Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 629 Download : 831

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Dalam memahami konsep Fisika secara utuh, mahasiswa banyak mengalami kesulitan karena miskonsepsi (memahami konsep secara keliru dengan konsisten). Namun terkadang kesulitan tersebut disebabkan karena pemahaman mahasiswa yang tidak utuh (teori resource). Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengungkap kesulitan mahasiswa dalam memahami konsep kinematika. Penelitian dilakukan pada 100 mahasiswa Pendidikan Fisika tahun pertama. Dengan menggunakan 5 soal pilihan ganda beralasan, pilihan jawaban mahasiswa menjadi sumber data kuantitatif sedangkan alasan jawaban mahasiswa menjadi sumber data kualitatif. Data kuantitatif dianalisis dengan menggunakan statistik desktiptif. Sementara itu, data kualitatif dianalisis menggunakan tahapan analisis Miles and Huberman untuk melihat level pemahaman mahasiswa dan resource yang diaktivasi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan mahasiswa dalam memahami konsep kinematika masih cenderung rendah. Hal tersebut diindikasi dari rata-rata skor pemahaman konsep kinematika yang hanya mencapai 37,00. Selain itu, rata-rata mahasiswa dengan level pemahaman mantap (Sound Understanding) hanya mencapai 7,2% dan resource yang diaktivasi dalam menajawab soal menunjukkan adanya pemahaman yang masih belum utuh.

Article Details

License

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.


Creative Commons License

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

Author Biographies

Nu'man Nadhor, Universitas Negeri Malang

Muhammad Reyza Arief Taqwa, Universitas Negeri Malang

How to Cite
Nadhor, N., & Taqwa, M. R. A. (2020). Pemahaman Konsep Kinematika Mahasiswa Calon Guru Fisika: Ditinjau dari Level Pemahaman dan Teori Resource. PENDIPA Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.33369/pendipa.4.3.82-90
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Baser, M. (2006). Effect of conceptual change oriented instruction on remediation of students ’ misconceptions related to heat and temperature concepts. Journal of Maltese Education Research, 4(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117
  2. Berek, F. X., Sutopo, S., & Munzil, M. (2016). Concept enhancement of junior high school students in hydrostatic pressure and archimedes law by predict-observe-explain strategy. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v5i2.6038
  3. Çepni, S., & ?ahin, Ç. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and …, 4(2), 97–127. http://eurasianjournals.com/index.php/ejpce/article/viewArticle/739
  4. Çepni, S., ?ahin, Ç., & Ipek, H. (2010). Teaching floating and sinking concepts with different methods and techniques based on the 5E instructional model. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1–16.
  5. Costu, B. (2008). Learning science through the PDEODE teaching strategy: Helping students make sense of everyday situations. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75300
  6. Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119
  7. Efendi, R., Rustaman, N. Y., & Kaniawati, I. (2018). Self-perceived assessment skill of prospective physics teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012047
  8. Grusche, S. (2019). Phenomenon-based learning and model-based teaching: Do they match? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1287(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012066
  9. Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520
  10. Hegde, B., & Meera, B. N. (2012). How do they solve it? An insight into the learner’s approach to the mechanism of physics problem solving. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010109
  11. Kim, E., & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1484151
  12. Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. L. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I. Research on student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1178–1187. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1607335
  13. Maharani, F. (2016). Model Gi-Gi Pada Hasil Belajardalam Pembelajaran Fisika (Materi Teori Kinetik Gas) Di Sma. Jurnal Pembelajaran Fisika Universitas Jember, 4(5), 145–153.
  14. Mariati, P. S. (2012). Pengembangan model pembelajaran fisika berbasis problem solving untuk meningkatkan kemampuan metakognisi dan pemahaman konsep mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 8(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v8i2.2155
  15. Purwantiningsih, A., & Suharso, P. (2019). Improving Teacher Professionalism Toward Education Quality in Digital Era. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1254(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1254/1/012019
  16. Radovanovic, J., & Sliško, J. (2013). Applying a predict-observe-explain sequence in teaching of buoyant force. Physics Education, 48(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/48/1/28
  17. Rahayu, D. S. (2019). Types and the role of teacher ’ s questions in science classroom practice. Journal of Physics, Internatio. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022040
  18. Ryan, Q. X., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., & Mason, A. (2016). Computer problem-solving coaches for introductory physics: Design and usability studies. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1–17.
  19. Sutopo, Jayanti, I. B., & Wartono. (2016). Efektivitas program resitasi berbasis komputer untuk meningkatkan penguasaan konsep mahasiswa tentang gaya dan gerak. Jurnal Inovasi Dan Pembelajaran Fisika, 3(1), 111–119.
  20. Taqwa, M. R. A., Hidayat, A., & Sutopo. (2017). Deskripsi Penggunaan Program Resitasi dalam Meningkatkan Kemampuan Membangun Free-Body Diagrams ( FBDs ). Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Tadulako, 5(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.22487/j25805924.2017.v5.i1.8411
  21. Taqwa, M. R. A., & Rivaldo, L. (2018). Kinematics Conceptual Understanding?: Interpretation of Position Equations as A Function of Time. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, 6(4), 120–127. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jps.v6i4.11274
  22. Unual, S., & Costu, B. (2005). Problematic issue for students: Does it sink or float? AsiaPasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1–16.
  23. Wahyudi, I. (2013). Pemahaman Konsep Dan Miskonsepsi Fisika Pada Guru Fisika Sma Rsbi Di Bandar Lampung. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA Universitas Lampung, 14(1), 121125.
  24. Wiyono, F. M., Sugiyanto, & Yulianti, E. (2016). Identifikasi Hasil Analisis Miskonsepsi Gerak Menggunakan Instrumen Diagnostik Three Tier pada Siswa SMP. Jurnal Penelitian Fisika Dan Aplikasinya (JPFA), 06(02), 61–69.
  25. Yusuf, A. M. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif & Penelitian Gabungan. Kencana