Learning Cycle 7E-Based Chemistry Learning: Its Impact on Grade X Students’ Achievement and Motivation
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to determine the effect of implementing the Learning Cycle 7E learning model on student learning outcomes and motivation in chemistry learning for class X, especially on the material of electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions, and to compare its effectiveness with conventional learning models applied in schools.
Methodology: The study used a quasi-experimental method with a posttest control group design. Samples were taken using a saturated sampling technique on grade X students of State Senior High School 1 Brang Rea. The research instruments included a learning motivation questionnaire and a learning outcome test on electrolyte-nonelectrolyte solutions. Data analysis used the Lilliefors, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney normality tests, and IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 software.
Main Findings: The results of the study showed that the Learning Cycle 7E learning model did not have a significant effect on students' chemistry learning outcomes (sig. 0.392 > 0.05) or student learning motivation (sig. 0.386 > 0.05). Multivariately, the application of this model also did not show better effectiveness than conventional learning in improving the learning outcomes and motivation of class X students.
Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this research lies in the simultaneous analysis of the influence of the 7E Learning Cycle model on two important variables, namely the learning outcomes and motivation of 10th grade chemistry students on the topic of electrolyte and nonelectrolyte solutions.
References
T. Tusriyanto, S. Siminto, and H. K. Azzaakiyyah, “Innovative strategies to enhance the quality of higher education management: Human resource development and the critical role of communication,” J. Contemp. Adm. Manag., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 331–336, 2024, doi: 10.61100/adman.v2i1.128.
N. Van Hiep, “High quality human resources development,” J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Technol., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 119–130, 2021, doi: 10.51201/jusst12546.
L. Sumardi, A. Rohman, and D. Wahyudiati, “Does the teaching and learning process in primary schools correspond to the characteristics of the 21st century learning?,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 357–370, 2020, doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13325a.
M. P. Osiesi, “Educational evaluation: Functions, essence and applications in primary schools’ teaching and learning,” Soc. Sustain., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–9, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.38157/society_sustainability.v2i2.134.
M. Mudzakkir and D. Darmawan, “The influence of teacher teaching styles and leaning motivation on The learning achievement,” EDU-RILIGIA J. Ilmu Pendidik. Islam dan Keagamaan, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79–91, 2024, doi: 10.47006/er.v8i1.19707.
M. Hooda, C. Rana, O. Dahiya, A. Rizwan, and M. S. Hossain, “Artificial intelligence for assessment and feedback to enhance student success in higher education,” Math. Probl. Eng., vol. 2022, pp. 1–19, May 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/5215722.
J. Musengimana, E. Kampire, and P. Ntawiha, “Factors affecting secondary schools students’ attitudes toward learning chemistry: A review of literature,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/9379.
M. A. Abukari, H. A. Marifa, J. A. Samari, P. Dorsah, and F. Abudu, “Senior high school students’ difficulties in learning hybridisation in chemistry,” Probl. Educ. 21st Century, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 630–651, 2022, doi: 10.33225/pec/22.80.630.
K. H. D. Tang, “Student-centered approach in teaching and learning: What does it really mean?,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 72–83, 2023, doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218.
C. Ngendabanga, J. B. Nkurunziza, and L. R. Mugabo, “Innovative approaches in chemistry teaching: A systematic review on the use of improvised chemicals for student engagement and performance,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 566–577, 2025, doi: 10.1039/D4RP00302K.
G. M. Chans and M. Portuguez Castro, “Gamification as a strategy to increase motivation and engagement in higher education chemistry students,” Computers, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.3390/computers10100132.
M. Arsyad, S. Guna, and S. Barus, “Enhancing chemistry education through problem-based learning: Analyzing student engagement, motivation, and critical thinking,” Int. J. Curric. Dev. Teach. Learn. Innov., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 110–117, 2024, doi: 10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178.
M. Masfufah and U. Chasanah, “Student learning outcomes determined by self-efficacy and learning motivation,” ISSE Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2023.
M. G. Eriyanto, M. V. Roesminingsih, S. Soedjarwo, and I. K. Soeherma, “The effect of learning motivation on learning independence and learning outcomes of students in the package c equivalence program,” IJORER Int. J. Recent Educ. Res., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 455–467, 2021, doi: 10.46245/ijorer.v2i4.122.
A. Zainudin, “Teacher strategies to increase student learning motivation,” ZAHRA Res. Tought Elmentary Sch. Islam J., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 137–148, 2024, doi: 10.37812/zahra.v5i2.1487.
F. Kurniawan, Y. Erita, D. Syahrir, and V. Q. N. Utami, “The influence of the campus environment on students learning motivation,” J. Digit. Learn. Distance Educ., vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 297–305, 2022, doi: 10.61730/yqzh4437.
J. Zhang, G. Sun, L. Xu, I. Khan, W. Lv, and S. P. Philbin, “The moderating effect of learning experience on learning motivation and learning outcomes of international students,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, no. June, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913982.
R. Peng and R. Fu, “The effect of Chinese EFL students’ learning motivation on learning outcomes within a blended learning environment,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 61–74, 2021, doi: 10.14742/ajet.6235.
A. O. Gyampoh, B. Aidoo, G. A. Nyagblormase, M. Kofi, and S. K. Amoako, “Investigating the effect of 7e learning cycle model of inquiry-based instruction on students’ achievement in science,” Issue 5 Ser. I, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 39–44, 2020, doi: 10.9790/7388-1005013944.
Z. Noreen, M. Iqbal, and K. Hayat, “Effect of the 7e learning cycle model on students’ achievement in the subject of science at the elementary school level,” Qlantic J. Soc. Sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 34–45, 2024, doi: 10.55737/qjss.315497375.
T. O. Abiodun, A. Asanre, and C. Taurayi, “Impact of the elicit, engage, explore, explain, elaborate, evaluate, and extend (7e) learning model on senior secondary school students’ mathematics achievement,” ASEAN J. Sci. Eng. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 117–126, 2025, doi: 10.17509/ajsee.v5i2.89029.
M. Musfiroh, I. R. Suwarma, and R. Efendi, “Enhancing physics learning through the 7E learning cycle model : A systematic literature review Implementasi model pembelajaran siklus 7E dalam pembelajaran fisika : Tinjauan pustaka sistematis,” Indones. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 07, no. November, pp. 531–544, 2024, doi: 10.24042/ijsme.v5i1.24125.
F. Z. Chen et al., “Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes in life sciences: implementing interactive learning environments and flipped classroom models,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00501-x.
H. A. El-Sabagh, “Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students’ engagement,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4.
A. Adam, U. Lameed, and S. Ayodele, “Attaining meaningful learning of ecological concept: A test of the efficacy of 7e learning cycle model,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 05, no. 04, pp. 18–29, 2022.
S. Meldayani, F. Farida, N. Azizah, M. I. Saputra, and R. T. Kuswanto, “Student learning activeness: An experimental study on the effectiveness of the 9e learning cycle model,” J. Educ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1008–1020, 2025, doi: 10.31258/jes.9.2.p.1008-1020.
H. B. Issa and A. Khataibeh, “The effect of asing project based learning on improving the critical thinking among upper basic students from teachers’ perspectives,” Pegem Egit. ve Ogr. Derg., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 52–57, 2021, doi: 10.14527/pegegog.2021.00.
M. Arsyad, M. Mujahiddin, and A. W. Syakhrani, “The efficiency of using vosual learning media in improving the understanding of science concepts in elementary school students,” vol. 2, pp. 306–312, 2024, doi: https://felifa.net/index.php/INJOE/article/view/234.
H. Ruiz-Martín and R. W. Bybee, “The cognitive principles of learning underlying the 5e model of instruction,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 9, no. 21, pp. 1–9, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z.
S. M. Turan, S., & Matteson, “Middle school mathematics classrooms practice based on 5e instructional model,” vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22–39, 2021, doi: 10.46328/ijemst.1041.
Z. Khairani, D. Nasution, and N. Bukit, “Analysis of science process skills using learning cycle 7e,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1811/1/012085.
C. Andrade, “The limitations of quasi-experimental studies, and methods for data analysis when a quasi-experimental research design is unavoidable,” Indian J. Psychol. Med., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 451–452, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1177/02537176211034707.
A. Muse and J. M. Baldwin, “Quasi‐Experimental Research Design,” in The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Wiley, 2021, pp. 307–310. doi: 10.1002/9781119111931.ch61.
D. Hossan, Z. Dato’ Mansor, and N. S. Jaharuddin, “Research population and sampling in quantitative study,” Int. J. Bus. Technopreneursh., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 209–222, 2023, doi: 10.58915/ijbt.v13i3.263.
F. P. Lestari, F. Ahmadi, and R. Rochmad, “The implementation of mathematics comic through contextual teaching and learning to improve critical thinking ability and character,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 497–508, 2021, doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.497.
M. Hia, “Effect of using youtube on students’ motivation in learning english vocabulary,” Dialect. Lit. Educ. J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 62–71, 2021, doi: 10.51714/dlejpancasakti.v6i2.61.pp.62-71.
Y. S. Rahmi and D. K. Walanda, “The applicaton of flipped classroom learning model of high school students on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions,” J. Sci. Educ. Pract., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.33751/jsep.v6i1.5705.
M. Pikoli, N. U. Botuihe, and A. Lukum, “Improving students’ learning outcomes using the team based learning model with multi-representation approach on electrolyte and non electrolyte solutions,” in E3S Web of Conferences, 2023, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202340004006.
C. E. F. Tapia and K. L. F. Cevallos, “Kruskal-wallis, friedman and mood nonparametric tests applied to business decision making,” Espirales. Rev. Multidiscip. Investig., vol. 6, no. 42, pp. 1–20, 2022, doi: 10.31876/er.v6i43.827.
K. Okoye and S. Hosseini, “Mann–Whitney U Test and Kruskal–Wallis H Test Statistics in R,” in R Programming, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 225–246. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-3385-9_11.
N. B. Amboayan, M. Hairulla, J. Magsayo, and J. Bagaloyos, “Animation-based 7e learning model on plant and animal cells for grade 7 learners,” J. Innov. Adv. Methodol. STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 102–120, 2024, doi: https://so13.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/j_iamstem.
R. Elia, S. Solfema, Y. Miaz, and Z. Zen, “Improving concept understanding and learning outcomes of elementary school students through science textbooks based on learning cycle 7e model,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 4433–4441, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i7.7662.
A. T. Daga, M. Malo, and M. Sene, “improving elementary school students’ learning outcomes through the implementation of the discovery learning model,” J. Ilmu Pendidik. STKIP Kusuma Negara, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 56–67, 2025, doi: 10.64420/jippg.v2i2.254.
A. Dini, H. Rahmatan, Muhibbudin, C. Nurmaliah, and Safrida, “Application of the e-module combined with the guided inquiry learning model to increase student motivation and learning outcomes on the structure and function of plant tissues,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 4768–4776, 2023, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3857.
M. Saha, S. Islam, A. A. Akhi, and G. Saha, “Factors affecting success and failure in higher education mathematics: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29173.
N. T. Arega and T. S. Hunde, “Constructivist instructional approaches: A systematic review of evaluation‐based evidence for effectiveness,” Rev. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1002/rev3.70040.
H. N. Do, B. N. Do, and M. H. Nguyen, “3How do constructivism learning environments generate better motivation and learning strategies? The Design Science Approach,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22862.
Copyright (c) 2026 Eli Aprianingsih, Cinintya Ramanda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
