Student Concept Mastery and Scientific Literacy Profile on Redox Concepts in Senior High Schools in North Gorontalo

  • Melinda S. Gani Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
  • Astin Lukum Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
  • Masrid Pikoli Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
  • Lukman A.R. Laliyo Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
  • Yuszda K. Salimi Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia
  • Akram La Kilo 1Master's Program in Chemistry Education, Graduate Program, Universitas Negeri Gorontalo, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4885-1838
Keywords: concept mastery, scientific literacy, redox, Bloom’s taxonomy, PISA, science education

Abstract

This study analyzed the profiles of students’ concept mastery and scientific literacy on the topic of reduction-oxidation (redox) reactions in three senior high schools in North Gorontalo, Indonesia. A descriptive qualitative approach was employed, involving written tests and interviews with 12th-grade students at SMAN 1, SMAN 3, and SMAN 6 North Gorontalo. The test instruments were designed based on the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive levels (C1–C6) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scientific literacy dimensions (context, content, competence, attitude). Results indicate that students have moderate overall concept mastery, with highest performance on lower-order cognitive skills remembering (C1) and understanding (C2) but substantially lower performance on higher-order skills such as applying (C3), analyzing (C4), evaluating (C5), and creating (C6). In terms of scientific literacy, students performed best in the content knowledge dimension, while showing weaknesses in scientific attitudes. Specifically, around 59% of students could recall basic facts (C1), but only ~35% could tackle creation-based tasks (C6). Likewise, over 54% demonstrated understanding of scientific content, yet less than 47% exhibited strong scientific competencies or attitudes. These findings suggest that current teaching practices heavily emphasize rote learning of content, leading to decent factual knowledge but insufficient higher-order thinking and lack of engagement with science in real-life contexts. The study highlights the need for instructional innovations such as inquiry-based, problem-based, and context-oriented learning to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding at all cognitive levels and to foster scientific skills and attitudes.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Boudia, S., & Jensen, A. (2020). Bridging the gap between content mastery and scientific inquiry: The role of hands-on activities in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09899-3
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2020). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school(Expanded edition). National Academy Press.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-L
Gijbels, D., Donche, V., & Dochy, F. (2021). The role of contextual learning in science education: A comparison of three approaches. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101031
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (2019). Teaching and learning in physics: A practical and research-based guide. International Journal of Science Education, 41(5), 705-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1570339
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275-288. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2009.4.3.275
Hurd, P. D. (2000). Science literacy: A conceptual framework for understanding science and technology in society. Science Education, 84(5), 565-580. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200009)84:5<565::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-M
Johnson, C., Meyer, P., & Thomas, A. (2022). Conceptual errors in students’ science education: Their impact on learning outcomes. Science Education Review, 24(3), 12-20.
Kaya, O. N., Doğan, A., & Okan, N. (2017). The relationship between scientific knowledge level and scientific attitude of students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.21034/eps.15.2
Meyer, P., White, R., & Johnson, S. (2020). The impact of misconceptions on students’ scientific thinking: Evidence from chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(2), 225-235. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00288K
Miller, A., White, R., & Jackson, S. (2019). Redox reactions: Their role in metabolism and everyday life. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(7), 1420-1425. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00174
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do - Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I). OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Indonesia country note. Paris: OECD Publishing.
PISA. (2015). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
Robinson, S., & Davis, K. (2021). Addressing misconceptions in redox chemistry education. International Journal of Chemistry Education, 45(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1882105
Rohkmah, L., Syamsuri, I., & Wulandari, R. (2017). Pengaruh model pembelajaran terhadap literasi sains siswa SMA. Jurnal Pendidikan, 18(1), 14-20.
Rohman, A., Hidayati, N., & Fauzi, A. (2017). Hubungan antara penguasaan konsep dengan literasi sains siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 5(2), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.30870/jpsi.v5i2.1329
Smith, J., & Thomas, R. (2018). Misconceptions in redox reactions: A case study in high school chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(4), 820-832. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00121G
Smith, P., Wang, Y., & Jones, H. (2021). Teaching scientific inquiry through redox chemistry: Bridging knowledge and skills in high school classrooms. Journal of Science Teaching, 58(6), 762-778. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsta.464
Widowati, A., Widyastuti, D. N., & Widodo, A. (2019). Analisis kemampuan literasi sains siswa Indonesia berdasarkan hasil PISA. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 8(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpi.v8i1.22082
White, R., & Jackson, M. (2020). Practical applications of redox reactions in industry and daily life. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2020, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9482471
Published
2025-11-07
How to Cite
S. Gani, M., Lukum, A., Pikoli, M., A.R. Laliyo, L., K. Salimi, Y., & La Kilo, A. (2025). Student Concept Mastery and Scientific Literacy Profile on Redox Concepts in Senior High Schools in North Gorontalo. International Journal of Technology and Education Research, 3(04), 398-418. https://doi.org/10.63922/ijeter.v3i04.2460