Development and Validation of Two-Tier Multiple Choice to Identify Measure Students’ System Thinking Skills in Dynamic Electricity

Endang Susilawati, Ida Hamidah, Nuryani Rustaman, Winny Liliawati

Abstract


Dynamic electricity is important due to its function as a thinking tool for further electronic circuit analysis. It is an abstract concept that must be understood by students as well as by physics teachers. A study about developing a set of two-tier multiple-choice questions was conducted to measure the system thinking skill of a number of student-teachers using Design Development Research (DDR). The instrument has been tested for its validity through expert judgment and field testing on a number of student teachers (n=62). After studying dynamic electricity learning material that had been prepared before. Based on the r table, which is 0.2108, it was obtained that out of 25 two-level tests, 23 were valid and can be used to measure students' and teachers' systems-thinking skills. In addition, the instrument showed high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.840.


Keywords


Dynamic electricity; System thinking skills; Two-tier multiple choice

Full Text:

PDF

References


AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Arnold, R, D. & Wade, J, P. (2015). A definition of system thinking: A system approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050

Assaraf, O. B. Z. & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351

Casnan, C., Purnawan, A., Firmansyah, I., & Triwahyuni, H. (2022). Systems thinking in physics learning process. Berkala Fisika Indonesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Fisika, Pembelajaran dan Aplikasinya, 13(2), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.12928/bf-jifpa.v13i2.23848

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

Cullinane, A. & Liston, M. 2011. Two-tier Multiple Choice Question: An Alternative Method of Formatif Assessment for First Year Undergraduate Biology Students (Limerick: National Center for Excellence In Mathematics and Education Science Teaching and Learning (NCEMSTL)

Downing, S. M. (2006). Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 40(12), 1141–1148. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x

Dumayanti, H., Indriani, R. P., Hariyanti, E. N., Ristanto, R. H., & Miarsyah, M. (2022). Two-tier test: Development of critical thinking instruments for ecosystem concepts. Phenomenon: Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 12(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2022.12.1.11829

Etkina, E., Gentile, M., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2019). College physics: Explore and apply (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Femintasari, V., Effendy, & Munzil, M. (2015). The effectiveness of two-tier multiple choice test and multiple choice test followed with interview in identifying misconception of students with different scientific reasoning skills in reaction rate. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 21(2), 192–197 https://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jip.v21i2.8376

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill

Gunawan, G., Nisrina, N., & Herayanti, L. (2021). Analysis of students’ understanding of dynamic electricity using virtual laboratory media. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 17(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v17i2.28409

Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert–novice understanding of complex systems in the domain of biomedical science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 81–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1251992

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(23), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364

McClary, L. M., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conception related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education.

Mcdermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a Guide for Curriculum Development : An Example from İ ntroductory Electricity. Part I : Investigation of student understanding. Am. J. Phys. 60, 994-1003. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003

Pesman, H., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. Journal of Educational Research, 103 (3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29 (5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147

Rahmawati, D., Suhandi, A., & Sutarno, S. (2022). Pengembangan instrumen two-tier multiple choice untuk mengukur kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi siswa pada konsep fluida. Jurnal Penelitian & Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika, 8 (2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.21009/1.08210

Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260090203

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

Tuysuz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnosticinstrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(6), 626–631

Viard, J., & Langlois, F, K. (2001). The concept of electrical resistance: How Cassirer's philosophy, and the early developments of electric circuit theory, allow a better understanding of students' learning difficulties. Science & Education, 10, 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712903985

Wahyudi, W. (2015). Analisis hasil belajar mahasiswa pada pokok bahasan hukum Ohm dan Kirchhoff dalam matakuliah Fisika Dasar I. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi, 1(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpft.v1i2.248

Wahyuni, S., & Mukhaiyar, R. (2022). Evaluasi Diagnostik pada mata kuliah praktikum pengukuran listrik teknik elektro universitas negeri padang. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknik Elektro. 03(02), 14–17.

Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Widiyatmoko, A., & Shimizu, K. (2018). The development of two-tier multiple choice test to assess students’ conceptual understanding about light and optical instruments. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(4), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i4.16591




DOI: https://doi.org/10.20527/jmscedu.v6i1.18624

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


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

 

Creative Commons License

Journal Of Mathematics Science and Computer Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.