Development of a Mental Model Diagnostic Test using Predict, Observe, Explain (TDM-POE) on Voltaic Cell Materials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14421/jtcre.2024.61-06Keywords:
Mental Model, TDM_POE, Voltaic CellAbstract
Understanding chemical concepts as a whole show that students can connect three levels of chemical representation. The three levels in chemical representation are related and reflected in students' mental models. A teacher must know the student's mental model as a reflection of learning. This research aims to develop an instrument for students' mental models on voltaic cell submaterials using the prediction-observation-explanation (TDM-POE) mental model diagnostic test. The method used in this research is the research and development method using the Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) development model. The instrument was validated by five validators consisting of four lecturers in the Department of Chemistry Education and one chemistry teacher at school. Validity is determined by content validity response. Then, the instrument was tested on class XII students who had received learning about voltaic cells. The instrument consists of four questions for four concepts: voltaic cell construction, calculating standard cell potential values, voltaic cells in alkaline batteries, and corrosion phenomena. Each question consists of 3 stages, namely, the first stage contains questions about predicting phenomena (predict), the second stage contains video or image observations (observe), and the third stage contains detailed explanations (explanation). The validation results show that the validity of the TDM-POE instrument obtained a score of 0.99, which is categorized as valid. So, the TDM-POE instrument can be used to understand chemical concepts.
Downloads
References
Arifin, Z. (2011). Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Bonello, M. (2008). Sixth Grade Students’ mental models of physical education concepts: a framework theory perspective. Disertasi Doctor pada Department of Kinesiology School of Public Health: tidak diterbitkan.
Brown, T.L., Lemay, H.E, Bursten, B.E., Murphy, C.J., Woodward, P.M. (2012). Chemistry The Central Science. United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Butts, B. & Smith, R. (1987). What do students perceive as difficult in H.S.C. chemistry? Australian Science Teachers Journal, 32, 45-51.
Ceyhun, I. & Karagolge, Z. (2005). Chemistry students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry. Australian Journal of Education Chemistry, 65, 24-28.
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 Research and Practice, 8(3), hlm.293-307.
Chang, R., (2010). Chemistry:10th Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies: New York.
Chittleborough, G.D. (2004). The Role of Teaching Models and Chemical Representation in Developing Students’ Mental Models of Chemical Phenomena. (Tesis). Curtin University of Technology.
Ciesla, P., Nodzynska, M., Stawoska, I. (2012). Chemistry Education in the light of the research. Krakow: Department of Chemistry and Chemistry Education.
Corter, J. E. (1995). Using Clustering Methods to Explore the Structure of Diagnostic Test. In P.D. Nichols, S.F. Chipman, & R. L. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic Assessment (hal. 327-359). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Costu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M. (2009). Promoting conceptual change in first year students’ understanding of evaporation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 11, 5-16.
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2007). Tes Diagnostik. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J., Glazar, S.A., (2007). Assessing 16-Years-Old Students’ Understanding of Aqueous Solution at Submicroscopic Level. Springer: Research Science Education.
Embretson, S.E., Yang, X., (2007). Construct Validity and Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Elliott & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research, hlm. 147.
Farida, I. (2011). Pembelajaran Berbasis Web untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Interkoneksi Multiplelevel Representasi Mahasiswa Calon Guru pada Topik Kesetimbangan Larutan Asam-Basa. Jurnal Chemical, 12(1) , hlm. 14 – 24.
Fitriyani, Intan. (2014). Profil Model Mental Siswa Pada Materi Termokimia dengan Menggunakan TDM-POE. (skripsi). FPMIPA UPI, Bandung.
Franco, C., & Colinvaux, D. (2000). Grasping mental models, dalam Gilbert, J. K. & Boulter, C. J., Developing models in science education (hlm. 93-118). Dordreccht: Kluwer.
Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Halim, N.D.A., Ali M.B., Yahaya,N., Said, M.N.H.. (2012). Mental Model in Learning Chemical Bonding: A Preliminary Study. Johor: Department of Educational Sciences, Mathematics and Multimedia Creative, Faculty of Education., Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai.
Jansoon, N., Coll, Richard K., and Somsook, E. (2009). Understanding Mental Models of Dilution in Thai Students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 4 (2), hlm. 147-168.
Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning: Centre for Science Education, (7), hlm. 75-83.
Kala, dkk. (2013) The Effectiveness of Predict-Observe-Explain Technique in Probing Students’ Understanding About Acid-Base Chemistry: A case For The Concept of pH, pOH, and strength. International journal of Science and Mathematics Education, (11), hlm. 555-574)
Khanthavy, H., and Yuenyong, C.(2012). Examining Lao Student’s Mental Model of Force and Motion. Science Education Program, Faculty of Education Khon Kaen University. Thailand.
Kibirige,S.I, Osodo,J., Tlala,K.M..(2014). The Effect of Predict-Observe-Explain Strategy on Learners’ Misconceptions about Dissolved. University of Limpopo, Polokwane, South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy. 5(4), hlm. 300-310.
Middlecamp, C. dan Kean, E. (1985). Panduan Belajar Kimia Dasar (Alih bahasa: A.H Pudjaatmaka). Jakarta: PT. Gramedia.
Miller G., (2014), Addressing students’ difficulties and misconceptions about electrochemistry, in AP Central, California: University of California, retrieved Oct 10, 2014 from http:// apcentral.collegeboard.com/.
Mulford, D.R., Robinson, W.R. (2002). An Inventory for Alternate Conceptions among First-Semester General Chemistry Students. Chemical Education Research: Science and Education.79(6), hlm. 739-744.
Nelson, P. G. (2002). Teaching chemistry progressively: From substances, to atoms and molecules, to electrons and nuclei. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(2), 215–228.
Nguyen, T. et.al. (2007). “First Year Bachelor of Education Students’ Mental Models of Themselves as Learners.” James Cook University Australia.
Ogude, A.N., Bradley, J.D. (1994). Ionic Conduction and Electrical Neutrality in Operating Electrochemical Cells: Pre-College and College Student Interpretations. Johannesburg, 71(1), hlm. 29-34.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan nomor 59 tahun 2013 tentang Kerangka Dasar dan Struktur Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah Atas/ Madrasah Aliyah.
Sanger, M.J., Greenbowe, T.J., (1997). Common Student Misconceptions in Electrochemistry: Galvanic, Electrolytic, and Concentration Cells, Iowa: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), hlm. 377-398.
Sendur, G., Toprak, M., Pekmez, E. (2010). “Analyzing of students’ misconceptions, About Chemical Equilibrium.” Paper on International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implication. Antalya-Turkey. hlm. 1-7.
Silberberg. (2007). Principles of general Chemistry:2th Edition. Newyork: Mc. Graw Hill Companies inc.
Sopandi dan Murniati. (2007) Microscopic Level Misconception on topic acid base, salt, buffer and hydrolysis: A case study at a state senior high school. Seminar Proceeding of the first International Seminar of Science Education. Bandung: SPS UPI.
Sugiyono. (2015). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Supasorn, S., (2015). Grade 12 students’ conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice: Royal Society of Chemistry, (16), hlm. 393-407.
Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, Submicro, and Symbolic: Te many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International jurnal of Science Education. 33(2), hlm. 179-195.
Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., Mamiala, T. (2003). The Role of Submicroscopic and Symbolic representations in Chemical Explanation. Curtin University of Technology, International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), hlm. 1353-1368.
Tumay, H. (2014). “Prospective Chemistry Teachers’ Model Mental of Vapor Pressure.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 14,( ), hlm. 366-379.
Wang, C.Y. (2007). The Role of Mental-Modeling Ability, Content Knowledge, And Mental Models In General Chemistry Students’ Understanding About Molecular Polarity. (Disertasi). The Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri, Columbia.
Whitten, dkk. (2014). General Chemistry (seventh edition). USA: Thomson Brooks.
