Assessment for learning in chemistry learning: One of the best ways to improve learning outcomes

Authors

  • Tri Amelia Khoirun Nisa Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia
  • Muchlis Muchlis Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia
  • Alif Syaiful Adam National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
    TW Taiwan, Province of China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62672/joease.v4i2.243

Keywords:

Assessment for learning, Electrolyte and nonelectrolyte solutions, Learning outcomes, N-gain

Abstract

The integration of macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic representations remains a major challenge in chemistry education, particularly when teaching abstract concepts such as electrolyte and nonelectrolyte solutions. This study aimed to investigate the implementation of the Assessment for Learning (AfL) approach and examine its effectiveness in improving students’ conceptual understanding of this topic. A pre-experimental study with a one-group pretest–posttest design was conducted involving 36 eleventh-grade students from a public senior high school in Surabaya. Data were collected using a validated 12-item conceptual understanding test and analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and N-gain analysis. The results showed a significant improvement in students’ learning outcomes, with the mean score increasing from 43.26 in the pretest to 89.72 in the posttest. The Wilcoxon test produced an Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.000 (<0.05), indicating a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores. Furthermore, the N-gain analysis revealed that 91.67% of students achieved a high category of improvement in conceptual understanding. These findings demonstrate that the systematic implementation of AfL strategies clarifying learning objectives, facilitating productive classroom discussions supported by student activity sheets, providing continuous formative feedback, and activating students as owners of their learning effectively supports students in connecting different levels of chemical representation. This study suggests that integrating formative assessment into classroom instruction can help teachers identify and address students’ misconceptions during the learning process, thereby promoting deeper conceptual understanding in chemistry education.

References

Adie, L., Willis, J., & Cumming, J. (2018). Teacher assessment literacy: Learning to guide student learning. In: Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(5), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09659757.2018.1436014

Ahmad, A., Rustam, A., Zulaeha, O., & Maryanti, E. (2024). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of formative assessment in online learning. Arus Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora, 4(2), 915–920. https://doi.org/10.57250/ajsh.v4i2.578

Aisy, A. A., & Muchlis, M. (2025). Developing assessment for learning-oriented worksheets to improve student learning outcomes in thermochemistry. Jurnal Paedagogy, 12(3), 856–865. https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v12i3.15971

Amanina, A. A., & Muchlis. (2023). Development of assessment for learning-oriented electronic student worksheets to improve student learning outcomes on acid-base titration material. Jurnal Pijar MIPA, 18(4), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v18i4.5188

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315815008

Anderson, L. W. (2003). Classroom assessment: Enhancing the quality of teacher decision making. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607140

Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992

Andriani, R., & Gazali, Z. (2025). The Effect of Demonstration Methods on Students' Scientific Attitudes and Critical Thinking Skills on Redox Reaction Materials. Journal of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education, 15(2), 699–705. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37630/jpm.v15i2.2773

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Brookhart, S. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2020). Classroom assessment and educational measurement. Taylor & Francis.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506386706

Farrell, S., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2022). Guided inquiry in the chemistry classroom: The role of formative assessment in promoting conceptual understanding. In: Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00652

Flórez, M. T., & Sammons, P. (2013). Assessment for learning: Effects and impact. CfBT Education Trust.

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

Hajjah, S., Rahman, A., & Putri, D. (2022). Implementation of formative assessment to improve students’ learning outcomes in chemistry learning. Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2193/1/01

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hasanah, S. A., & Muchlis, M. (2024). The Effect of Assessment for Learning in Chemistry Learning on Students' Learning Outcomes. Journal of Science Education Research, 10(8), 5992–6000. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i8.7611

Hu-Au, E. (2024). Learning abstract chemistry concepts with virtual reality: An experimental study using a VR chemistry lab and molecule simulation. Electronics, 13(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163197

Heritage, M., & Wylie, C. (2018). Reaping the benefits of assessment for learning: Achievement, identity, and equity. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0943-3

John Hattie, J., & Helen Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Keiner, L., & Graulich, N. (2021). Beyond the beaker: Students’ use of a scaffold to connect observations with the particle level in the organic chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00206B

Lewkowicz, J., & Leung, C. (2021). Classroom-based assessment. Language Teaching, 54(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000506

Mandouit, L., & Hattie, J. (2023). Revisiting “The power of feedback” from the perspective of the learner. Learning and Instruction, 84, 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101718

Martins van Jaarsveld, G., Wong, J., Baars, M., Specht, M., & Paas, F. (2025). Goal setting in higher education: how, why, and when are students prompted to set goals? A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1511605. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1511605

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. ASCD.

McKee, R. J. (2015). Encouraging classroom discussion. Journal of Social Science Education, 14(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.2390/jsse-v14-i1-1303

McMillan, J. H. (2024). Classroom assessment. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92074-9

Muhson, A. (2016). A guide to statistical analysis. UNY Press.

Nardi, P. M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Ningtryas, K. D. A., Pradana, I., & Harahap, P. (2025). Enhancing Student Outcomes in Acid-Based Titration Through Assessment for Learning. Journal of Radiant Radiation, 20(2), 223–228. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v20i2.7433

Nofinadya, S. A., Nuraini, R., & Fitriyah, I. J. (2024). Development of four-tier diagnostic instruments to identify students’ understanding of electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions. STEM Education International. https://doi.org/10.71289/18tnsy31

Pat-El, R. J., de Hoog, N., Segers, M., & Vedder, P. (2024). Exploring the impact of student perceptions of assessment for learning on intrinsic motivation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, 101420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101420

Popova, M., & Jones, T. (2021). Chemistry instructors’ intentions toward developing, teaching, and assessing student representational competence skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00329H

Safithri, D. L., & Muchlis. (2022). Implementation of assessment for learning-based learning to improve student learning outcomes on reaction rate materials. PENDIPA Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 547–555. https://doi.org/10.33369/pendipa.6.2.547-555

Sari, N. P., Wulandari, D., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2024). Students’ misconceptions in electrolyte and nonelectrolyte solutions based on multirepresentation analysis. Journal of Chemical Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00245A

Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G. J., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D. J., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of assessment as learning (AaL), assessment for learning (AfL), and assessment of learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094

Syah, G. F., & Muchlis, M. (2025). Development of the Student Worksheets Based on Assessment for Learning (AfL) to Improve Student Learning Outcomes of the Elements Periodic Table. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 11(3), 826–836. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v11i3.10899

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Volante, L., DeLuca, C., Barnes, N., Birenbaum, M., Kimber, M., Koch, M., Looney, A., Poskitt, J., Smith, K., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2025). International trends in implementing assessment for learning revisited. Policy Futures in Education, 23(1), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241255855

Westbroek, H. B., van Rens, L., van den Berg, E., & Janssen, F. (2020). A practical approach to assessment for learning and differentiated instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 42(6), 955–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1744044

Downloads

Published

03-04-2026

How to Cite

Nisa, T. A. K., Muchlis, M., & Adam, A. S. (2026). Assessment for learning in chemistry learning: One of the best ways to improve learning outcomes. Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education, 4(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.62672/joease.v4i2.243

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.