Deskripsi Model Mental Peserta Didik pada Sub Topik Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Laju Reaksi di Kelas XI SMAN 12 Padang Description of Students’ Mental Models on the Subtopic of Factors Affecting Reaction Rate in Grade XI at SMAN 12 Padang
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
1701-1712
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/masaliq.v6i4.10913
Viewed: 47 times
Downloaded: 36 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:Dede Dwika Firmansah1*, Dwi Finna Syolendra2
Copyright :Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Although understanding the concept of reaction rate in chemistry learning does not depend only on memorization ability but also on students’ mental models in connecting macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations, students still often experience difficulty in comprehensively understanding the factors that affect reaction rates. This study aims to describe students’ mental models regarding the factors that affect reaction rates. This study used a qualitative method involving 30 eleventh-grade students of SMAN 12 Padang as research subjects. Data were collected using an essay test instrument covering two main topics, namely the concept of the factors that affect reaction rates, including concentration, surface area, temperature, and catalysts, as well as the application of these concepts in the form of curves and images. The data were analyzed by categorizing students’ answers into three mental model categories, namely initial (I), synthetic (ST), and scientific (SC) mental models. The results showed that students were better able to explain concepts at the macroscopic representation level than at the submicroscopic and symbolic levels. Students’ mental models regarding the factors that affect reaction rates were dominated by initial mental models at 48%, followed by scientific mental models at 28% and synthetic mental models at 24%. In addition, the relationship between chemical representations and students’ mental model categories showed a pattern that was almost aligned with the characteristics of the chemical representations possessed by the students. These findings confirm that mental model analysis is important for identifying students’ level of conceptual understanding and potential misconceptions in learning reaction rates. The implications of this study contribute to the development of chemistry learning strategies that place greater emphasis on the integration of macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles
-
Petrukha N. (2027)Innovative and Digital Approaches in Higher Education for Student Motivation and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Literature ReviewAsean Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 6(1), 171-182
-
Irawati R. (2027)Enhancing accounting students’ writing performance through problem-based learning: Evidence from a vocational higher education contextMultidisciplinary Science Journal, 9(1)
-
Khasanah A.N. (2027)Self-Health Literacy Among Students in Islamic School Science Education: A Comparative Analysis Across Gender, Grade Level, and School ContextAsean Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 6(1), 93-106
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Bongers, A., Northoff, G., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Working with mental models to learn and visualize a new reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00060G
Coll, R. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 357–382. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013120427891
Creswell, J. W. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding Mental Models of Dilution inThai Students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 147–168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ884390
Kania, V. I., Samsudin, A., & Aminudin, A. H. (2020). Multitier of GreenhouseEffect ( MoGE ) Instrument Development to Identify Middle School Students’ Mental Model in Thailand with Rasch Analysis. Journal Of Advance Science and Technology, 29(7), 3223–3237. https://doi.org/10.21580/jec.2025.7.1.24160
Kemendikdasmen RI. (2025). Laporan hasil Tes Kemampuan Akademik (TKA) nasional: Analisis capaian literasi sains dan kompetensi kognitif siswa SMA. Kementerian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah RI.
Körhasan, N. D., & Wang, L. (2016). Students’ Mental Models Of Atomic Spectra. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00051G
Kurnaz. (2014). Student Mental Models Related to Expansion and Contraction. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.v7i1
Kurnaz, M. A., & Eksi, C. (2015). An Analysis of High School Students’ Mental Models of Solid Friction in Physics. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 787–796. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2526
Majid, A. (2018). Misconception Analysis Based On Students Mental Model In Atom Structure Materials. Journal Of Advances in Engineering Research, 17(1), 244–247. https://doi.org/10.2991/snk-18.2018.53
Petrucci, R. H., Herring, F. G., Madura, J. D., & Bissonnette, C. (2022). General chemistry: Principles and modern applications (12th ed.). Pearson.
Pikoli, M., Sukertini, K., & Isa, I. (2022). Analisis Model Mental Siswa Dalam Mentransformasikan Konsep Laju Reaksi Melalui Multipel Representasi. Jambura Journal of Educational Chemistry, 4(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.34312/jjec.v4i1.13786
Rahmadani, S., Azra, F., & Syolendra, D. F. (2025). Students’ mental model using four-tier diagnostic test on acid–base. Journal of Education Chemistry, 3(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.21580/jec.2025.7.1.24160
Rapp, D. N. (2005). Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. Visualization in Science Education, 19, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_4
Salahudin, A., Savalas, L. R. T., & Hidayanti, E. (2025). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Siswa dalam Memahami Konsep Kimia Laju Reaksi Kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Labuapi. Chemistry Education Practice, 8(1), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.29303/cep.v8i1.9083
Supriadi, S., Ibnu, S., & Yahmin, Y. (2018). Analisis Model Mental Mahasiswa Pendidikan Kimia Dalam Memahami Jenis Reaksi Kimia. Jurnal Pijar MIPA, 13(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v13i1.433
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Educatio, 25(11), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306