Mapping Minds in Chemistry: Implementing the Flow Map Method within the 8E Learning Cycle to Uncover Students’ Cognitive Structures

Elma Suryani, Achmad Ridwan, Rizky Sulistyowati, Edith Allanas, Sarina Hanifah, Fazila Windy Febriani, Ahmad Hafizh, Musyahadah Rodiatam Mardiah

Abstract

Understanding students’ cognitive structure is essential for improving conceptual learning in science, particularly in challenging topics such as the rate of reactions. However, many students struggle with fragmented knowledge and misconceptions in this area. This study investigates how the 8E Learning Cycle model supports the development of students’ cognitive structure, analyzed through the flow map method. The participants were 33 Senior high school students, and a qualitative approach was employed using multiple data sources (flow maps, worksheets, interviews, journals, observations, and comprehension tests). Cognitive structure was examined based on Tsai’s six variables: extent, richness, integration, misconceptions, information retrieval rate, and flexibility. Results indicated that at the beginning of instruction, students’ average scores on cognitive structure variables were low, while misconceptions were frequent. After engaging in the 8E Learning Cycle, students demonstrated notable improvement across all variables, accompanied by a marked reduction in misconceptions. This study provides empirical evidence that the 8E Learning Cycle model effectively strengthens students’ cognitive structures in science learning, offering a practical framework for addressing conceptual difficulties in reaction rate topics

Keywords

Cognitive Structure; Flow Map; 8E Learning Cycle; Rate of Reactions; Conceptual Understanding

Full Text:

PDF

References

[1] Q. Zhou, T. Wang, and Q. Zheng, “Probing high school students’ cognitive structures and key areas of learning difficulties on ethanoic acid using the flow map method,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 589–602, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00059A.

[2] R. Garner, Getting to Got It! Helping Struggling Students Learn How to Learn. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007.

[3] C.-C. Tsai, “Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a meta-listening technique,” Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 257–268, 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(01)00029-3

[4] I. P. Artayasa, H. Susilo, U. Lestari, and S. E. Indriwati, “The effect of three levels of inquiry on the improvement of science concept understanding of elementary school teacher candidates,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 235–248, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11216a.

[5] A. N. Cahyo, Panduan Aplikasi Teori-Teori Belajar Mengajar Teraktual dan Terpopuler. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Diva Press, 2013.

[6] T. W. Maduretno, Sarwanto, and W. Sunarno, “Pembelajaran IPA dengan pendekatan saintifik menggunakan model learning cycle dan discovery learning ditinjau dari aktivitas dan motivasi belajar siswa terhadap prestasi belajar,” Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Keilmuan, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.25273/jpfk.v2i1.19.

[7] E. Kaya and O. Geban, “Facilitating conceptual change in rate of reaction concepts using conceptual change oriented instruction,” Education and Science, vol. 37, no. 163, pp. 216–225, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2012.1014

[8] K. S. Taber, “Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research,” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 123–158, 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/B1RP90014E

[9] S. I. Y. Mersa, S. Sidauruk, and M. E. Anggraeni, “Analysis of students’ difficulties in understanding the concept of reaction rate (systematic review),” Jurnal Ilmiah Kanderang Tingang, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 215–225, Jun. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.37304/jikt.v15i1.228

[10] M. J. Ahiakwo and C. Q. Isiguzo, “Students’ conceptions and misconceptions in chemical kinetics in Port Harcourt Metropolis of Nigeria,” African Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 112–130, Jul. 2015.

[11] L. A. Lestari, Subandi, and Habiddin, “Identifikasi miskonsepsi siswa pada materi laju reaksi dan perbaikannya menggunakan model pembelajaran Learning Cycle 5E dengan strategi konflik kognitif,” Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 888–894, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v6i6.14876

[12] J. Jusniar, Effendy, E. Budiasih, and Sutrisno, “Misconceptions in rate of reaction and their impact on misconceptions in chemical equilibrium,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1405–1423, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1405

[13] O. R. Anderson and O. J. Demetrius, “A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondents’ narrative using science content,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 953–969, 1993, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300811

[14] P. J. Bischoff and O. R. Anderson, “Development of knowledge frameworks and higher-order cognitive operations among secondary school students,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 113–120, 2001, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655747

[15] H. S. Dhindsa and O. R. Anderson, “Using a conceptual-change approach to help preservice science teachers reorganize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching,” Journal of Science Teacher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 63–85, 2004, doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000031463.56206.a5

[16] M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1994.

[17] Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1985.

[18] N. Balta and H. Sarac, “The effect of 7E Learning Cycle on learning in science teaching: A meta-analysis study,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 61–72, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.2.61.

[19] A. Eisenkraft, “Expanding the 5E model,” The Science Teacher, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 56–59, Sep. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ677483

[20] E. Mahardika, Nurbaity, A. Ridwan, and Y. Rahmawati, “Analisis struktur kognitif siswa dengan metode flowmap dalam materi asam basa menggunakan model Learning Cycle 8E,” EduChemia: Jurnal Kimia dan Pendidikan, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://jurnal.untirta.ac.id/index.php/EduChemia/article/view/1849

[21] R. Michalisková, Z. Haláková, and M. Prokša, “Concept of chemical reaction in chemistry textbooks,” Chemistry Teacher International, vol. 1, no. 2, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2018-0027.

[22] R. Chang, General Chemistry: The Essential Concepts, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008.

[23] M. S. Silberberg, Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter and Change, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/jkpk.v11i1.110357

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share