Konsistensi Pemahaman Konsep Kecepatan dalam Berbagai Representasi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/jrkpf.v4i1.6469Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat pemahaman konsep dan konsistensi mahasiswa dalam menggunakan konsep saat menyelesaikan soal fisika pada topik kecepatan dalam berbagai format representasi. Dalam penelitian ini digunakan 4 soal pilihan ganda beralasan dalam format representasi berbeda. Penelitian dilakukan pada 26 mahasiswa S1 pendidikan fisika dan 22 mahasiswa S1 fisika tahun pertama di Universitas Negeri Malang. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pemahaman konsep kecepatan masih tergolong rendah yang ditandai dengan rata-rata skor mahasiswa hanya mencapai 43,49. Selain itu, alasan yang diberikan mahasiswa menunjukkan bahwa mahasiswa tidak konsisten dalam mendefinisikan kecepatan karena pemahaman yang belum utuh. Beberapa kekeliruan mahasiswa diantaranya: (1) kecepatan adalah posisi per satuan waktu tempuh, (2), (3)
tanpa memahami bahwa persamaan tersebut hanya benar jika percepatan konstan, (4)
, dan (5) tidak memperhatikan tanda (+/-) pada kecepatan.
This study aims to look at the student's conceptual understanding and the students' consistency in used concept when them solved the physics problems in velocity with variety of representation formats. There are 4 MCQs reasoned in a different format representations to achieve these goals. The study was conducted on 26 S1 physical education students and 22 S1 physics students in first year. The results showed that the students' conceptual understanding is still relatively low which is characterized by an average score of students reached only 43.49. Moreover, the reason given students showed that students are still not consistent in defining velocity due to knowledge in pieces. Some students' mistakes are: (1) Velocity is the position per unit of time, (2), (3)
without understanding that this equation is only true if the acceleration is constant, (4)
, and (5) do not pay attention to the sign (+/-) on velocity.
References
B. Soong, N. Mercer, & S. Shin, Students’ Difficulties When Solving Physics Problem: Result from An ICT-Infused Revision Intervention,Proceding of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Kong, 30 November- 4 Desember 2009, pp. 361-365.
M. Sajadi, P. Amiripour, M. Rostamy, & Malkhalifeh, Examining Mathematical Word Problems Solving Ability Under Efficient Represetation Aspect. Mathematical Education Trend and Research, vol. 2013, no. -, 2013, pp. 1-11.
B. Hedge, & B. N.Meera, How do they solve it? An insight into the learners’s approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving, Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research. Vol. 8, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-9.
J. L. Docktor, & J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topic Physics Education Research, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp. 1-58.
Q. X.Ryan, E.Frodermann, K.Hsu, L., Heller, & A.Mason, Computer problem-solving coaches for introductory physics: Design and usability studies. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, vol. 12, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-17.
D. E. Trowbridge &L. E. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, vol. 48, no. 12, 1980, pp. 1020-1028.
M. R. A. Taqwa & R. Faizah, Konsepsi mahasiswa pada topik kinematika, prosiding seminar nasional pekan ilmiah fisika XXVII UNNES, Semarang, 18 September, 2016, pp. 96-101.
D. Hammer, Students resource for learningintroductory physics. American Journal of Physics, Physics EducationResearch Supplement, vol. 68, no. S1, 2000, pp. S52—S59.
I. L. Afwa, Sutopo, E. Latifah, Deep learning question untuk meningkatkan pemahaman konsep fisika, Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan, vol. 1, No. 3, 2016, pp. 434-447.
A. A. diSessa & B. L. Sherin, What change in conceptual change?, International Journal of Science Education, vol. 20, no. 10, 1998, pp. 1155-1191.
D. Hammer, Micsonceptions or p-prims: how many alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions, Journal of Learning Science, vol. 5, no. 2, 1996, pp. 97-127.
D. Rosengrant, A. V. Heuvelen dan E. Etkina, Do Students use understand free-body diagrams?. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 5, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1-13.
N. S.Pedolefsky, & N. D. Finkelstein,Use of analogy in learning physics: The role of representations. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 2006, pp. 1-10.
S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, vol. 16, no. -, 2006, pp.183-198.
P. B.Kohl, D. Rosengrant, &N. D. Finkelstein, Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-10.
D. Hestenes. Modelling Methodology for Physics Teachers. Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physiscs Education, College Park, Agustus 1996, pp. 1-21.
A. V. Heuvelen, & X. Zou, Multiple Representation of Work Energy Processes,Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research., vol. 69, no. 2, 2001, pp. 184-194.
David E. Meltzer, Relation between students’ problem solving performance and representation format,American Journal Physiscs., vol. 73, no. 5, 2005, pp. 463-478.
P. B. Kohl, & N. D. Finkelstein, Effect of Instructional Environment On Physics Students’ Representational Skills. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research,vol. 2, no. 1, 2006, pp. 1-8.
M. D. Cock, Representation use and strategy choice in physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 8, No. 2, 2012, pp. 1-15.
P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, & J. Viiri, Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 6, no. 2, 2010, pp. 1-12.
M. Baser, Fostering Conceptual Change By Cognitive Conflict Based Instrustion OnStudents’ Understanding of Heat And Temperature Concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, vol. 2,no.2, 2006, pp. 96-114.
R. K. Thornton, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion ConceptualEvaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 4, 1998, pp. 338-352.
B. Andersson, Pupils’ Conceptions Of Matter And Its Transformations (Age 12-16). Studies in Science Education. Vol. 18, 1990, pp. 53-85.
K. M. Fisher, A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, vol. 22 no.1, 1985, pp. 53-62.
J. K. Gilbert, & D. M. Watts, Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: changing perspectivein science education. Studies in Science Education, vol. 10, no. 1, 1983, pp. 61-98.
F. X. Berek, Sutopo, & Munzil, Pentingnya pengintegrasian hukum Newton dalam pembelajaran gaya apung di SMP, Malang, Oktober 2016, pp. 570-578.
B. Bektasli, & G. Cakmakci, Consistency of students’ ideas about the concept of rate across different contexts, Education and Science, vol. 36, no. 162, 2011, pp. 273-287.
R. N. Steinberg, &M. S. Sabella, Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems, Physics Teacher.vol. 35, no. 3, 1997, pp. 150-155.
R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Leonard, & W. J. Gerace, Making sense of students’ answers to multiple choice questions, Physics Teacher. Vol. 40, no. 3, 2002, pp. 174-180.
A. A. diSessa, N. Gillespie, & J. Esterly, Coherence vs. fragmentation in the development of the concept of force, Cognitive Science, vol. 28, no. 6,2004, pp. 843-900.
A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognition and. Instruction, vol. 10, no. 2, 1993, pp. 105-225.
D. Hammer, More than misconceptions: multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning and anappropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, vol. 64, no. 10, 1996, pp. 1316-1325.
A. A. diSessa, & B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, International Journal of Science Education, vol. 20, no. 10, 1998, pp. 1155-1191.
P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, & J. Viiri, Relations between representational concistency, conceptual understanding of force concept, and scientific reasoning. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research., vol. 8, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-10.
E. Etkina, V.A. Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, T.D. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, & A. Warren, Scientific Abilities and Their Assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 2006, pp. 1-15.
D. Rosengrant, A. V. Heuvelen, & E. Etkina, Do Students use understand free-body diagrams?. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, vol. 5, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1-13.
R. A. Serway, and J. W. Jewett, Physisc for Scientist and Engineers with Modern Physics. 8th Edition, California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2010.
R. D. Knight, Physics for scientis and engineers a strategic approach with modern physics, 7th edition, United States: Addison Wesley Longman, 2012.
J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, & R.E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2010.
J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric theory, New York: McGraw Hil, 1978.
J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, San Diego: Academic Press, 1991.
R.F. DeVellis, Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.), California: Sage, 2003.
Arikunto, Suharsimi, Prosedur Penelitian, Suatu Praktek. Jakarta: Bina Aksara, 2003.
Sutopo, Liliasari, Waldrib, & D. Rusdiana, Impact of Representrasional Approach on the Improvement of Students’ Understanding of Acceleration. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, vol. 8, 2012, pp. 161-173.
A. M. Yusuf, Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan Penelitian Gabungan. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group, 2014.
Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2014.
M.deCock, Representation Use and Strategy Choice in Physics Problem Solving. Physical Review Special Topic - Physics Education Research, vol. 8, no. 2, 2012, pp. 1-15.
N.Govender, Physics Student Teachers Mix Of Understandings Of Algebraic Sign Convention In Vector Kinematics: A Phenomenograpic Perspective. African Journal of Research in SMT Education. Vol. 11, no.1, 2013, pp. 61-73.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM
The copyright to this article is transferred to Universitas Ahmad Dahlan (UAD) if and when the article is accepted for publication. The undersigned hereby transfers any and all rights in and to the paper including without limitation all copyrights to UAD. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment.
We declare that:
- This paper has not been published in the same form elsewhere.
- It will not be submitted anywhere else for publication prior to acceptance/rejection by this Journal.
- A copyright permission is obtained for materials published elsewhere and which require this permission for reproduction.
Furthermore, I/We hereby transfer the unlimited rights of publication of the above mentioned paper in whole to UAD. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, micro form, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.
The corresponding author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. This agreement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who have obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted.
Retained Rights/Terms and Conditions
- Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Work.
- Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the Work or derivative works for the authors personal use or for company use, provided that the source and the UAD copyright notice are indicated, the copies are not used in any way that implies UAD endorsement of a product or service of any employer, and the copies themselves are not offered for sale.
- Although authors are permitted to re-use all or portions of the Work in other works, this does not include granting third-party requests for reprinting, republishing, or other types of re-use.
