. M. Arsyad, M. Mujahiddin, and A. W. Syakhrani, “The efficiency of using vosual learning media in improving the understanding of science concepts in elementary school students,” vol. 2, pp. 306–312, 2024, doi: https://felifa.net/index.php/INJOE/article/view/234.
    29. H. Ruiz-Martín and R. W. Bybee, “The cognitive principles of learning underlying the 5e model of instruction,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 9, no. 21, pp. 1–9, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z
    30. S. M. Turan, S., & Matteson, “Middle school mathematics classrooms practice based on 5e instructional model,” vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22–39, 2021, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.1041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1041
    31. Z. Khairani, D. Nasution, and N. Bukit, “Analysis of science process skills using learning cycle 7e,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1811/1/012085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1811/1/012085
    32. C. Andrade, “The limitations of quasi-experimental studies, and methods for data analysis when a quasi-experimental research design is unavoidable,” Indian J. Psychol. Med., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 451–452, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1177/02537176211034707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211034707
    33. A. Muse and J. M. Baldwin, “Quasi‐Experimental Research Design,” in The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Wiley, 2021, pp. 307–310. doi: 10.1002/9781119111931.ch61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119111931.ch61
    34. D. Hossan, Z. Dato’ Mansor, and N. S. Jaharuddin, “Research population and sampling in quantitative study,” Int. J. Bus. Technopreneursh., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 209–222, 2023, doi: 10.58915/ijbt.v13i3.263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58915/ijbt.v13i3.263
    35. F. P. Lestari, F. Ahmadi, and R. Rochmad, “The implementation of mathematics comic through contextual teaching and learning to improve critical thinking ability and character,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 497–508, 2021, doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.497
    36. M. Hia, “Effect of using youtube on students’ motivation in learning english vocabulary,” Dialect. Lit. Educ. J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 62–71, 2021, doi: 10.51714/dlejpancasakti.v6i2.61.pp.62-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51714/dlejpancasakti.v6i2.61.pp.62-71
    37. Y. S. Rahmi and D. K. Walanda, “The applicaton of flipped classroom learning model of high school students on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions,” J. Sci. Educ. Pract., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.33751/jsep.v6i1.5705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33751/jsep.v6i1.5705
    38. M. Pikoli, N. U. Botuihe, and A. Lukum, “Improving students’ learning outcomes using the team based learning model with multi-representation approach on electrolyte and non electrolyte solutions,” in E3S Web of Conferences, 2023, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202340004006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202340004006
    39. C. E. F. Tapia and K. L. F. Cevallos, “Kruskal-wallis, friedman and mood nonparametric tests applied to business decision making,” Espirales. Rev. Multidiscip. Investig., vol. 6, no. 42, pp. 1–20, 2022, doi: 10.31876/er.v6i43.827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31876/er.v6i43.827
    40. K. Okoye and S. Hosseini, “Mann–Whitney U Test and Kruskal–Wallis H Test Statistics in R,” in R Programming, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 225–246. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_11
    41. N. B. Amboayan, M. Hairulla, J. Magsayo, and J. Bagaloyos, “Animation-based 7e learning model on plant and animal cells for grade 7 learners,” J. Innov. Adv. Methodol. STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 102–120, 2024, doi: https://so13.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/j_iamstem.
    42. R. Elia, S. Solfema, Y. Miaz, and Z. Zen, “Improving concept understanding and learning outcomes of elementary school students through science textbooks based on learning cycle 7e model,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 4433–4441, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i7.7662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i7.7662
    43. A. T. Daga, M. Malo, and M. Sene, “improving elementary school students’ learning outcomes through the implementation of the discovery learning model,” J. Ilmu Pendidik. STKIP Kusuma Negara, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 56–67, 2025, doi: 10.64420/jippg.v2i2.254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37640/jip.v17i1.2217
    44. A. Dini, H. Rahmatan, Muhibbudin, C. Nurmaliah, and Safrida, “Application of the e-module combined with the guided inquiry learning model to increase student motivation and learning outcomes on the structure and function of plant tissues,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 4768–4776, 2023, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3857
    45. M. Saha, S. Islam, A. A. Akhi, and G. Saha, “Factors affecting success and failure in higher education mathematics: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29173
    46. N. T. Arega and T. S. Hunde, “Constructivist instructional approaches: A systematic review of evaluation‐based evidence for effectiveness,” Rev. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1002/rev3.70040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70040
    47. H. N. Do, B. N. Do, and M. H. Nguyen, “3How do constructivism learning environments generate better motivation and learning strategies? The Design Science Approach,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22862