Analisis Miskonsepsi Siswa SMA terhadap Konsep Hukum Newton Menggunakan Instrumen Four-Tier Diagnostic Test

Ahmad Fauzi Ramadhani; Nuri Handayani; Muhammad Rizky Pratama

doi:10.70716/josme.v2i2.595

Authors

Ahmad Fauzi Ramadhani Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Mataram, Indonesia.
Nuri Handayani Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Mataram, Indonesia
Muhammad Rizky Pratama Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Mataram, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70716/josme.v2i2.595

Keywords:

Misconception, Newton's Law, Four-Tier Diagnostic Test, High School Physics, Concept Diagnostic

Abstract

Misconceptions regarding Newton's Law concepts are among the most prevalent issues encountered in high school physics learning. This study aimed to identify and analyze misconceptions held by Grade XI Science students at SMA Negeri 1 Gunungsari toward Newton's Law concepts using a Four-Tier Diagnostic Test instrument. A descriptive quantitative research method was employed, involving 32 students as research subjects. The instrument consisted of 20 items of Four-Tier Diagnostic Test that had been validated by experts and tested for reliability. Results indicated that 38.7% of students experienced misconceptions regarding Newton's First Law (Inertia), 42.5% regarding Newton's Second Law (relationship between force and acceleration), and 35.2% regarding Newton's Third Law (action-reaction). The highest rate of misconceptions was found in the concept of friction force and the application of Newton's Second Law in everyday life. Students tended to believe that stationary objects have no forces acting on them and that action forces are always greater than reaction forces. These findings imply the need for more contextual and cognitive-conflict-based learning strategies to remediate existing misconceptions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students' understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130

Clement, J. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12989

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014). 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

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016

Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14031

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14030

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497

Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7–8), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00010-1

Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2016). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students' misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 341–374. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1133a

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 & Technological Education, 35(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094

Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2

McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207

Suparno, P. (2013). Miskonsepsi dan perubahan konsep dalam pendidikan fisika. PT Grasindo.

Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863

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

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78(6), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780605

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9090-4

Fetherstonhaugh, T., & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students' understanding of light and its properties: Teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760606

Graham, T., Berry, J., & Rowlands, S. (2013). Are ‘misconceptions’ or alternative frameworks of force and motion spontaneous or formed prior to instruction? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.703333

Terry, C., & Jones, G. (1986). Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080305