Students' Chemistry Multiple Representation Ability in Voltaic Cell Materials


  • Dea Santika Rahayu Universitas Tidar
  • Meili Yanti Universitas Sulawesi Barat
  • Ayu Lestari Universitas Tidar



Multiple representation, POE, Voltaic cells.


Multiple representation ability is a student's understanding of describing a concept at three chemical representation levels: macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic. This ability represents a complete understanding of chemistry, so every teacher needs to know. This research was conducted to analyze students' multiple representation abilities in voltaic cell material using the Predict-Observe-Explain (POE) diagnostic test. This study uses a qualitative descriptive method to obtain an overview of the ability of multiple representations naturally. The instrument uses the POE diagnostic test, has been validated by five validators consisting of lecturers and chemistry teachers and has been tested to obtain instrument legibility. The research subjects involved 34 class XII high school students who had studied voltaic cell material. The findings of the ability profile of multiple representations include (1) the concept of voltaic cell construction; most students (32.35%) are able to understand the constructs at the macroscopic and symbolic levels accompanied by explanations at the submicroscopic level that are not correct, (2) the concept of calculating values standard cell potential, as many as 44.12% of students were able to observe (macroscopic) and calculate (symbolic) the standard cell potential value accompanied by an inaccurate submicroscopic level explanation, (3) most students (32.35%) were not correct in explaining cell voltaic in alkaline batteries at the macroscopic and submicroscopic levels accompanied by writing at the appropriate symbolic level, and (4) the concept of corrosion, most students (35.29%) were able to explain corrosion phenomena at the macroscopic and symbolic levels accompanied by explanations at the submicroscopic level which less correct.


Download data is not yet available.


Arifin, Z. (2011). Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). The development of the redox concept inventory as a measure of students’ symbolic and particulate redox understandings and confidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 1132-1144.

Brown, T. L., LeMay, H. E., Bursten, B. E., & Burdge, J. R. (2002). Chemistry: the central science. Pearson Educación.

Ceyhun, I. & Karagolge, Z. (2005). Chemistry students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry. Australian Journal of Education Chemistry, 65, 24-28.

Chandrasegaran, A.L, Treagust, D.F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Research and Practice, 8(3), hlm.293-307.

Chittleborough, G.D. (2004). The Role of Teaching Models and Chemical Representation in Developing Students’ Mental Models of Chemical Phenomena. (Tesis). Curtin University of Technology.

Costu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M. (2009). Promoting conceptual change in first year students’ understanding of evaporation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 11, 5-16.

Creswell, JW (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. English Language Teaching, 12(5), 40.

Jansoon, N., Coll, Richard K., and Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding Mental Models of Dilution in Thai Students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 4 (2), hlm. 147-168.

Mulford, D.R., Robinson, W.R. (2002). An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students. Chemical Education Research: Science and Education.79(6), hlm. 739-744.

Nelson, P. G. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 215–228.

Nyachwaya, J. M., & Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 720-728.

Ogude, A.N., Bradley, J.D. (1994). Ionic Conduction and Electrical Neutrality in Operating Electrochemical Cells: Pre-College and College Student Interpretations. Johannesburg, 71(1), hlm. 29-34.

Sendur, G., Toprak, M., Pekmez, E. (2010). “Analyzing of students’ misconceptions, About Chemical Equilibrium.” Paper on International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implication. Antalya-Turkey. hlm. 1-7.

Silberberg. (2007). Principles of general Chemistry:2th Edition. Newyork: Mc. Graw Hill Companies inc.

Sopandi dan Murniati. (2007) Microscopic Level Misconception on topic acid base, salt, buffer and hydrolysis: A case study at a state senior high school. Seminar Proceeding of the first International Seminar of Science Education. Bandung: SPS UPI.

Sugiyono. (2015). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: Te many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International jurnal of Science Education. 33(2), hlm. 179-195.

Wang, C.Y. (2007). The Role of Mental-Modeling Ability, Content Knowledge, And Mental Models In General Chemistry Students’ Understanding About Molecular Polarity. (Disertasi). The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri, Columbia.




How to Cite

Rahayu, D. S., Yanti, M., & Lestari, A. (2023). Students’ Chemistry Multiple Representation Ability in Voltaic Cell Materials. Journal of Tropical Chemistry Research and Education, 5(1), 44–53.