Level of Students Conceptual Understanding and Resource Theory View: Geometric Optics

Ike  Hilma Wahyuni; Muhammad Reyza Arief Taqwa

doi:10.57092/ijetz.v1i2.38

Authors

Ike Hilma Wahyuni Universitas Negeri Malang
Muhammad Reyza Arief Taqwa Universitas Negeri Malang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.57092/ijetz.v1i2.38

Keywords:

Geometric optics, Level of conceptual understanding, Resource theory

Abstract

This study aims to identify the level of understanding (LoU) and resources that students activate. This is a descriptive study. The study used a survey method by distributing ten multiple-choice questions. The focus of the study is geometric optics. The research was conducted on 64 physics students who were taking Basic Physics III courses. Data analysis was carried out by determining descriptive statistics and categorizing students' LoU based on the reasons given. The LoU includes Sound Understanding, Partial Understanding, Partial Understanding with Specific Misconceptions, Specific Misconceptions, and Not Understanding. Based on the analysis of the research results, the average score of students' conceptual understanding was 53.44. Furthermore, the average levels of understanding are 15.9% for Sound Understanding, 28.1% for Partial Understanding, 14.7% for Partial Understanding with Specific Misconceptions, 16.4% for Specific Misconceptions, and 26.2% for Not Understanding. Meanwhile, the resource that is activated by students when showing possible rays in the formation of images on a convex lens is "there are only three possible rays". It means that students do not understand that it is not only "three special rays" reflected by objects towards the lens to form an image.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Admoko, S., Sunarti, T., Jauhariyah, M. N. R., Suliyanah, S., & Suprapto, N. (2018). Analysis of College Students’ Misconception on Geometrical Optics. International Conference on Science and Technology (ICST), 1, 896–903. https://doi.org/10.2991/icst-18.2018.181

Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to Teach Ninth Edition (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Arikunto, S. (2016). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Rineka Cipta.

Aydin, S. (2012). Remediation of misconceptuons about geometric optics using conceptual change texts. International Journal of Current Research, 4(11), 295–304.

diSessa, A. A. (2018). A Friendly Introduction to" Knowledge in Pieces": Modeling Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Learning. In Invited Lectures from the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 66–84). Springer.

diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201002

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014a). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014b). Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 1–148. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020119

Etikamurni, D. P., Anggraeni, A., Diantoro, M., & Sutopo. (2020). Improving students’ problem solving skills of heat and temperature through modeling instruction. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(April). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0003651

Hakim, M. L. (2017). Identifikasi miskonsepsi mahasiswa dengan menggunakan metode certainty of response index pada konsep optik geometri. Widyagogik, 5(1), 45–54.

Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 68(S1), S52–S59. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19520

Handayani, S. L., & Rukmana, D. (2018). Perbandingan miskonsepsi mahasiswa pgsd uhamka materi optik geometri. Jurnal Ilmiah “Pendidikan Dasar,” 5(1), 44–56.

Magalhães, S. de S., Malloy-Diniz, L. F., & Hamdan, A. C. (2012). Validity convergent and reliability test-retest of the rey auditory verbal learning test. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(3), 129–137.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Vol. 1304, pp. 1–338). Sage Publication Ltd.

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.

Suniati, N. M. S., Sadia, W., & Suhandana, A. (2013). Pengaruh Implementasi Pembelajaran Kontekstual Berbantuan Multimedia Interaktif Tehadap Penurunan Miskonsepsi. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 4(1), 1–13.

Suruchi, & Rana, S. S. (2014). Test item analysis and relationship between difficulty level and discrimination index of test items in an achievement test in biology. Paripex - Indian Journal of Research, 3(6), 56–58.

Taqwa, M. R. A. (2017). Profil Pemahaman Konsep Mahasiswa dalam Menentukan Arah Resultan Gaya. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Sains, 79–87.

Taqwa, M. R. A., & Taurusi, T. (2021). Improving conceptual understanding on temperature and heat through modeling instruction. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1918(5), 052054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052054

Taqwa, M. R. A., Zainuddin, A., & Riantoni, C. (2020). Multi representation approach to increase the students ’ conceptual understanding of work and energy Multi r epresentation approach to increase the students ’ conceptual understanding of work and energy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/3/032090