Abilities of Physics Education Students in Constructing Graphics Based on Practicum Results and in Interpreting It
Keywords:Ability, graph interpretation, practicum lab results
The skills to construct and interpret graphs are a form of science skills and are an important component in learning physics. The purpose of this study was to describe the ability of undergraduate physics education students to construct graphs based on practicum data and interpret them. Data obtained through respondent answer sheets, thinking-aloud recordings, and interviews. The research was conducted at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education (FKIP) Untad and the research subjects of the Physics Education Study Program students were 6 people obtained based on the values of Basic Physics I and Basic Physics practicum II then divided into three groups of levels (high, medium, and low) with each category as many as 2 people. The results of this study indicate: 1) in general, respondents in the high, medium, and low categories can construct graphs but are not based on the prerequisite ability to construct graphs, especially in determining the x-axis and y-axis variables, 2) on the ability to interpret graphs, respondents can interpret graphs the relationship between variables on the graph but not supported by an explanation or evaluation based on proper physics concepts, 3) The strategy used by respondents in constructing graphs, in general, is to convert data in decimal form or scientific notation and 4) The difficulties experienced by respondents when constructing graphs are converting data, determining the scale and how to determine the variables on each graph axis.
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, American Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
Bollen, L., Cock, M. De., Guisasola, J., Zuza, K., & Kampen, P. van. (2016). Generalizing a categorization of students’ interpretations of linear kinematics graphs. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010108-1 - 010108-10.
Bunawan, W., Setiawan, A., Rusli, A. & Nahadi. (2015). Penilaian pemahaman representasi grafik materi optika geometri menggunakan tes diagnostik. Cakrawala Pendidikan: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, XXXIV(2), 257-267.
Danny, L, McKenzie, & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7), 571-579.
Kozma, Chin, Russell, & Marx. (2000). The role of representations and tool in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 9(2). 105-143.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee. E. H., (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics. 55(6), 503-513.
Nyxon, R. S,. Godfrey, T. J., Mayhew, N. T., & Wiegert, C. C. (2016). Undergraduate student construction and interpretation of graphs in physics lab activities. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(01), 010104-1 - 010104-19.
Planinic, M. Ivanjek, L. Susac, A. & Milin-Sipus, Z. (2013). Comparison of university students' understanding of graphs in different contexts, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020103-1 - 020103-9.
Rosengrant, D., Van Heuvelen, A., & Etkina, E. (2006). Case study: Students’ use of multiple representations in problem-solving. Physics Education Research Conference 2005, 818, 49-52.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2019 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.