The Development of Structured Inquiry with three-Level Representation Module

Hidayati - Hidayati


Mole concepts are essential parts of chemistry learning and have become preliminaries to learn other chemistry concepts. However, the learning resource used has not incorporated three representations, resulting in students' learning outcomes. This study aimed to develop a structured inquiry module in terms of validity and practicality. The method used in this study is research development through the use of the Plomp model. There were 141 senior high school students in Padang participating in the study. The instruments of this study included cognitive tests. The result of the study indicated that the structured inquiry module had high validity (V=0.98), practicality based on teachers' response (P=0.36) and students' response (P=0.36)

Furthermore, the result of the t-test toward hypotheses of the learning outcome of the mole concept showed that the learning outcome of the mole concept in experimental groups was higher than that of control groups at both schools. Hence, the structured inquiry module has high validity and practicality. It is also effective to be used in chemistry learning at school. The module developed is a module with three levels of representation (macroscopic level, submicroscopic level and symbolic level). The module contains structured inquiry activities. The module also includes several components such as teacher guidelines, student activity sheets, worksheets, worksheet keys, test sheets, test sheet keys.



Inqury Structured; Module,;Three Level Representation

Full Text:



D. Kolb, “The mole,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 55, no. 11, p. 728, Nov. 1978,

doi: 10.1021/ed055p728.

M. Camacho and R. Good, “Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: Successful versus unsuccessful performance,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 251–272, Mar. 1989,

doi: 10.1002/tea.3660260306.

D. L. Gabel and D. M. Bunce, “Research on problem solving: Chemistry,” Handb. Res. Sci. Teach. Learn., vol. 11, pp. 301–326, 1994.

Google Scholar

H. Schmidt, “A label as a hidden persuader: chemists’ neutralization concept,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 459–471, Oct. 1991,

doi: 10.1080/0950069910130409.

J. R. Staver and A. T. Lumpe, “Two investigations of students’ understanding of the mole concept and its use in problem solving,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 1995,

doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320207.

S. Boujaoude and H. Barakat, “Secondary school students’ difficulties with stoichiometry,” Sch. Sci. Rev., vol. 81, pp. 91–98, 2000.

Google Scholar.

H. Schmidt, “Stoichiometric problem solving in high school chemistry,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 191–200, Mar. 1994,

doi: 10.1080/0950069940160207.

H.-J. SCHMIDT and C. JIGNÉUS, “Students´ Strategies In Solving Algorithmic Stoichiometry Problems,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pr., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 305–317, 2003,

doi: 10.1039/B3RP90018E.

Y. J. Dori and M. Hameiri, “‘The Mole Environment’Development and Implementation of Studyware,” J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 625–628, Jan. 1996,

doi: 10.1021/ci950121w

Y. J. Dori and M. Hameiri, “The ‘Mole Environment’ studyware: applying multidimensional analysis to quantitative chemistry problems,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 317–333, Mar. 1998,

doi: 10.1080/0950069980200305.

D. L. Gabel, K. V. Samuel, and D. Hunn, “Understanding the particulate nature of matter,” Journrl of Chemical Education. 1987,

doi: 10.1021/ed064p695.

W. R. Robinson, “Chemistry Problem-Solving: Symbol, Macro, Micro, and Process Aspects,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 80, no. 9, p. 978, Sep. 2003,

doi: 10.1021/ed080p978

F. Lawrenz, “Misconceptions of Physical Science Concepts Among Elementary School Teachers,” Sch. Sci. Math., vol. 86, no. 8, pp. 654–660, Dec. 1986,

doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1986.tb11669.x.

B. Hong Kwen, “Teachers ’ Misconceptions of Biological Science Concepts as Revealed in Science Examination Papers,” Int. Educ. Res. Conf., no. December, pp. 1–8, 2005.

Google Scholar

R. Tasker, “The VisChem Project: Molecular level animations in chemistry-potential and caution,” UniServe Sci. News, vol. 9, pp. 12–16, 1998.

Google Scholar

I. Eilks, T. Witteck, and V. Pietzner, “The role and potential dangers of visualisation when learning about sub-microscopic explanations in chemistry education,” CEPS J., 2012.

Google Scholar

M. Stojanovska, V. M. Petruševski, and B. Šoptrajanov, “Study of the Use of the Three Levels of Thinking and Representation,” Contrib. Sect. Nat. Math. Biotech. Sci., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 2017,

doi: 10.20903/csnmbs.masa.2014.35.1.52

Z. Sikorova, “The role of textbooks in lower secondary schools in the Czech Republic,” IARTEM e-journal, vol. 4, no. 2 SE-, pp. 1–22, Feb. 2012,

doi: 10.21344/iartem.v4i2.774.

D. Tulip and A. Cook, “Teacher and student usage of science textbooks,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 302–307, 1993,

doi: 10.1007/BF02357078.

A. Bergqvist, Models of chemical bonding and crystal structure. 2012.

Google Scholar

O. De Jong, J. H. Van Driel, and N. Verloop, “Preservice Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Using Particle Models in Teaching Chemistry.,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 42, no. 8. n 5, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 947–964, 2005,

doi: 10.1002/tea.20078.

R. Cervellati, A. Montuschi, D. Perugini, N. Grimellini-Tomasini, and B. P. Balandi, “Investigation of secondary school students’ understanding of the mole concept in Italy,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 59, no. 10, p. 852, Oct. 1982,

doi: 10.1021/ed059p852.

J. R. Staver and A. T. Lumpe, “Chemistry Textbooks,” vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 321–337, 1993.

doi: 10.1002/tea.3660300402

D. Llewely, Differentiated Science Inquiry. California: Corwin, 2011.

Googel Scholar

A. Colburn, “An Inquiry Primer.,” Sci. Scope, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 42–44, 2000.

Googel Scholar

B. Bucat and M. Mocerino, “Learning at the Sub-micro Level: Structural Representations,” pp. 11–29, 2009,

doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_2.

J. M. Nyachwaya, A.-R. M. Warfa, G. H. Roehrig, and J. L. Schneider, “College chemistry students’ use of memorized algorithms in chemical reactions,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 81–93, 2014,

doi: 10.1039/C3RP00114H.

A. Ault, “What’s Wrong with Cookbooks?,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 79, Oct. 2002,

doi: 10.1021/ed079p1177

S. Kimberlin and E. Yezierski, “Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Lessons Using Particulate Level Models to Develop High School Students’ Understanding of Conceptual Stoichiometry,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 1002–1009, 2016,

doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b01010

S. Chairam, N. Klahan, and R. K. Coll, “Exploring secondary students’ understanding of chemical kinetics through inquiry-based learning activities,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 937–956, 2015,

doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1365a

Plomp, “Educational Design Research Educational Design Research,” Educ. Des. Res., pp. 1–206, 2013,

Google Scholar

T. Plomp and N. Nieveen, “An Introduction to Educational Design Research,” 2007.

Google Scholar

L. Aiken, “Three Coefficients For Analyzing The Reliability And Validity Of Ratings,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 45, pp. 131–141, 1985.

Google Scholar

H. Retnawati, H.Retnawati Analisis kuantitatif instrumen penelitian (panduan peneliti, mahasiswa, dan psikometrian) Yogyakarta : Parama Publishing., 2016

Google ScholarISBN: 978-602-1547-98-4

M. K. Mustami, S. Syamsudduha, Safei, and M. I. Ismail, “Validity, practicality, and effectiveness development of biology textbooks integrated with augmented reality on high school students,” Int. J. Technol. Enhanc. Learn., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 187–200, 2019,


D. V. Frank, C. A. Baker, and J. D. Herron, “Should students always use algorithms to solve problems?,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 514–515, 1987,

doi: 10.1021/ed064p514.

J. Surif, N. H. Ibrahim, and S. F. Dalim, “Problem Solving: Algorithms and Conceptual and Open-ended Problems in Chemistry,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 116, pp. 4955–4963, 2014,

doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1055.

C. Dahsah and R. K. Coll, “thai grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 573–600, 2008,

doi: 10.1007/s10763-007-9072-0.

A. H. Johnstone, “Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 1991,

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x.

D. L. Gabel, R. D. Sherwood, and L. Enochs, “Problem‐solving skills of high school chemistry students,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 1984,

doi: 10.1002/tea.3660210212.

H. J. Schmidt, “Secondary school students’ strategies in stoichiometry,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 1990,

doi: 10.1080/0950069900120411.

J. Claesgens and A. Stacy, “What are students’ initial ideas about ‘amount of substance’?:"Is there a specific weight for a mole?",” Annu. Meet. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc. (Chicago, IL, April. 2003), 2003.

J. van den Akker, “Principles and Methods of Development Research,” Des. Approaches Tools Educ. Train., pp. 1–14, 1999,

doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_1.