DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF OPTICS CONCEPTUAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON PHYSICS LEARNING

Authors

  • Eko Sujarwanto Universitas KH. A. Wahab Hasbullah
  • Suci Prihatiningtyas Universitas KH. A. Wahab Hasbullah

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22611/jpf.v7i2.10914

Keywords:

optics, assessment, physics learning.

Abstract

Optical phenomena are found in the surrounding environment, both in biotic and abiotic components. Conceptual understanding of optics is needed to explain the occurrence of optical phenomena and be able to apply in technology. This research has been carried out to develop an optics conceptual assessment instrument. The instrument was developed based on the design of Standards for Psychological and Educational Testing. The material included in the instrument developed are reflection, refraction, interference and diffraction. Evaluation of instrument is done through expert validation, validity testing, and reliability testing. The evaluation results show that the instrument is suitable to be used to measure the conceptual understanding of optical topics. The instruments developed are expected to support physics learning

References

Adams, W.K. & Wieman, C. E. 2010. Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert-Like Thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 1-24.

Agnes, D., Kaniawati, I., & Danawan, A. 2015. Analisis Deskriptif Tes Tiga Tingkat Materi Optika Geometri dan Alat Optik. Prosiding Simposium Nasional Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Sains.

Akarsu, B. 2012. TOCUSO: Test of Conceptual Understanding on High School Optics Topics. European Journal of Physics Education. Special Issue 2012.

Ambrose, B. S., Shaffer, P. S., Steinberg, R. N., & McDermott, L. C. 1999. An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference. American Journal of Physics, no. 67(2), 146-155.

Anderson, L.W. 2003. Classroom Assessment: Enhancing the Quality of Teacher Decision Making. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bowling B. V., Acra E. E., Wang L., Myers M. F., Dean G. E., Markle G. C., Moskalik C. L., Huether C. A. 2008. Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178, 15“22.

Clement, J. J. 1982. Students™ Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71.

Crne, M., Sharma, V., Blair, J., Park, O. K., Summers C.J. & Srinivasarao, M. 2011. Biomimicry of optical microstructure of Papilio palinurus. EPL, 93 (1).

diSessa, A. 1993. Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.

diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. 2004. Coherence vs. Fragmentation in the Development of the Concept of Force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843-900.

Docktor, J. L. & Mestre, J. P. 2014. Synthesis of Discipline-Based Education Research in Physics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. No. 10, 020119.

Erceg, N., Aviani, I., Mesic, V., Gluncic, M., & Zauhar, G. (2016). Development of The Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gasses Concept Inventory: Preliminary Result on University Students™ Misconception. Physical Review Physics Education Research. No. 12, 020139.

Fariyani, Q., Rusilowati, A., & Sugianto. (2017). Four-Tier Diagnostic Test to Identify Miscopnceptions In Geometrical Optics. Unnes Science Education Journal, 6(3), 1724-1729.

Garvin-Doxas, K., Klymkowsky, M., Elrod, S. (2007). Building, Using, And Maximizing the Impact of Concept Inventories In The Biological Sciences: Report On A National Science Foundation-Sponsored Conference On The Construction Of Concept Inventories In The Biological Sciences. CBE Life Science Education, 6(4), 277“282.

Giraldo, M.A., Yoshioka, S., Liu, C., & Stavenga, D.G. 2016. Coloration Mechanisms and Phylogeny of Morpho Butterflies. Journal of Experiment Biology, 219, 3936-3944.

Goldberg, F.M. & McDermott, L.C. 1986a. An Investigation of Student Understanding of The Real Image Formed By a Converging Lens or Concave Mirror. American Journal of Physics, 55(2), 108-119.

Goldberg, F.M. & McDermott, L.C. 1986b. Student Difficulties in Understanding Image Formation by A Plane Mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24, 472-480.

Gupta, A., Hammer, D., & Redish, E. F. 2010. The Case for Dynamic Models of Learners™ Ontologies in Physics. Journal of Learning Science, 19, 285-319.

Hammer, D. 2000. Student Resources for Learning Introductory Physics. American Journal of Physics, 68 (7), 52-59.

Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. 1992. A Mechanics Baseline Test, Physics Teacher, 30, 159-166.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. 1992. Force Concept Inventory, Physics Teacher. No. 30, 141-158.

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), 238-60.

McDermott, L. C. 1984. Research on Conceptual Understanding in Mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24-32.

McGinness, L. P. & Savage, C. M. 2016. Developing an Action Concept Inventory. Physical Review Physics Education Research. No. 12, 010133.

McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, E. 2010. Design and Validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. No. 6, 020121.

Redish E. F. 2000. Discipline-based Education and Education Research: the Case of Physics. Journal Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 85“96.

Serway, R.A. & Jewett, J.W. 2004. Physics for Scientist and Engineers (6st ed.). Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Vigneron, J.P. & Simonis, P. 2012. Natural Photonic Crystal. Physica B: Condensed Matter, 407(20), 4032-4036.

Young, H.D. & Freedman, R.A. 2012. Sears and Zemansky™s University Physics “ with Modern Physics (13th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson education.

Downloads

Published

2018-12-31

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2018)

Section

Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Volume 7//No.2//Desember 2018

License

Copyright (c) 2018 eko sujarwanto, suci prihatiningtyas

Creative Commons License

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

Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika allow the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and  allow the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.

In developing strategy and setting priorities, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika recognize that free access is better than priced access, libre access is better than free access, and libre under CC-BY or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving free in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with free when we can achieve libre.


Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.