CHEMICAL BONDING DIAGNOSTIC TOOL (CBDT): INSTRUMEN EVALUASI PEMAHAMAN KONSEPTUAL MAHASISWA BERKONTEKS LAHAN BASAH

Authors

  • Rizki Nur Analita Universitas Lambung Mangkurat
  • Iriani Bakti Universitas Lambung Mangkurat
  • Rosyidah Syafaatur Rohmah Universitas Billfath
  • Yunilia Nur Pratiwi SMA Ar-Rohmah

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpk.v6i1.39820

Keywords:

pemahaman konseptual, instrumen evaluasi, Chemical Bonding Diagnostic Tool (CBDT), lahan basah

Abstract

Pemahaman konseptual yang benar dari peserta didik merupakan tujuan utama dalam setiap pembelajaran kimia, terutama pada materi ikatan kimia. Oleh karena itu, perlu adanya instrumen evaluasi untuk menganalisis sejauh mana pemahaman konseptual yang dimiliki peserta didik. Penelitian berikut berupa pengembangan instrumen evaluasi bernama Chemical Bonding Diagnostic Tool (CBDT) yang berkonteks lahan basah. Tujuan dari penelitian adalah menghasilkan suatu instrumen evaluasi yang valid dan reliabel, serta dapat memperkenalkan tentang pengertian lahan basah. Tahapan metode penelitian meliputi: (1) Peninjauan pustaka; (2) Pengembangan butir soal; (3) Uji validitas konstruk; (4) Revisi instrumen evaluasi; (5) Uji coba instrumen evaluasi; dan (6) Analisis butir soal dan instrumen evaluasi. Melalui penelitian yang dilakukan terhadap sampel 238 orang mahasiswa di enam perguruan tinggi negeri di Indonesia, diperoleh hasil berupa instrumen evaluasi yang sangat valid dan reliabel. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut, maka instrumen evaluasi CBDT dapat digeneralisasikan pada pembelajaran ikatan kimia di Indonesia.

References

Arikunto, S. (2013). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan (2nd ed.). Bumi Aksara.

Awan, A. S., & Khan, T. M. (2013). Investigating Pakistani Students’ Alternative Ideas Regarding the Concept of Chemical Bonding. Bulletin of Education and Research, 35(1), 17–29.

Badie, F. (2016). Towards concept understanding relying on conceptualisation in constructivist learning. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age, CELDA 2016, 292–296.

Bakti, I., & Analita, R. N. (2020). Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Conceptual Consistency on Chemical Kinetics Using Four–Tier Chemistry Concept Inventory. Atlantis Press, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200711.019

Chang, R. (2010). General Chemistry: The Essential Concepts (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Chhabra, M., & Baveja, B. (2012). Exploring Minds: Alternative Conceptions in Science. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 1069–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.599

Effendy. (2010). Ikatan Ionik dan Cacat-cacat pada Kristal Ionik (2nd ed.). Bayumedia.

Effendy. (2017). Molekul, Struktur, dan Sifat-sifatnya (1st ed.). Indonesian Academic Publishing.

Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10(1), 61–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905

Habiddin, & Page, E. M. (2019). Development and validation of a four-tier diagnostic instrument for chemical kinetics (FTDICK). Indonesian Journal of Chemistry, 19(3), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.22146/ijc.39218

Haruna, A., & Nahadi. (2021). Menjelajahi Hubungan Level Argumentasi Dengan Ikatan Kimia. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 15(1), 2686–2694.

Ilmah, M., Muntholib, M., & Yahmin, Y. (2020). Analysis of chemistry teachers’ covalent bond conceptual understanding through diagnostic interview technique. J-PEK (Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia), 5(2), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.17977/um026v5i22020p108

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 and Technological Education, 35(2), 238–260.

Khoirunnisa, F., & Sabekti, A. W. (2020). Profil Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Siswa Pada Materi Ikatan Kimia. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Indoensia, 4(1), 26–31. https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JPK/article/view/25635

Laliyo, L. A. R., Hamdi, S., Pikoli, M., Abdullah, R., & Panigoro, C. (2021). Implementation of four-tier multiple-choice instruments based on the partial credit model in evaluating students’ learning progress. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.2.825

Leonard, M. J., Kalinowski, S. T., & Andrews, T. C. (2014). Misconceptions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0244

Luxford, C. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2013). Moving beyond definitions: What student-generated models reveal about their understanding of covalent bonding and ionic bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp20154f

Luxford, C. J., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Development of the bonding representations inventory to identify student misconceptions about covalent and ionic bonding representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400700q

Maskiewicz, A. C., & Lineback, J. E. (2013). Misconceptions are “so yesterday!” CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-01-0014

McMurry, J. E., & Fay, R. C. (2012). Chemistry (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Mills, S. (2016). Conceptual Understanding: A Concept Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 546–557.

Nahum, T. L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504548

Özmen, H. (2004). Some Student Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Literature Review of Chemical Bonding. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jost.0000031255.92943.6d

Prodjosantoso, A. K., Hertina, A. M., & Irwanto. (2019). The misconception diagnosis on ionic and covalent bonds concepts with three tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1477–1488.

Safitri, A. F., Widarti, H. R., & Sukarianingsih, D. (2018). Identifikasi Pemahaman Konsep Ikatan Kimia. J-PEK (Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia), 3(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.17977/um026v3i12018p041

Sands, D. (2014). Concepts and conceptual understanding: What are we talking about? New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 10(10), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i10.510

Seidel, S., & Budke, A. (2019). “A border is a Ban” - Students’ conceptual understanding and experiences of Europe’s borders and boundaries. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 9(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.573476

Sugiyono. (2017). Statistika untuk Penelitian. Alfabeta.

Taber, K. S., Tsaparlis, G., & Nakiboǧlu, C. (2012). Student Conceptions of Ionic Bonding: Patterns of thinking across three European contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2843–2873. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.656150

Vrabec, M., & Prokša, M. (2016). Identifying Misconceptions Related to Chemical Bonding Concepts in the Slovak School System Using the Bonding Representations Inventory as a Diagnostic Tool. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(8), 1364–1370. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00953

Wahdan, W. Z., Sulistina, O., & Sukarianingsih, D. (2017). Analisis Kemampuan Berargumentasi Ilmiah Materi Ikatan Kimia Peserta Didik Sma, Man, Dan Perguruan Tinggi Tingkat I. J-PEK (Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia), 2(2), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.17977/um026v2i22017p030

Yan, Y. K., & Subramaniam, R. (2018). Using a multi-tier diagnostic test to explore the nature of students’ alternative conceptions on reaction kinetics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00143F

Yayasan Lahan Basah (YLBA). (n.d.). Wetlands International. https://indonesia.wetlands.org/id/

Published

2022-01-20

Issue

Section

Articles