Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
1Tri Hastiti Fiskawarni, 2Rahmawati Rahmawati, 3Rezkawati Saad, 4Yusri Handayani
1,2,3,4Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, FKIP, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar, Indonesia
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i9-40Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This research aims to identify the energy literacy abilities of prospective physics teacher students using a test instrument in the form of a four tier test. This type of research is quantitative descriptive research. The population of this study was one class of prospective physics teacher students at the first level, totalling 30 students. The data collection technique was carried out using a test technique using a test instrument in the form of a four-tier test with a total of 40 questions. The four-tier test has the advantage of being able to capture more accurate information with diverse answer patterns, which is one of the reasons for its use. The analysis technique in this research is descriptive statistical analysis. The level of understanding of students' energy literacy is categorized into three categories, namely understanding, not understanding, and misunderstanding. The energy literacy indicators measured in this research consist of six indicators which include: (1) basic energy knowledge; (2) understanding energy sources and their relationships; (3) awareness of the importance of energy use for individuals and social life; (4) knowing trends in energy use in Indonesia and global energy sources-supply and use; (5) understand the influence of the development of energy sources and the implementation of their use in society; and (6) understand the influence of the development of energy sources and their use on the environment. The research results show that the level of understanding of energy literacy among students is in the category of not understanding as much as 5.83% of students. Furthermore, the level of understanding of students' energy literacy in the understanding category was 31.38% of students. Meanwhile, there were 62.79% of students who had a level of understanding of energy literacy in the misunderstanding category.
KEYWORDS:Level of student understanding, energy literacy, energy literacy indicators, answer patterns.
REFERENCES1) Aguirre-Bielschowsky, I., Lawson, R., Stephenson, J., & Todd, S. (2017). Energy literacy and agency of New Zealand children. Environmental Education Research, 23(6), 832–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1054267
2) Chen, K. L., Liu, S. Y., & Chen, P. H. (2015). Assessing multidimensional energy literacy of secondary students using contextualized assessment. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(2), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2015.241a
3) Chinnappan, M. (2015). Exploring relationship between scientific reasoning skills and mathematics problem solving. 603–610.
4) Deratama, D., Wulan, A. R., Diana, S., & Agustian, D. (2022). The Assessment Profile of The Skills to Interpret Data and Evidence Scientifically in High School on The Covid-19 Virus Pandemic Content. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 10(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v10i1.22375
5) DeWaters, J. E., & Powers, S. E. (2011). Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.049
6) DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2012.711378
7) 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 and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
8) Jumrodah, J., Liliasari, L., Adisendjaja, Y. H., & Sanjaya, Y. (2021). Keterampilan berpikir kreatif mahasiswa calon guru biologi pada konsep biota laut menuju pembangunan berkelanjutan melalui pembelajaran berbasis proyek. Edu Sains Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematika, 9(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.23971/eds.v9i1.2993
9) 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 and Technological Education, 35(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094
10) Kuo, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Jen, T. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Development and Validation of a Multimedia-based Assessment of Scientific Inquiry Abilities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2326–2357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1078521
11) Lee Su Han & Park Jong Won. (2013). Deductive reasoning to teach newton ’ s law of motion. International Joournal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(November 2011), 1391–1414.
12) Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science and Technological Education, 36(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
13) McDermott, L. C., Heron, P. R. L., Shaffer, P. S., & Stetzer, M. R. (2006). Improving the preparation of K-12 teachers through physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 74(9), 763–767. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2209244
14) Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Learning about forces using multiple representations. In dalam D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education (pp. 163–182). Springer.
15) Nurjani, D. M., Alpusari, M., Mahartika, I., Diniya, D., Ilhami, A., Permana, N. D. P., Alim, J. A., Sari, I. K., Mulyani, E. A., Putra, R. A., & Hermita, N. (2020). Identifying the Misconception of Sound Concepts among Grade v Students at SDN 192 Pekanbaru. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1655(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012074
16) Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
17) Rahmawati, R., Rustaman, N. Y., Hamidah, I., & Rusdiana, D. (2021). The profile of prospective physics teachers’ conceptual change based on cognitive style dimensions through collaborative learning on electricity and magnetism topic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1940(1), 012113. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1940/1/012113
18) Sheftyawan, W. B., Prihandono, T., & Lesmono, A. D. (2018). Identifikasi Miskonsepsi Siswa Menggunakan Four-tier Diagnostic Test pada Materi Optik Geometri. Jurnal Pembelajaran Fisika, 7(2), 147–153.
19) Stephens, J. C., Hernandez, M. E., Román, M., Graham, A. C., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810885916
20) Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R & D). Penerbit Alfabeta.
21) Wellington, J. (2003). Science education for citizenship and a sustainable future. Pastoral Care in Education, 21(3), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0122.00265
22) Yusup, M., Setiawan, A., Rustaman, N. Y., & Kaniawati, I. (2017). Developing a Framework for the Assessment of Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Energy Literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 877(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/877/1/012014
23) Zografakis, N., Menegaki, A. N., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2008). Effective education for energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 36(8), 3226–3232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.021