Development of Science Literacy Instruments in the Direct Current

Abstract

This research aims to develop scientific literacy instruments in the direct current series chapter. The measured aspects of scientific literacy are aspects of content knowledge, procedural knowledge, and scientific attitudes. The research method was conducted with a qualitative and empirical analysis approach. The empirical analysis is used to measure the feasibility of the instrument in the form of validation, reliability, differentiation test and convenience test. The sample used to measure the feasibility of research results is the second-semester Informatics Engineering student at Majalengka University. The results of expert studies on the item show that it is appropriate, as well as the results of empirical tests showing that the scientific literacy instrument developed in the direct current electricity chapter is feasible to be applied in learning.

Conception of scientific literacy in the development of scientific literacy assessment tools: A systematic theoretical review

“…Another approach to the adaptation of PISA 2015 scientific literacy framework could be seen in the instrument created by Susandi et al (2020)which two out of four aspect of PISA 2015 scientific literacy framework, namely the knowledge aspect (only the content knowledge and procedural knowledge) and attitude aspect. This is slightly different from PISA 2015, because the knowledge aspect originally consisted of three aspects with the epistemic knowledge being the third knowledge assessed.…”

“…The topic used also varied. Some of the topics used were specific, such as in Retno et al (2018), who used thermochemistry as the main topic, and Susandi et al (2020) who used direct durrent. Both research projects were conducted in senior high schools.…”

“…This form of changeis considered an improvement to the original instrument. However there were also changes of formats that were not disclosed (Astriawati & Djukri, 2019;Jufri et al, 2019;Susandi et al, 2020). For example, in Jufri et al (2019) and Astriawati and Djukri (2019), the format chosen was not as diverse as in PISA 2015 question format.…”