Analysis of Science Literacy of Physics Education Students at UIN Walisongo Semarang Using the PISA Model Test Instrument
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the level of science literacy at the Physics Education Study Program UIN Walisongo Semarang by using the International Student Assessment (PISA) Model Test Instrument. Science literacy is measured based on the ability of students in analyzing, applying concepts, and using a scientific approach in the context of basic mechanics, especially in business material, energy, and power. This study involved students of Physics Education UIN Walisongo Semarang with test data showing the highest score of 84, lowest 16, and an average of 32 of the maximum score of 100. Analysis of the indicator of competency achievement shows a significant variation between the eight aspects measured. The highest indicator is the ability to analyze and apply the concept of relationship between business and kinetic energy and potential energy (39%), followed by the application of scientific methods in the concept of kinetic and potential energy (36%). Meanwhile, the lowest indicator is found in the aspect of analyzing and applying the concept of relationship between business and mechanical energy changes (16%) as well as the application of scientific methods in the concept of mechanical energy (26%). These findings indicate that students tend to experience difficulties in integrating scientific approaches and complex conceptual understanding. The results of this study indicate that the literacy of physics education students is still at a low level, with the dominance of factual and conceptual abilities that have not fully developed to the analytical and applicative levels. Therefore, innovation is needed in the learning approach and assessment that is oriented towards strengthening scientific thinking and transfers cross -context concepts. This study made an important contribution in the development of PISA -based science literacy assessment for higher education in the field of physics education, as well as supporting the strengthening of 21st century competencies in science education in Islamic tertiary institutions.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright of the received article shall be assigned to the journal as the publisher of the journal. The intended copyright includes the right to publish the article in various forms (including reprints). The journal maintains the publishing rights to the published articles. Authors are allowed to use their articles for any legal purposes deemed necessary without written permission from the journal with an acknowledgment of initial publication to this journal.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Adawiyah, R., & Wisudawati, A. W. (2017). Pengembangan Instrumen Tes Berbasis Literasi Sains : Menilai Pemahaman Fenomena Ilmiah Mengenai Energi. Indonesian Journal of Curriculum and Educational Technology Studies, 5(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/ijcets.v3i1.8675
Akinbobola, A. O., & Afolabi, F. (2010). Analysis of Science Process Skills in West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Physics. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 4(5), 234–240.
Bangkara, B. M. A. S. A., Pattiasina, P. J., Fatmawati, E., Heryani, A., & Damayanto, A. (2022). Relevance of education policy and implementation in Indonesia. Linguistics and Culture Review, 6, 216–232. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v6ns5.2156
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The Process of Education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvk12qst
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for Education: STEM Challenges and Opportunities. NSTA (National Science Teachers Assocation), 33–40. www.nsta.org/permissions.
Darling-Hammond, L., Lisa, F., Channa, C.-H., Brigid, B., & and Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Durango-Gutiérrez, M. P., Lara-Rubio, J., & Navarro-Galera, A. (2023). Analysis of default risk in microfinance institutions under the Basel III framework. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 28(2), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2475
Evagorou, M., Kostas, K., Christiana, N., & and Constantinou, C. (2009). An Investigation of the Potential of Interactive Simulations for Developing System Thinking Skills in Elementary School: A case study with fifth‐graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313
Geller, B. D., Gouvea, J., Dreyfus, B. W., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2019). Bridging the gaps: How students seek disciplinary coherence in introductory physics for life science. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 20142. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020142
Hidajat, F. A. (2023). A comparison between problem-based conventional learning and creative problem-based learning on self-regulation skills: Experimental study. Heliyon, 9(9), e19512. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19512
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Management. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003056584-3
Kang, J.-N., Wei, Y.-M., Liu, L., Yu, B.-Y., & Liao, H. (2021). A social learning approach to carbon capture and storage demonstration project management: An empirical analysis. Applied Energy, 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117336
Kind, P. E. R., & Osborne, J. (2017). Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education? Science Education, 101(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2005). Student representational competence and self-assessment when solving physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 10104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010104
Kohler, F., Kuthe, A., Rochholz, F., & Siegmund, A. (2022). Digital Education for Sustainable Development in Non-Formal Education in Germany and COVID-19-Induced Changes. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042114
Kotsis, K. T. (2024). The Significance of Experiments in Inquiry-based Science Teaching. 5(2), 86–92.
Krolevetskaya, E. N., Karabutova, E. A., Mikhailova, D. I., & Ostapenko, S. I. (2022). Teacher new professionalism in the light of the personality polysubjectivity development; [Новый профессионализм педагога в контексте развития полисубъектности личности]. Perspektivy Nauki i Obrazovania, 57(3), 10 – 22. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2022.3.1
Lazonder, Ard W, & Harmsen, Ruth. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Liu, X. (2009). Science and the Public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 301–311. http://www.ijese.com/
McLure, F., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2024). Science Teachers’ Understanding of Creative Thinking and How to Foster It as Mandated by the Australian Curriculum. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(5), 524–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2313882
Mubarokah, F. D., Mulyani, S., & Indriyanti, N. Y. (2018). Identifying students’ misconceptions of acid-base concepts using a three-tier diagnostic test: A case of Indonesia and Thailand. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(Special Issue), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10256a
Muchson, M., William W., C., & and Saefi, M. (2024). The science education research trends (SERT) in Indonesian secondary schools: a systematic review and bibliometrics study. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2308407. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2308407
Nordine, J., Kubsch, M., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Neumann, K. (2024). Middle school students’ use of the energy concept to engage in new learning: What ideas matter? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(9), 2191–2222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21950
OECD. (2019). OECD Multilingual Summaries PISA 2018 Results (Volume I ) What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing, I(Volume I), 2018–2020.
Oktavia, T., Meyliana, Supangkat, S. H., & Prabowo, H. (2018). A comparison of learning experience: Social learning systems and e-learning systems in higher education institution. ICIC Express Letters, Part B: Applications, 9(12), 1201 – 1208. https://doi.org/10.24507/icicelb.09.12.1201
Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple representations in physics and science education – Why should we use them? dalam D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple Representations in Physics Education (Issue July). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5
Osborne, J., & and Allchin, D. (n.d.). Science literacy in the twenty-first century: informed trust and the competent outsider. International Journal of Science Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2331980
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
PISA. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD, I, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1787/g222d18af-en
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (2019). Cognitive Load Theory. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 11, Issue 1). Cambridge University Press. http://scioteca.caf.com/bitstream/handle/123456789/1091/RED2017-Eng-8ene.pdf?sequence=12&isAllowed=y%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2008.06.005%0Ahttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/305320484_SISTEM_PEMBETUNGAN_TERPUSAT_STRATEGI_MELESTARI
Ramma, Y., Ajeevsing, B., & and Watts, M. (2024). In-service physics teachers’ content knowledge: a critical reflection on the case of the upthrust concept. Education Inquiry, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2412878
Roehl, T. (2015). What PISA measures: some remarks on standardized assessment and science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(4), 1215–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9662-z
Tatar, E., & Oktay, M. (2007). Students’ Misunderstandings about the Energy Conservation Principle: A General View to Studies in Literature. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2(3), 79–86.
Triandis, H. C. (2020). Review of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 132–134. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393257
Videla, R., Aguayo, C., & Veloz, T. (2021). From STEM to STEAM: An Enactive and Ecological Continuum. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.709560
Viehmann, C., Fernández Cárdenas, J. M., & Reynaga Peña, C. G. (2024). The Use of Socioscientific Issues in Science Lessons: A Scoping Review. In Sustainability (Vol. 16, Issue 14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145827
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (eds.)). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Waki’a, L. (2021). Profile of Scientific Literacy Based on Daily Life Phenomenon: a Sample Teaching for Static Fluid. Jurnal Pena Sains, 8(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.21107/jps.v8i1.10272
Wieman, C. E. (Carl E. (2017). Improving how universities teach science : lessons from the Science Education Initiative. 265. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674972070
Zeyer, A., & and Dillon, J. (2012). Science¦Environment¦Health – Towards a reconceptualization of three critical and inter-linked areas of education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.647111