Examining The Impact of The ALLR Learning Cycle on Undergraduate Students’ Conceptual Understanding in General Chemistry: A Pre-Experimental Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/ijemi.v7i2.14688Keywords:
ALLR approach, Conceptual understanding, General chemistry learning, Solutions topicAbstract
Background. Understanding solution concepts in general chemistry remains challenging for undergraduate students due to their abstract and procedural complexity. This study investigates the effectiveness of the ALLR (Activity-based–Lesson–Learn–Reflection) approach in enhancing students’ conceptual understanding.
Methods. A pre-experimental one-group pretest–posttest design was conducted with 29 first-semester Science Education students at an Indonesian university. Conceptual understanding was measured using a validated 20-item multiple-choice test covering four indicators: concept restatement, identification of examples and non-examples, procedural application, and problem solving.
Results. The findings indicate a substantial improvement in conceptual understanding, with mean scores increasing from 52.93 to 80.52 and the overall achievement level rising from moderate (53%) to very good (81%). The highest gain was observed in problem-solving performance (58% to 89%), with an N-gain value of 0.59, indicating moderate effectiveness.
Conclusion. This study provides empirical evidence for the ALLR approach as a coherent pedagogical framework that integrates experiential learning, conceptual consolidation, and structured reflection to support deep conceptual understanding in abstract chemistry topics. Despite limitations of the pre-experimental design and sample size, the findings suggest that ALLR holds pedagogical potential to improve conceptual understanding and problem-solving in general chemistry, particularly in science teacher education.
References
Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. (2020). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 42(12), 1976–2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1808912
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Andriani, N., Loka, I. N., & Sofia, B. F. D. (2025). Development of a Three-Tier Diagnostic Test Instrument to Identify the Profile of Understanding the Concept of Buffer Solution. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 13(2), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v13i2.15232
Arikunto, S. (2016). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Rineka Cipta.
Aydin, A. (2023). Addressing student misconceptions about atoms and examining instructor strategies for overcoming them. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202321567
Bautista, R. G. (2021). The impact of reflective learning in a blended chemistry environment on students’ conceptual understanding and critical thinking skills. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 11(2), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1168
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct “just right?” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782615
Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. (2017). Conceptual understanding of acids and bases concepts and motivation to learn chemistry. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1039422
Chen, C.-H., & Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd (ed.)). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, M. M., & Stowe, R. L. (2018). Chemistry education research—from personal empiricism to evidence, theory, and informed practice. Chemical Reviews, 118(12), 6053–6087. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00020
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Macmillan Company.
Ekiz-Kiran, B., & Boz, Y. (2020). Interactions between the science teaching orientations and components of pedagogical content knowledge of in-service chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00092E
Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th (ed.)). SAGE Publications.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th (ed.)). McGraw-Hill.
Gkitzia, V., Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2020). Students’ competence in translating between different types of chemical representations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00301G
Goodwin, J. R. (2024). What’s the Difference? A Comparison of Student-Centered Teaching Methods. Education Sciences, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070736
Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing Change/Gain Scores. Dept of Physics, Indiana University.
Ho, K., Luong, Y., Sherwood, C., & Clark, D. B. (2024). Widening university participation in learning using students’ contextualized storytelling in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(3), 908–919. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00084F
Huarong, W., & Surif, J. (2025). Mapping Research on High School Chemistry Teaching Strategies (2020–2025): A Bibliometric Perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(10), 807–821.
James, N. M., & LaDue, N. (2021). Pedagogical reform in an introductory chemistry course and the importance of curricular alignment. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(11), 3421–3430. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00688
Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 251–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2248436
Jere, S., & Mpeta, M. (2024). Enhancing Learners’ Conceptual Understanding of Reaction Kinetics Using Computer Simulations -- A Case Study Approach. Research in Science Education, 54(6), 999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10182-5
Johnson, E., & Wagner, E. (2025). Developing Scientific Writing Abilities through Scaled Guided and Active Learning Cycles: A Template and Example in the Physical Chemistry Laboratory. In Engaging Students in Physical Chemistry, Volume 2. American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2025-1515.ch028
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.
Kolmos, A., & De Graaff, E. (2015). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education: Merging models. Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, October, 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.012
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. In Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Mahendra, M. R., Enawaty, E., Junanto, T., Muharini, R., & Lestari, I. (2023). Efektivitas Penggunaan E-Modul Kimia Dasar Berbasis Problem-Based Learning dalam Meningkatkan Kemampuan Memecahkan Masalah Mahasiswa pada Materi Termokimia. Journal of The Indonesian Society of Integrated Chemistry, 15(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.22437/jisic.v15i2.27826
Munawwarah, M., & Side, S. (2022). Analysis of Students’ Learning Difficulties in Physical Chemistry: Perspective on Various Sub-Variables. Jurnal Akademika Kimia, 11(4), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.22487/j24775185.2022.v11.i4.pp219-224
Naah, B. M., & Sanger, M. J. (2012). Student misconceptions in writing balanced equations for dissolving ionic compounds in water. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP00015F
Ntumi, S., & Agbenyo, S. (2023). Estimating the Psychometric Properties (Item Difficulty, Discrimination, and Reliability Indices) of Test Items using the Kuder-Richardson Approach (KR-20). Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11i3.6081
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge.
Pentucci, M., Mascitti, A., d’Alessandro, N., Tonucci, L., & Coccia, F. (2025). Developing self-reflection in students: a case study in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(4), 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00368C
Pitaloka, D. A., Muntholib, M., & Dasianto, D. (2025). Learning Cycle 5E through Interactive Simulator to Improve Understanding of Molecular shapes and Chemistry Identity. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 13(3), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v13i3.15842
Pratama, F. I., Rohaeti, E., & Laksono, E. W. (2025). Building Sustainable Education with the Literacy and Research-oriented Cooperative Problem-based Learning: A Bridge in the Activeness of Chemistry Education Students. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan Sains, 13(Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.21831/jpms.v13iSpecial_issue.88392
Rahmawati, Y., Hartanto, O., Falani, I., & Iriyadi, D. (2022). STUDENTS ’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN CHEMISTRY LEARNING USING PHET INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(2), 303–326.
Raman, Y., Surif, J., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2024). The Effect of Problem Based Learning Approach in Enhancing Problem Solving Skills in Chemistry Education: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(5), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i05.47929
Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.
Ruslan, Z. A., & Munawwarah, M. (2025). Identification of Learning Theories in Learning Videos: A Case Study of Prospective Chemistry Teacher Students. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 13(5), 973–979. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v13i5.17500
Salame, I. I., & Casino, P. (2021a). Using chemistry concepts inventory to identify alternative conceptions and their persistence in general chemistry courses. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 787–806. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14346a
Salame, I. I., & Casino, P. (2021b). Using chemistry concepts inventory to identify alternative conceptions and their persistence in general chemistry courses. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 787–806. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14346a
Salame, I. I., Montero, A., & Eschweiler, D. (2022). Examining some of the Students’ Challenges and Alternative Conceptions in Learning about Acid-base Titrations. IJCER (International Journal of Chemistry Education Research), 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.20885/ijcer.vol6.iss1.art1
Sanjiwani, N. L. I., Muderawan, I. W., & Sudiana, I. K. (2020). Analysis of Student Chemistry Learning Difficulties on Buffer Solution at SMA Negeri 2 Banjar Buleleng Bali. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1503(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1503/1/012038
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Sharp, K. A., & Everson, H. R. (2020). Examining curricular trends in introductory biochemistry courses at large universities. The FASEB Journal, 34(S1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.09216
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Allyn & Bacon.
Spitha, N., Zhang, Y., Pazicni, S., Fullington, S. A., Morais, C., Buchberger, A. R., & Doolittle, P. S. (2024). Supporting submicroscopic reasoning in students’ explanations of absorption phenomena using a simulation-based activity. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00189J
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V, Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., & ... & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi, dan R&D. CV. Alfabeta.
Taber, K. S. (2019). The nature of student conceptions in science. Science Education: An International Course Companion, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_9
Tella, A. (2023). Enhancing secondary school students’ achievement in chemistry using explicit embedded and activity-based reflective strategies. Bayero Journal of Education in Nigeria, 9(4), 246–255.
Tran, V. D. (2019). Does cooperative learning increase students’ motivation in learning? International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p12
Vaccaro, E., Stella, C., & Alonso, M. (2022). Difficulties of novice students in solving the final concentration value of a mixture of solutions. Chemistry Teacher International, 4(4), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2021-0026
Vo, K., Sarkar, M., White, P. J., & Yuriev, E. (2025). Metacognitive Problem Solving: Exploration of Students’ Perspectives through the Lens of Multi-Dimensional Engagement. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 26(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00189C
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Weiss, D. J., McGuire, P., Clouse, W., & Sandoval, R. (2020). Clickers are not enough: Results of a decade-long study investigating instructional strategies in chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(3), 58–65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1240887
Widodo, W., Sari, D. A. P., Martini, & Suyanto, T. (2019). Strengthening Pre-service Teachers’ Character: The application of ALLR Learning Model in Basic Science Subject. 335(ICESSHum), 362–367. https://doi.org/10.2991/icesshum-19.2019.59
Wisudawati, A. W., Barke, H.-D., Lemma, A., & Agung, S. (2022). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions for composition of ionic compounds. Chemistry Teacher International, 4(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2021-0032
Xian, J., & King, D. B. (2017). The Effectiveness of General Chemistry Lab Experiments on Student Exam Performance. Journal of Laboratory Chemical Education, 5(5), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jlce.20170505.01
Yahmin, Y. (2023). Remediation of chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about covalent bonding using cognitive conflict interviews: A case study. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 88(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC220715084Y
Yang, Z.-H. (2021a). Modeling solution vapor equilibria with solvation and solute assembly. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 330, 115567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2021.115567
Yang, Z.-H. (2021b). The pressure difference of water, a neglected but crucial inter-surface force in aqueous solutions. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 340, 116817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2021.116817
Yang, Z.-H., & Yang, K.-P. (2020). A crucial incorrect understanding in the traditional solution theory. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 301, 112416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2020.112416
Zhunissova, S., Zhussupova, L., Abyzbekova, G., & Balykbayeva, G. (2025). A Review of Teaching Experimental Design in Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(9), 3817–3827. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5c00529
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ernita Vika Aulia, Wahono Widodo, Dhita Ayu Permata Sari, Laily Rosdiana, Dyah Permata Sari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright to this article is transferred to Universitas Ahmad Dahlan (UAD) if and when the article is accepted for publication. The undersigned hereby transfers any rights in and to the paper including without limitation all copyrights to UAD. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is identified as to its source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment.
We declare that:
This paper has not been published in the same form elsewhere.
It will not be submitted anywhere else for publication before acceptance/rejection by this Journal.
Copyright permission is obtained for materials published elsewhere and which require this permission for reproduction.
Furthermore, I/We hereby transfer the unlimited rights of publication of the above-mentioned paper in whole to UAD. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online), or any other reproductions of similar nature.
The corresponding author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. This agreement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who have obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted.
Retained Rights/Terms and Conditions
Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work or derivative works for the authors' personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the UAD copyright notice are indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies UAD endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the copies themselves are not offered for sale.
Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.
