Evaluation of Senior High School Students’ Ability to Reading Chemistry Text

Arum Setyaningsih, Sri Rahayu, Parlan Parlan, Munzil Munzil, Wako Uriu


Science text reading activities can introduce students to understanding chemical concepts and practice reading skills. Reading skills play an important role in science education because they are related to student's cognitive and metacognitive abilities. This study aims to see how the ability to read texts and students' understanding of chemical concepts through texts. This research uses a mixed method design, embedded type. Quantitative data is obtained through survey results and qualitative data is obtained through interviews to strengthen the justification of quantitative data obtained. Participants in this study were 299 high school students in the cities of Malang and Batu. The research instrument is an instrument of reading chemistry text skills (r = 0.918) consisting of 3 chemistry texts and in each of them, there are 8 essay questions covering literal, interpretation, and application aspects. The profile of students' reading skills based on the results of surveys and interviews shows that most students' reading skills have not been able to understand the idea of chemical concepts correctly, have not been able to describe chemical terms in the text correctly, students' explanations of chemical concepts are at the structural level, and have not been able to provide creative ideas (arguments) for solutions to problems presented in the text. The implications of this study need to be explicit skills in reading chemistry texts to understand chemical concepts and be proficient in reading chemistry texts.


science education; reading skills; chemical concepts


Abdelaal, N. M., & Sase, A. S. (2014). Relationship between Prior Knowledge and Reading Comprehension. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(6), 125–131. https://doi.¬org/¬http://-dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.6p.125

Al-Balushi, S. M. (2013). The effect of different textual narrations on students’ explanations at the submicroscopic level in chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.911a

Al-Balushi, S. M., & Al-Harthy, I. S. (2015). Students’ mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations and its relationship with their reading comprehension. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 680–688. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00052A

Araújo, J. L., Morais, C., & Paiva, J. C. (2015). Poetry and alkali metals: building bridges to the study of atomic radius and ionization energy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 893–900. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00115C

Astarina, A. D., Rahayu, S., & Yahmin, Y. (2019). Pengaruh pembelajaran POGIL berkonteks socioscientific issues terhadap kualitas keterampilan berargumentasi siswa SMA pada materi ikatan kimia. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 5(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v5i1.20890

Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing, 26, 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

Bethlehem, J. (2009). Applied survey methods: A statistical perspective. John Wiley & Sons.

Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy New York: Academic Pres.

Burns, P. C., Roe, B. D., & Ross, E. P. (1999). Teaching reading in today’s elementary schools. ERIC.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading compre-hension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.¬1348/¬00070¬99-05X69807

Calatayud, M. L., Bárcenas, S. L., & Furió-Más, C. (2007). Surveying students’ conceptual and proce-dural knowledge of acid–base behavior of substances. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(10), 1717.

Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 203–218. https://doi.¬org/¬0.1080/10573560490264134

Chan, C. C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: An empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/¬02602¬9302¬20-00020282

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 Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Désiron, J. C., de Vries, E., Bartel, A. N., & Varahamurti, N. (2018). The influence of text cohesion and picture detail on young readers’ knowledge of science topics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12195

Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., & Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351

Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050

Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051

Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548

García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616

Geranmayeh, A. (2016). Laguerre–Galerkin methods with reduced sum-products. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(13–14), 6267–6279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.02.027

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education. In Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 333–350). Springer.

Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes In: Otero J, León JA, Graesser AC, editors. The psychology of science text comprehension. NJ: Erlbaum, Mahwah.

Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2006). What do tests of reading comprehension ability such as VSAT really measure? A componential analysis. Trends in Educational Psychology, 1–44.

Heng, L. L., Surif, J., Seng, C. H., & Ibrahim, N. H. (2015). Mastery of scientific argumentation on the concept of neutralization in chemistry: A Malaysian perspective. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 12, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2015.12.5

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

Jacob, C. (2001). Interdependent operations in chemical language and practice. HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7(1), 31–50.

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry-logical or psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/A9RP90001B

Karasinski, C. (2016). Comprehension of narratives, non-fiction, and complex syntax as predictors of science achievement. Speech, Language and Hearing, 19(4), 203–210. https://doi.org/-10.-1080/-205-0571X.2016.1187465

Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. ERIC.

McNamara, D. S., de Vega, M., & O’Reilly, T. (2007). Comprehension skill, inference making, and the role of knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 297–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2

Moon, A., Moeller, R., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2019). Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students’ writing on ocean acidification. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 484–494. https://doi.org/-0.1039/-C9RP00005D

Munowenyu, E. (2007). Assessing the quality of essays using the SOLO taxonomy: Effects of field and classroom-based experiences by ‘A’level geography students. International Research in Geographical & Environmental Education, 16(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.2167/irg204.0

Nida, S., Rahayu, S., & Eilks, I. (2020). A survey of Indonesian science teachers’ experience and perceptions toward socio-scientific issues-based science education. Education Sciences, 10(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020039

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066

OECD. (2018). PISA for development assessment and analytical framework: Reading, mathematics and science. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD publishing.

OECD. (2019b). Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed; PISA. OECD Publishing: Paris, France.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.-1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. Blackwell publishing.

Pyburn, D. T., Pazicni, S., Benassi, V. A., & Tappin, E. E. (2013). Assessing the relation between language comprehension and performance in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 524–541. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1021/ed4009045

Pyburn, D. T., Pazicni, S., Benassi, V. A., & Tappin, E. M. (2014). The testing effect: An intervention on behalf of low-skilled comprehenders in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(12), 2045–2057.

Rahayu, S., & Kita, M. (2010). An analysis of Indonesian and Japanese students’ understandings of macroscopic and submicroscopic levels of representing matter and its changes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9180-0

Russell, D. R., & Cortes, V. (2012). Academic and scientific texts: the same or different communities? In University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 1–17). Brill.

Saija, M., Rahayu, S., Parlan, P., & Fajaroh, F. (2023). The effect of chemistry instruction strategy contextualized by local SSI-OE3C on the high school students’ argumentation skills. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2569(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0113474

Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.81.4.610

Setyaningsih, A., Rahayu, S., Fajaroh, F., & Parmin, P. (2019). Pengaruh Process Oriented-Guided Inquiry Learning berkonteks isu sosiosaintifik terhadap keterampilan berargumentasi siswa sekolah menengah atas. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 5(2), 168–179. https://doi.org/-10.21831/-jipi.v5i2.20693

Sheppard, K. (2006). High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid-base phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/-10.1039/-B5R-P90014J

Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.005

Smith, K. J., & Metz, P. A. (1996). Evaluating student understanding of solution chemistry through microscopic representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(3), 233.

Song, Y., & Carheden, S. (2014). Dual meaning vocabulary (DMV) words in learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00128H

Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 57–71.

Stodart, P. (2016). The new vision for secondary science education: Connecting language and literacy to science learning (p. 3120). Rowman & Littlefiel.

Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1

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

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.

Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456.

Van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First experiences with reading primary literature by undergraduate life science students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582654

Vladušić, R., Bucat, R., & Ožić, M. (2016). Understanding of words and symbols by chemistry university students in Croatia. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 474–488. https://doi.org/-10.-1039/C6RP00037A

Walsh, V. (1982). Reading scientific texts in English. System, 10(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(82)90017-3

Webb, P. (2010). Science education and literacy: Imperatives for the developed and developing world. Science, 328(5977), 448–450.

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Yarden, A. (2009). Reading Scientific Texts: Adapting Primary Literature for Promoting Scientific Literacy: Guest Editorial. Research in Science Education, 39, 307–311.

Yore, L. D. (2012). Science literacy for all: More than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_2

Zou, L. H., Li, J., Chen, W. C., Zhong, M. L., & Wang, Z. Y. (2014). Relationship between learning quality and learning approaches of high school students on the subject of chemistry. International Conference on Science Education 2012 Proceedings: Science Education: Policies and Social Responsibilities, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54365-4_14

Tambahan refisi referensi yang belum di layout mendeley

Canac, S., & Kermen, I. (2016). Exploring the mastery of French students in using basic notions of the language of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 452–473. doi:10.1039/c6rp00023a

Rees, S. W., Kind, V., & Newton, D. (2018). Can language focussed activities improve understanding of chemical language in non-traditional students? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 755–766. doi:10.1039/c8rp00070k

Meyer, D., & Pietzner, V. (2022). Reading textual and non-textual explanations in chemistry texts and textbooks – a review. Chemistry Education research and Practice, 23(4), 768-785. DOI: 10.1039/D2RP00162D

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v16i2.5096


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2024 Arum Setyaningsih, Sri Rahayu, Parlan Parlan, Munzil Munzil, Wako Uriu

Al-Ishlah Jurnal Pendidikan Abstracted/Indexed by:




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