Instrumen Gaya Berpikir: Membantu Adaptasi Kognitif dalam Penyelesaian Masalah Fisika

Haeruddin Haeruddin; Jusman Jusman; Nurjannah Nurjannah; Muhammad Zaky

doi:10.22487/me.v19i1.3484

Authors

Haeruddin Haeruddin Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
Jusman Jusman Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
Nurjannah Nurjannah Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
Muhammad Zaky Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22487/me.v19i1.3484

Keywords:

instrument development, thinking style, physics problem solving

Abstract

This study aims to develop an instrument to measure thinking styles and their impact on cognitive adaptation in the context of physics problem solving. Understanding how individuals approach and solve physics problems can provide valuable insights into cognitive processes and strategies used. The instrument consists of various tasks designed to depict different thinking styles commonly employed in physics problem solving. These thinking styles include concrete sequential (CS), abstract sequential (AS), concrete random (CR), and abstract random (AR) thinking styles. This research follows the Research and Development (R&D) model. The development model used is the non-test instrument development model. The instrument utilizes a forced-choice model by asking respondents to determine the order of statements that best align with their condition when solving physics problems. The instrument provides four options ranging from very inappropriate to very appropriate. A total of 683 first-year students at Universitas Tadulako participated in the pilot study, and 364 in the implementation study. The expert judgment data analysis technique used the Aiken's formula. Empirical data analysis was conducted using the Ques program to test goodness of fit to the Partial Credit Model (PCM), item validity, and instrument reliability. The content validity result showed an Aiken's V value of .81, and the test reliability was .90. The average infit MNSQ value was 1.00 with a standard deviation of .18. This study found that physics education students at Universitas Tadulako tend to have an abstract sequential (AS) thinking style. The implications of these findings can be utilized to measure students' thinking style tendencies when solving physics problems.

References

L. Ivanjek, A. Susac, M. Planinic, A. Andrasevic, and Z. Milin-Sipus, “Student reasoning about graphs in different contexts,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 010106, 2016.

B. Soong, N. Mercer, and S. Shin, “Students ’ Difficulties When Solving Physics Problems : Results from an ICT-infused Revision Intervention,” pp. 361–365, 2009.

S. Saehana and Haeruddin, “Pengembangan Simulasi Komputer Dalam Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Untuk Meminimalisir Miskonsepsi Fisika Pada Siswa SMA Di Kota Palu,” in Prosiding Pertemuan Ilmiah XXV HFI Jateng & DIY, 2009, pp. 286–290.

P. M. Mosik, “Usaha Mengurangi Terjadinya Miskopsepi Fisika Melalui Pembelajaran dengan Pendekatan Konflik Kognitif,” J. Pendidik. Fis. Indones., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 98–103, 2012.

R. R. Budijanto, “Thinking Styles, Teamwork Quality and Performance,” University of Canberra, 2013.

L. F. Zhang, “Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability? - Validating against thinking styles and academic achievement,” Pers. Individ. Dif., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1295–1311, 2004.

T. Chamorro-Premuzic and A. Furnham, “Mainly Openness: The relationship between the Big Five personality traits and learning approaches,” Learn. Individ. Differ., 2009.

A. F. Gregorc, An adult’s guide to style. Cou: Gregorc Associates, 1982.

T. G. Reio and A. K. Wiswell, “An examination of the factor structure and construct validity of the gregorc style delineator,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 489–501, 2006.

B. DePorter and M. Hernacki, Quantum Learning: Membiasakan Belajar Nyaman dan Menyenangkan. Bandung, Indonesia: Kaifa Learning, 2016.

D. Mardapi, Pengukuran Penilaian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Nuha Medika, 2012.

H. Retnawati, Analisis Kuantitatif Instrumen Penelitian (Panduan Peneliti, Mahasiswa, dan Psikometrian). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Parama Publishing, 2016.

R. J. Adams and S. T. Khoo, Quest: The interactive test analysis system version 2.1. Camberwell, Victoria: The Australian Council for Education Research, 1996.

Haeruddin, Z. K. Prasetyo, and Supahar, “The development of a metacognition instrument for college students to solve physics problems,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 767–782, 2020.

Haeruddin, Z. K. Prasetyo, Supahar, E. Sesa, and G. Lembah, “Psychometric and structural evaluation of the physics metacognition inventory instrument,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 215–225, 2020.

L. Zhang, R. J. Sternberg, and S. Rayner, Handbook of Intellectual Styles Preferences in Cognition, Learning, and Thinking, vol. 53, no. 9. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, 2013.

F. Cano-García and E. H. Hughes, “Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 413–430, 2000.

S. Depary and Mukhtar, “Model Pembelajaran dan Gaya Berpikir Terhadap Hasil Belajar Fisika,” J. Teknol. Pendidik., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 93–107, 2013.

K. Wardhani, W. Sunarno, and Suparmi, “Pembelajaran Fisika Dengan Model Problem Based Learning Menggunakan Multimedia dan Modul Ditinjau dari Kemampuan Berpikir Abstrak dan Kemampuan Verbal Siswa,” J. Inkuiri, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 163–169, 2012.

A. B. I. Bernardo, L. F. Zhang, and C. M. Callueng, “Thinking styles and academic achievement among filipino students,” J. Genet. Psychol., vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 149–163, 2002.

L. Zhang, “Abilities, academic performance, learning approaches, and thinking styles: A three-culture investigation,” J. Psychol. Chinese Soc., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 123–149, 2000.

R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko, “Thinking styles and the gifted,” Roeper Rev., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 122–130, 1993.

R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko, “Styles of Thinking in the School,” Eur. J. High Abil., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 201–219, 1995.

L. Zhang, “Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement beyond self-rated abilities?,” J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl., vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 621–637, 2001.

L. Zhang, “Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles for academic performance,” J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl., vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 351–370, 2004.

R. J. Sternberg and L. Zhang, “Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction,” Theory Pract., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 245–253, 2005.

H. Haeruddin, K. Kamaluddin, A. Kade, and A. R. Pabianan, “Analysis of Attitudes and Approaches to Problem Solving: Gender Differences and Education Levels,” Radiasi J. Berk. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 12–21, Apr. 2022.

D. Setyawan and A. Rahman, “Eksplorasi Proses Konstruksi Pengetahuan Matematika Berdasarkan Gaya Berpikir,” J. Sainsmat, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 140–152, 2013.

H. Bancong and Subaer, “Profil Kreativitas Mahasiswa Berdasarkan Gaya Berpikirnya dalam Memecahkan Masalah Fisika di Universitas Negeri Makassar,” Indones. J. Appl. Phys., vol. 5, no. 01, p. 1, 2015.