Cover Image

Analysis of Students' Chemical Literacy on Class X Electrolyte and Non-Electrolyte Solutions at SMAN 2 Batang Anai

Nadiatul Khusna, Eka Yusmaita

Abstract


The evaluation results on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solution materials at SMAN 2 Batang Anai still have not reached the Minimum Completeness Criteria (KKM). As many as 50% of the 130 students are still incomplete in the evaluation of learning on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions, so it is necessary to evaluate students so that the teacher knows the causes of students' scores being below the KKM. This study aims to analyze the chemical literacy level of class X students of SMAN 2 Batang Anai in electrolyte and non-electrolyte solution materials using the Rasch model with the Ministep application according to the level of scientific literacy developed by Bybee. This research is a descriptive research with a quantitative approach with a sample of 75 students. The results showed that students in class X SMAN 2 Batang Anai dominated at 2 levels of chemical literacy, namely nominal scientific literacy (52%) and functional scientific literacy (44%). Rasch analysis shows that 96% of students have a negative measurement value with an average student measurement value of -2.63 logit. This shows that the ability of students' chemical literacy in electrolyte and non-electrolyte solution materials is relatively low.

Keywords


Chemical Literacy; Electrolyte Solutions; Non Electrolytes; Rasch Model

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ardiyanti, D. (2017). Aplikasi Model Rasch pada Pengembangan Skala Efikasi Diri dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Karir Siswa. Jurnal Psikologi, 43(3), 248. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.17801

Fausan, M. M., & Pujiastuti, I. P. (2017). Analisis Kemampuan Awal Literasi Sains Mahasiswa Berdasarkan Instrumen Scientific Literacy Assessment. Seminar Nasional LP2M UNM, 292–295.

Fitriani, W., Hairida, & Lestari, I. (2014). Deskripsi Literasi Sains Siswa Dalam Model Inkuiri Pada Materi Laju Reaksi Di SMAN 9 Pontianak. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 3 (1), 12.

Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, Submicro and Symbolic Representations and the Relationship Between Them: Key Models in Chemical Education. Spinger. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8872-8_1

Hayat, B. dan S. Y. (2010). Benchmark Internasional Mutu Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Ibnu, M., Indriyani, B., Inayatullah, H., & Guntara, Y. (2019). Aplikasi Rasch Model: Pengembangan Instrumen Tes untuk Mengukur Miskonsepsi Mahasiswa. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan FKIP, 2(1), 205–210.

Imansari, M., & Sumarni, W. (2011). Analisis Literasi Kimia Peserta Didik Melalui Pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing Bermuatan Etnosains. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 12(2).

Jayusman, I., & Shavab, O. A. K. (2020). Studi Deskriptif Kuantitatif Tentang Aktivitas Belajar Mahasiswa Dengan Menggunakan Media Pembelajaran Edmodo Dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah. Jurnal Artefak, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.25157/ja.v7i1.3180

Magwilang, E. (2016). Teaching Chemistry in Context: Its Effects on Students’ Motivation, Attitudes and Achievement in Chemistry. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(4), 60–68.

Masyida. (2018). Penerapan Model Contextual Teaching And Learning Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Materi Larutan Elektrolit Dan Non Elektrolit Di SMA Negeri 1 Bakongan Timur. Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh.

Nisa, D. Q., & Yusmaita, E. (2022). Pengembangan Butir Soal Literasi Kimia pada Topik Larutan Elektrolit dan Non Elektrolit Kelas X SMA / MA. Entalpi Pendidikan Kimia, 17, 49–57.

OCDE. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Assessment, 20(8), 528–533. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2009-assessment-framework_9789264062658-en

OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework.

Pratiwi, S. N., Cari, C., & Aminah, N. S. (2019). Pembelajaran IPA Abad 21 dengan Literasi Sains Siswa. Jurnal Materi Dan Pembelajaran Fisika (JMPF), 9(1), 34–42.

Priliyanti, A., Muderawan, I. W., & Maryam, S. (2021). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Siswa Dalam Mempelajari Kimia Kelas Xi. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Undiksha, 5(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpk.v5i1.32402

Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zv, R., & Hofstein, A. (2005). The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy.’ International Journal of Science Education, 27(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266191

Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). Chemical literacy: What does this mean to scientists and school teachers? Journal of Chemical Education, 83(10), 1557–1561. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1557

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2–20.

Sumintono, Bambang dan Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi Model Rasch untuk Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial (Edisi Revi). Cimahi : Trim Komunikasi Publishing House.

Thummathong, R., & Thathong, K. (2018). Chemical literacy levels of engineering students in Northeastern Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(3), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.06.009




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31258/jes.7.2.p.182-191

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Nadiatul Khusna

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 Publisher: FKIP Universitas Riau