Home / Regular Issue / JSSH Vol. 31 (4) Dec. 2023 / JSSH-8779-2022


The Effect of the RADEC Model on Conceptual Understanding of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Topic

Nurlaila Hayati, Asep Kadarohman, Wahyu Sopandi, Muhamad Abdulkadir Martoprawiro and Amelinda Pratiwi

Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, Volume 31, Issue 4, December 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.31.4.15

Keywords: Conceptual understanding, difficulty analysis, PAHs topic, RADEC model

Published on: 13 December 2023

This study was conducted to analyze the conceptual understanding of students and their struggle on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) compounds topic through the implementation of the RADEC Model. Respondents consisted of 37 students from Chemistry Education Department and 33 students from the Chemistry Department at a university in Bandung, Indonesia. This study is an experimental study with a pre-experimental type. Data on conceptual understanding were obtained through pre-tests and post-tests, while data on students’ difficulties were obtained through survey. The data were analyzed using SPSS 24. It was found that there was an increase in the conceptual understanding of the students of Chemistry Education and Chemistry Department in the medium category with n-gain values of 0.33 and 0.38, respectively. The results of inferential analysis through the Wilcoxon Test with Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) were <0.05 for the two groups of students indicating differences in the pre-test and post-test results with a higher average post-test score. Friedel-Crafts acylation is a concept that is difficult to understand by students from the Chemistry Education Department and the Chemistry Department with the same percentage of 33%. Chemistry Department students also have difficulty understanding the electrophilic substitution concept with a percentage of 33%. As a practical implication, this study successfully showed the effective implementation of the RADEC model, serving as an innovative and beneficial learning approach. The model offered substantial support to students in grasping complex topic such as PAHs compounds.

  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=bcQlAQAAIAAJ

  • Carle, M. S., El Issa, R., Pilote, N., & Flynn, A. B. (2020, December 9). Ten essential delocalization learning outcomes: How well are they achieved? ChemRxiv. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/60c752c59abda2df8ff8de83

  • Carle, M. S., & Flynn, A. B. (2020). Essential learning outcomes for delocalization (resonance) concepts: How are they taught, practiced, and assessed in organic chemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(2), 622–637. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00203k

  • Chan, N. N., Phan, C. W., Salihan, N. H. A., & Dipolog-Ubanan, G. F. (2016). Peer assisted learning in higher education: Roles, perceptions and efficacy. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(4), 1811–1822.

  • Chen, L. L., Tseng, C. H., & Tseng, W. J. (2018). Development of a system dynamics model for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and its application to assess the benefits of pollution reduction. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 166, 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.09.072

  • Childs, P. E., Markic, S., & Ryan, M. C. (2015). The role of language in the teaching and learning of chemistry. In J. Garcia-Martinez, & E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 421–446). Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527679300.ch17

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Crucho, C. I. C., Avó, J., Diniz, A. M., & Gomes, M. J. S. (2020). Challenges in teaching organic chemistry remotely. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3211–3216. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00693

  • Duis, J. M. (2011). Organic chemistry educators’ perspectives on fundamental concepts and misconceptions: An exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 346–350. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1007266

  • Durmaz, M. (2018). Determination of prospective chemistry teachers’ cognitive structures and misconceptions about stereochemistry. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i9.3353a

  • Farrell, I. K., & Hamed, K. M. (2017). Examining the relationship between Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and student achievement utilizing the florida value-added model. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1328992

  • Fessenden, R. J., & Fessenden, J. S. (1986). Organic chemistry (3rd ed.). Brooks Cole Publishing CO. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2723597M/Organic_chemistry

  • Garg, N. K. (2019). How organic chemistry became one of UCLA’s most popular classes. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 294(46), 17678–17683. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.AW119.008141

  • Hake, R. (1998). Analyzing change/gain scores. https://web.physics.indiana.edu/sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf

  • Handayani, H., Sopandi, W., Syaodih, E., Suhendra, I., & Hermita, N. (2019). RADEC: An alternative learning of Higher Order Thinking skills (HOTs) students of elementary school on water cycle. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1351(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1351/1/012074

  • Herga, N. R., Cagran, B., & Dinevski, D. (2016). Virtual laboratory in the role of dynamic visualisation for better understanding of chemistry in primary school. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1224a

  • Horowitz, G., Rabin, L. A, & Brodale, D. L. (2013). Improving student performance in organic chemistry: Help seeking behaviors and prior chemistry aptitude. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(3), 120–133.

  • Hung, M. L. (2016). Student readiness for online learning: Scale development and perceptions. Computers and Education, 94, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012

  • Jeongho, C., Su-Yin, K., & Wai, C. P. (2017). Uncritical inference test in developing basic knowledge and understanding in the learning of organic spectroscopy. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(4), 1789–1802.

  • Kapon, S. (2016). Doing research in school: Physics inquiry in the zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1172–1197. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21325

  • Kennedy, S. A. (2016). Design of a dynamic undergraduate green chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 645–649. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00432

  • Lestari, H., Sopandi, W., Sa’ud, U. S., Musthafa, B., Budimansyah, D., & Sukardi, R. R. (2021). The impact of online mentoring in implementing RADEC learning model to the elementary school teachers’ competence in training students’ critical thinking skills: A case study during covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(3), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.15294/JPII.V10I3.28655

  • Long, D., & Szabo, S. (2016). E-readers and the effects on students’ reading motivation, attitude and comprehension during guided reading. Cogent Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1197818

  • Ma’ruf, A. S., Wahyu, W., & Sopandi, W. (2020). Colloidal learning design using RADEC model with STEM approach based google classroom to develop student creativity. Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.31258/jes.4.4.p.758-765

  • Mansur, A. F. U., Alves, A. C., & Torres, R. B. (2019). Trello as virtual learning environment and active learning organiser for PBL classes: An analysis under Bloom’s Taxonomy. International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education, 9, 245–252. http://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72054

  • Musengimana, J., Kampire, E., & Ntawiha, P. (2021). Factors affecting secondary schools students’ attitudes toward learning chemistry: A review of literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9379

  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed069p191

  • Nartey, E., & Hanson, R. (2021). The perceptions of senior high school students and teachers about organic chemistry: A Ghanaian perspective. Science Education International, 32(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.8

  • Parker, L. L., & Loudon, G. M. (2013). Case study using online homework in undergraduate organic chemistry: Results and student attitudes. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300270t

  • Pratama, Y. A., Sopandi, W., & Hidayah, Y. (2019). (Read-Answer-Discuss-Explain and Create) RADEC learning model: The importance of building critical thinking skills in Indonesian context. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.29103/ijevs.v1i2.1379

  • Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 144(9). 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701

  • Rohmawatiningsih, W., Rachman, I., & Yayoi, K. (2021). The implementation of RADEC learning model in thematic learning to increase the concept understanding of electrical phenomenon. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 5(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v5i2.5412

  • Rusek, M., & Vojíř, K. (2019). Analysis of text difficulty in lower-secondary chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8rp00141c

  • Schwedler, S., & Kaldewey, M. (2020). Linking the submicroscopic and symbolic level in physical chemistry: How voluntary simulation-based learning activities foster first-year university students’ conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1132–1147. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00211a

  • Shea, K. M. (2016). Beyond clickers, next generation classroom response systems for organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(5), 971–974. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00799

  • Sholahuddin, A., Susilowati, E., Prahani, B. K., & Erman. (2021). Using a cognitive style- based learning strategy to improve students’ environmental knowledge and scientific literacy. International Journal of Instruction, 14(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14445a

  • Siregar, L. S., Wahyu, W., & Sopandi, W. (2020). Polymer learning design using Read, Answer, Discuss, Explain and Create (RADEC) model based on google classroom to develop student’s mastery of concepts. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1469(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1469/1/012078

  • Solomon, T. W. G., & Fryhle, C. B. (2011). Organic chemistry (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://www.wiley.com/en-ie/Solomons%27+Organic+Chemistry%2C+