Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Esai untuk Mengukur Model Mental Peserta Didik pada Materi Ikatan Kimia Development of an Essay Test Instrument to Measure Students' Mental Models on Chemical Bonding Material
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
1728-1740
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/masaliq.v6i4.10935
Viewed: 1 times
Downloaded: 1 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:
Sofia Fadila1*, Dwi Finna Syolendra2 
Copyright :
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
As abstract subject matter, chemical bonding requires an understanding of submicroscopic concepts that cannot be observed directly, thereby potentially causing misconceptions among students. This understanding can be examined through mental models; however, instruments specifically designed to measure them in chemical bonding topics remain limited. This study aims to produce a valid essay test instrument for measuring students’ mental models in chemical bonding topics. This study used the Plomp development model up to the prototype III stage. Instrument validity was analyzed using Aiken’s V formula with the validity criterion of V ≥ 0.9. The study was conducted at the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Padang, involving three Chemistry lecturers from the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Padang, as expert validators, two senior high school chemistry teachers at the needs analysis stage, and six Grade XI students of SMAN 14 Padang at the individual evaluation stage. The results showed an average Aiken’s V value of 0.93, with details of 0.91 for the content component, 0.91 for the construct component, and 0.97 for the language component, all of which were categorized as valid. At the individual evaluation stage, six students gave an average score of 4.26 out of 5.00, or 85%, indicating a highly positive response. The developed instrument integrates three levels of chemical representation, namely macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic, and is equipped with a scoring rubric based on three categories of mental models, namely Scientific Model, Synthesis Model, and Initial Model. The conclusion of this study confirms that the developed essay test instrument is valid for measuring students’ mental models in chemical bonding topics. These findings contribute to the development of chemistry assessment instruments oriented toward conceptual understanding and can be used as a basis for evaluating learning in abstract subject matter.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
Attali, Y., Laitusis, C., & Stone, E. (2016). Differences in reaction to immediate feedback and opportunity to revise answers for multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(5), 848–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415612548
Bashooir, K., & Supahar. (2018). Validitas dan Reliabilitas Instrumen Asesmen Kinerja Literasi Sains Pelajaran Fisika Berbasis STEM. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 22(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v22i2.19590
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
Chittleborough, G. D., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2002). Constraints to the development of first-year university chemistry students’ mental models of chemical phenomena. In Focusing on the student: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Teaching Learning Forum (pp. 43–50).
Damanhuri, M. I. M., Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2016). High school students’ understanding of acid-base concepts: An ongoing challenge for teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2015.284a
Devi, N. A., & Azra, F. (2023). Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Diagnostik untuk Melihat Gambaran Model Mental Peserta Didik pada Materi Asam Basa. Entalpi Pendidikan Kimia, 4(3), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.24036/epk.v4i3.345
Eka, Hairida, & Lestari, I. (2015). Pemahaman Konsep Siswa terhadap Materi Ikatan Kimia melalui Self Assessment di SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Pontianak. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 4(8). https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jpdpb/article/view/11061
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2017). Thinking and reasoning: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198787259.001.0001
Islami, D., Suryaningsih, S., & Bahriah, E. S. (2018). Analisis Model Mental Siswa pada Pembelajaran Kimia. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Kimia, 9(1), 21–29.
Jansoon, N., Coll, R. K., & Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding mental models of dilution in Thai students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 147–168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ884390
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
Kurnaz, M. A., & Eksi, C. (2015). An analysis of high school students’ mental models of solid friction in physics. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2526
Lin, Y. I., Son, J. Y., & Rudd, J. A. (2016). Asymmetric translation between multiple representations in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4), 644–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1144945
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (Eds.). (2013). Educational design research: Part A: An introduction. SLO. https://slo.nl/publish/pages/2904/educational-design-research-part-a.pdf
Prasetyo, Z. K., Djukri, & Hartono. (2023). Development research in education: The role of formative evaluation in improving product quality. Mathedunesa, 13(1), 216–233.
Putri, H., Susiani, D., Wandani, N. S., & Putri, F. A. (2022). Instrumen Penilaian Hasil Pembelajaran Kognitif pada Tes Uraian dan Tes Objektif. Jurnal Papeda: Jurnal Publikasi Pendidikan Dasar, 4(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.36232/jurnalpendidikandasar.v4i2.2649
Ramdhani, E. P., Khoirunnisa, F., & Siregar, N. A. N. (2020). Efektifitas Modul Elektronik Terintegrasi Multiple Representation pada Materi Ikatan Kimia. Journal of Research and Technology, 6(1), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.55732/jrt.v6i1.152
Rosyidi, D. (2020). Teknik dan Instrumen Asesmen Ranah Kognitif. Tasyri’: Jurnal Tarbiyah-Syari’ah Islamiyah, 27(1), 1–13. https://ejournal.kopertais4.or.id/pantura/index.php/tasyri/article/view/3479
Simamora, M. P., Putri, M. D., & Saputra, H. (2024). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran POE terhadap Model Mental Siswa SMP di Kota Langsa. Gravitasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Sains, 7(1), 45–51. https://ejurnalunsam.id/index.php/JPFS/article/view/10440
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00012E
Taber, K. S. (2019). The nature and processes of learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00108F
Melovitz Vasan, C. A., DeFouw, D. O., Holland, B. K., & Vasan, N. S. (2018). Analysis of testing with multiple choice versus open-ended questions: Outcome-based observations in an anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1739
Wallengren, C., Rosengren, K., Sawatzky, R., & Öhlén, J. (2018). Challenges when translating and culturally adapting a measurement instrument: The suitability and comprehensibility of materials (SAM+CAM). Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 5, Article 2333393618807380. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393618807380
Winarni, S., & Syahrial. (2016). Miskonsepsi Kimia yang Disebabkan Pernyataan Nonproposisi. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains, 4(4), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.17977/jps.v4i4.8195