尝试和能源概念的四大工具开发

Apolonia Masiona Boro, Indica Yona Okyranida, I. A. D. Astuti
{"title":"尝试和能源概念的四大工具开发","authors":"Apolonia Masiona Boro, Indica Yona Okyranida, I. A. D. Astuti","doi":"10.30998/sch.v1i2.3143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The feasibility of the four tier-test instrument can be seen through validation results by experts (appraisal). Through validation of experts by using questionnaires, data obtained. The data obtained in the form of qualitative data is then converted into quantitative data by summing the score, then converted into percentages.Based on the results of the first material expert validation test with a percentage of 78.75% and the second material expert with a presentation of 77.50%. So the average material validation is 78.75%. This indicates that the development of four tier test infrastructure is feasible to measure misconceptions that occur in business concepts and energy.  Based on the results of the analysis that has been done as shown the development of four tier-test instruments on business concept and energy has an average number of 3.9 in the first expert and 3.8 in the second expert. Whereas if the average obtained a value of 3.85 with a category of feasibility is very good.","PeriodicalId":314093,"journal":{"name":"Schrodinger Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Fisika","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PENGEMBANGAN INSTRUMEN FOUR TIER-TEST PADA KONSEP USAHA DAN ENERGI\",\"authors\":\"Apolonia Masiona Boro, Indica Yona Okyranida, I. A. D. Astuti\",\"doi\":\"10.30998/sch.v1i2.3143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The feasibility of the four tier-test instrument can be seen through validation results by experts (appraisal). Through validation of experts by using questionnaires, data obtained. The data obtained in the form of qualitative data is then converted into quantitative data by summing the score, then converted into percentages.Based on the results of the first material expert validation test with a percentage of 78.75% and the second material expert with a presentation of 77.50%. So the average material validation is 78.75%. This indicates that the development of four tier test infrastructure is feasible to measure misconceptions that occur in business concepts and energy.  Based on the results of the analysis that has been done as shown the development of four tier-test instruments on business concept and energy has an average number of 3.9 in the first expert and 3.8 in the second expert. Whereas if the average obtained a value of 3.85 with a category of feasibility is very good.\",\"PeriodicalId\":314093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schrodinger Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Fisika\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schrodinger Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Fisika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30998/sch.v1i2.3143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schrodinger Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Fisika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30998/sch.v1i2.3143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

通过专家(鉴定)的验证结果可以看出四层测试仪器的可行性。通过对专家问卷的验证,得到数据。然后将以定性数据形式获得的数据通过对分数求和转换为定量数据,再转换为百分比。基于第一次材料专家验证测试的结果,其百分比为78.75%,第二次材料专家的演示率为77.50%。因此,平均材料验证率为78.75%。这表明四层测试基础设施的开发对于度量业务概念和能源中出现的错误概念是可行的。根据所做的分析结果,如图所示,商业概念和能源四个层次测试工具的开发,第一专家的平均数量为3.9,第二专家的平均数量为3.8。而如果平均得到3.85的值,则具有一类很好的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PENGEMBANGAN INSTRUMEN FOUR TIER-TEST PADA KONSEP USAHA DAN ENERGI
The feasibility of the four tier-test instrument can be seen through validation results by experts (appraisal). Through validation of experts by using questionnaires, data obtained. The data obtained in the form of qualitative data is then converted into quantitative data by summing the score, then converted into percentages.Based on the results of the first material expert validation test with a percentage of 78.75% and the second material expert with a presentation of 77.50%. So the average material validation is 78.75%. This indicates that the development of four tier test infrastructure is feasible to measure misconceptions that occur in business concepts and energy.  Based on the results of the analysis that has been done as shown the development of four tier-test instruments on business concept and energy has an average number of 3.9 in the first expert and 3.8 in the second expert. Whereas if the average obtained a value of 3.85 with a category of feasibility is very good.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pengembangan Modul Berbantu Flipbook Maker Sebagai Sumber Praktikum Fisika Kelas X Berbasis Android (Powerpoint) Studi Meta-Analisis Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif tipe Teams Games Tournament (TGT) dalam Pembelajaran Fisika Pengembangan Aplikasi Ujian Fisika Berbasis Komputer untuk Meningkatkan Integritas Peserta Didik di SMA Islam Assa’adah Implementasi Model Pembelajaran Problem Based Instruction (PBI) pada Materi Hukum Newton Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran E-Mind Mapping Berbasis Flipbook pada Mata Pelajaran Fisika SMA Kelas 11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1