AI-Powered Personalized Learning in Indonesian Senior High School Chemistry Education: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Study

Reza Firmansyah; Novia Kurniawati; Bagas Dwi Prasetyo

doi:10.70716/josme.v2i2.614

Authors

Reza Firmansyah Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
Novia Kurniawati Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
Bagas Dwi Prasetyo Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70716/josme.v2i2.614

Keywords:

AI-Powered Learning , Ai-Powered Adaptive Learning Platform , Chemistry Education , Academic Achievement, Personalized Learning

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of an AI-powered AI-powered adaptive learning platform in improving students’ academic achievement in chemistry and explored their overall learning experience. The research was conducted at SMA Negeri 3 Surabaya, involving 72 students of class XI MIPA in the 2023/2024 academic year. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design was employed. The experimental group (XI MIPA 2, n = 36) used an AI-powered adaptive learning platform incorporating artificial intelligence algorithms to personalize learning pathways, whereas the control group (XI MIPA 1, n = 36) received conventional instruction. Academic achievement was measured using a validated chemistry knowledge test covering reaction rates, chemical equilibrium, and thermochemistry, while learning experience was assessed through a structured questionnaire. The results showed that the experimental group achieved significantly higher posttest scores (mean = 83.7) than the control group (mean = 72.4), with a statistically significant difference (t = 6.43, p < 0.001) and a large effect size (d = 1.02). The experimental group also obtained a higher N-Gain score (0.61, moderate) than the control group (0.35, low). In addition, students in the experimental group reported highly positive learning experiences across all measured dimensions. These findings suggest that AI-powered personalized learning has strong potential to enhance chemistry achievement and student engagement in Indonesian senior high school settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students' understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130

Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780605

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9090-4

Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054

Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students' understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606

Graham, T., Berry, J., & Rowlands, S. (2013). Are 'misconceptions' or alternative frameworks of force and motion spontaneous or formed prior to instruction? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.703333

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14030

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497

Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7–8), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00010-1

Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2016). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students' misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a

Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2017). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers' misconceptions about geometrical optics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094

Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2

McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207

Suparno, P. (2013). Miskonsepsi dan perubahan konsep dalam pendidikan fisika. PT Grasindo.

Terry, C., & Jones, G. (1986). Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080305

Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863

Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024