Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Diagnostik Tiga Tingkat untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi Peserta Didik pada Materi Pokok Laju Reaksi

Maghfira Arifah(1*), Jusniar Jusniar(2), Muhammad Anwar(3),

(1) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(2) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(3) Universitas Negeri Makassar
(*) Corresponding Author




DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/cer.v6i1.39494

Abstract


This development research aims to produce a valid, consistent, and practical three-tier diagnostic test instrument to identify students' misconceptions on the subject matter of reaction rate. The instrument development referred to the Treagust model (1988) which was adapted by Jusniar et. al (2020) which consisted of the misconception proposition analysis stage, the test prototype development stage, and the test instrument quality test stage. The misconception proposition analysis stage was conducted by reviewing the literature to analyze the main concepts and misconceptions in reaction rate subject, while the prototype test development stage was conducted by compiling a three-tier diagnostic test instrument which was adapted to the misconception proposition analysis and the 2013 Curriculum. The test instrument quality test stage was conducted to examine the feasibility of instrument. The instrument used for the validity test was the instrument validation sheet given to two validators for the content validity test, followed by an inter-rater test. The empirical validity test instrument and the consistency test were three-tier diagnostic tests that were tested on students of grade XII MIA 1 in a limited trial. The practicality test employed teachers’ response questionnaires and students’ response questionnaires. The teacher’s response questionnaire were given to two chemistry teachers, while the students’ response questionnaires were given to 30 students of grade XII MIA 1 in a limited trial and again given to 111 students of grade XI MIA in a field trial. The results of the content validity test obtains an average value of 3.29 which is in valid category with an R value of 95% in the inter-rater test and the results of the empirical validity test obtain an average value of 0.45 at tier 1 and 0.43 at tier 2 with valid category. The results of the consistency or reliability test obtains Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.87 at tier 1 and 0.86 at tier 2, which is in high reliability category. The results of the practicality test using the teachers’ response questionnaire obtains 95.83%, the students’ response questionnaire in limited trial is 89.17%, and the students’ response questionnaire in field trial is 88.63%. The results obtained in the three practicality tests are in very practical category. The results of testing the three-tier diagnostic test instrument on the reaction rate subject obtain 69.55% of students in understanding category, 27.50% of students is in in less understanding category, and 2.95% of students is in misconception category.

Keywords


Three-Tier Diagnostic Test Instrument; Misconceptions; Reaction Rate.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adadan, E., & Savasci, F. 2012. An Analysis of 16–17-Year-Old Students’ Understanding of Solution Chemistry Concepts Using a Two-Tier Diagnostic Instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.636084.

Arroio, A. 2016. The Representational Levels: Influences and Contributions to Research in Chemical Education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10153a

Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C., & Moseley, C. 2012. A Three-Tier Diagnostic Test to Assess Pre-Service Teachers’ Misconceptions about Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion, and Acid Rain. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.680618.

Asmalinda, A., Ruslan, R., & Sulastry, T. 2019. Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Diagnostik Tiga Tingkat dan Alternatif Remedial pada Pembelajaran Kimia. Chemistry Education Review (CER). https://doi.org/10.26858/cer.v2i2.8671.

Banerjee, A. C. 1991. Misconceptions of Students and Teachers in Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130411.

Barke, H.-D., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. 2009. Misconceptions in Chemistry: Addressing Perceptions in Chemical Education. Choice Reviews Online, 46(12), 46-6810-46–6810. https://doi.org/10.5860/Choice.46-6810.

Beichner, R. J. 1994. Testing Student Interpretation of Kinematics Graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17449.

Bilgin, İ., Uzuntiryaki, E., & Geban, O. 2003. Student’s Misconceptions on the Concept of Chemical Equilibrium Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgıları. 8.

Budiningsih, S. 2013. Pengembangan Instrumen Diagnostik Three-Tier untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi Listrik Dinamis Siswa Kelas X SMA.

Cakmakci, G. 2010. Identifying Alternative Conceptions of Chemical Kinetics among Secondary School and Undergraduate Students in Turkey. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed8001336

Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. 2011. Development of A Three-Tier Test to Assess High School Students’ Understanding of Acids and Bases. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 600–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.147.

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. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 8(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F

Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. 2008. The Influence of Prior Knowledge on Viewing and Interpreting Graphics with Macroscopic and Molecular Representations. Science Education, 20.

Elvia, R., Rohiat, S., & Ginting, S. M. 2020. Identifikasi Miskonsepsi Mahasiswa pada Pembelajaran Daring Matematika Kimia melalui Tes Diagnostik Three Tier Multiple Choice. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 9(2), 84. https://doi.org/10.33394/hjkk.v9i2.4422.

Fahmi, F., & Irhasyuarna, Y. 2017. Misconceptions of Reaction Rates on High School Level in Banjarmasin. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 07(01), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0701045461.

Fariyani, Q., & Rusilowati, A. 2015. Pengembangan Four-Tier Diagnostic Test Untuk Mengungkap Miskonsepsi Fisika Siswa Sma Kelas X. 9.

Gurel, D. K. 2015. A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science. 20.

Habiddin, H., & Page, E. M. 2019. Development and Validation of a Four-Tier Diagnostic Instrument for Chemical Kinetics (FTDICK). Indonesian Journal of Chemistry, 19(3), 720. https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.39218.

Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P. J. 1985. Misconceptions of Chemical Equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528850070211.

Hakimah, N., Muchson, M., Herunata, H., Permatasari, M. B., & Santoso, A. 2021. Identification Student Misconceptions on Reaction Rate Using A Google Forms Three-Tier Tests. 020020. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043114.

Ibrahim, M. 2019. Model Pembelajaran P20C2R untuk Mengubah Konsepsi IPA Siswa. Zifatama Jawara.

Jusniar, J., Effendy, E., Budiasih, E., & Sutrisno, S. 2020a. Developing a Three-Tier Diagnostic Instrument on Chemical Equilibrium (TT-DICE). Educación Química, 31(3), 84. https://doi.org/10.22201/fq.18708404e.2020.3.72133.

Jusniar, J., Effendy, E., Budiasih, E., & Sutrisno, S. 2020b. Misconceptions in Rate of Reaction and their Impact on Misconceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1405–1423. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.1405.

Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. 2008. Validity and Reliability of Measurement Instruments Used in Research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(23), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364.

Kolomuç, A., & Tekin, S. 2011. Chemistry Teachers’ Misconceptions Concerning Concept of Chemical Reaction Rate. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 3(2), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.51724/ijpce.v3i2.194.

Kurt, S., & Ayas, A. 2012. Improving Students’ Understanding and Explaining Real Life Problems on Concepts of Reaction Rate by Using a Four Step Constructivist Approach. 14.

Laksono, P. J. 2020. Pengembangan Three Tier Multiple Choice Test pada Materi Kesetimbangan Kimia Mata Kuliah Kimia Dasar Lanjut. Orbital: Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 4(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.19109/ojpk.v4i1.5649.

Ni’mah, M., Subandi, S., & Munzil, M. 2020. Keefektifan Pembelajaran POGIL dengan Strategi Konflik Kognitif untuk Mengurangi Miskonsepsi pada Materi Laju Reaksi Kelas XI SMA. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, 5(9), 1257. https://doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v5i9.14010.

Özmen, H. 2008. Determination of Students’ Alternative Conceptions about Chemical Equilibrium: A Review of Research and The Case of Turkey. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1039/B812411F.

Papaphotis, G., & Tsaparlis, G. 2008. Conceptual Versus Algorithmic Learning in High School Chemistry: The Case of Basic Quantum Chemical Concepts. Part 2. Students’ Common Errors, Misconceptions and Difficulties in Understanding. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9(4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1039/B818470B.

Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. 2010. Development of a Three-Tier Test to Assess Misconceptions about Simple Electric Circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002.

Taber, K. S. (Ed.). 2009. Progressing Science Education (Vol. 37). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2431-2.

Talanquer, V. 2011. Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: The Many Faces of The Chemistry “Triplet.” International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435.

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.

Tuckman, B. W., & Harper, B. E. 2012. Conducting Educational Research (6th Edition). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 373 times | PDF view : 44 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Jurnal dipublikasikan oleh: Program Studi Pendidikan Kimia

Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Makassar

Alamat JL. Bonto Langkasa Gunung Sari Makassar, 90222

Kampus PPs UNM Makassar Gedung AD ruang 406 Lt 4, Indonesia.Phone 082393643737/085145825311/085242228678

CER UNM Indexed by:

Creative Commons License
Chemistry Education Review (CER) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.