Cover Image

Chemistry Learning Using Multiple Representations: A Systematic Literature Review

Margaretha Bhrizda Permatasari, Sri Rahayu, I Wayan Dasna


The abstractness of the chemistry concept can be understood easily through chemistry learning using multiple representations. This article used the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method to review eleven articles published from 2012 to 2021 and focused on chemistry learning using various representations. The articles are systematically obtained from the online article database ERIC, Scopus, and SINTA. The purpose of a review is to give information to teachers and researchers in chemistry education about the definition of multiple representations, the influence of multiple representations on chemistry learning outcomes, and how to implement various representations in chemistry learning models or strategies. The review results showed that the definition of numerous representations referred to both three levels of chemical representation and the tetrahedral representation of chemistry. Also, it referred to the use of various media. The influence of multiple representations on chemistry learning outcomes included improving concept understanding, improving performance, reducing mental effort, improving self-efficacy, making better cognitive structures, improving mental models, and reducing misconceptions. Multiple representations have also been implemented in several learning models or strategies such as Inquiry, Inquiry 5E, Guided Inquiry, Problem Solving, Thinking, Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS), Problem Posing (PP), Cognitive Dissonance, and Multiple Representation Based Learning (MRL).

Full Text:

Download PDF


Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.

Baptista, M., Martins, I., Conceição, T., & Reis, P. (2019). Multiple representations in the development of students’ cognitive structures about the saponification reaction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(4), 760–771.

Bridle, C. A., & Yezierski, E. J. (2012). Evidence for the effectiveness of inquiry-based, particulate-level instruction on conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(2), 192–198.

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, R., & Overby, J. (2011). General Chemistry, 6th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Effendy.(2016). Ilmu Kimia Untuk Siswa SMA dan MA Jilid 1A [Chemistry for High School and MA Students Volume 1A]. Malang : Indonesia Academic Publishing.

Derman, A., & Ebenezer, J. (2020). The Effect of Multiple Representations of Physical and Chemical Changes on the Development of Primary Pre-service Teachers Cognitive Structures. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1575–1601.

Domin, D. & Bodner, G. (2004). Mental Models: The Role of Representations in Problem Solving in Chemistry. Proceedings, University Chemistry Education, 4(1) : 24-30.

Domin, D., and Bodner, G. (2012). Using students’ representations constructed during problem solving to infer conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 837–843.

Huddle, P. A., & Pillay, A. E. (1996). An In-Depth Study of Misconceptions in Stoichiometry and Chemical Equilibrium at a South African University. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 65-77.

Indriyanti, N. Y., Saputro, S., & Sungkar, R. L. (2020). Problem-Solving and Problem-Posing Learning Model Enriched With the Multiple Representation in Tetrahedral Chemistry To Enhance Students’ Conceptual Understanding. Edusains, 12(1), 123–134.

Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The Development of Chemistry Teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.

Kimberlin, S., & Yezierski, E. (2016). Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based Lessons Using Particulate Level Models to Develop High School Students’ Understanding of Conceptual Stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(6), 1002–1009.

Lee, G., Kwon, J., Park, S. S., Kim, J. W., Kwon, H. G., & Park, H. K. (2003). Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 585–603.

Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving chemistry education into 3D: A tetrahedral metaphor for understanding chemistry: Union carbide award for chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49–55.

Milenković, D. D., Segedinac, M. D., & Hrin, T. N. (2014). Increasing high school students’ chemistry performance and reducing cognitive load through an instructional strategy based on the interaction of multiple levels of knowledge representation. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1409-1416.

Nakhleh, M. (1992). Why Some Students Don’t Learn Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69 (3), 191−196.

Nugrahaeni, A., Redhana, I. W., & Kartawan, I. M. A. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran discovery learning untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis dan hasil belajar kimia [Application of discovery learning learning model to improve critical thinking skills and chemistry learning outcomes]. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Indonesia, 1(1), 23-29.

Pikoli, M. (2020). Using guided inquiry learning with multiple representations to reduce misconceptions of chemistry teacher candidates on acid-base concept. International Journal of Active Learning, 5(1), 1-10.

Priyasmika, R. (2021). The Effect of Multiple Representation-Based Guided Inquiry on Learning Outcomes Reviewed from Scientific Thinking Skills. EduChemia (Jurnal Kimia dan Pendidikan), 6(1), 55-66.

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(4), 667–688.

Santos, V. C., & Arroio, A. (2016). The representational levels: Influences and contributions to research in chemical education. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 13(1).

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2−20.

Sunyono, S., & Meristin, A. (2018). The effect of multiple representation-based learning (MRL) to increase students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(4), 399–406.

Sunyono, S., Leny, Y., & Muslimin, I. (2015). Supporting students in learning with multiple representation to improve student mental models on atomic structure concepts. Science Education International, 26(2), 104-125.

Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students’ conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 393–407.

Tima, M. T., & Sutrisno, H. (2018). Influence of Problem Solving Based on Multiple Representations Model on Teaching and Learning of Chemistry on Student Academic Self-Efficacy and Students’s Cognitive Achievement. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(7), 887-892.

Widarti, H. R., Marfu’ah, S., & Parlan. (2019). The Effects of Using Multiple Representations on Prospective Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding of Intermolecular Forces. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1227(1).

Widarti, H. R., Permanasari, A., Mulyani, S., Rokhim, D. A., & Habiddin, H. (2021). Multiple Representation-Based Learning through Cognitive Dissonance Strategy to Reduce Student’s Misconceptions in Volumetric Analysis. TEM Journal, 10(3), 1263–1273.

Wiyarsi, A., Sutrisno, H., & Rohaeti, E. (2018). The effect of multiple representation approach on students’ creative thinking skills: A case of “Rate of Reaction” topic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1).

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Margaretha Bhrizda Permatasari, Sri Rahayu, I Wayan Dasna

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

Journal of Science Learning is published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
in collaboration with the Indonesian Society of Science Educators
Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia
Email: js