Wiji Lestari Khasannah, 2014
Pengembangan Tes Diagnostik Two-Tier Multiple Choice Untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi Siswa Kelas XII Pada Materi Sifat Koligatif Larutan
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Abdurrahman, M. (2012). Anak berkesulitan belajar: Teori, diagnosis, dan
remediasinya. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Andersson, B. (1986). Pupils’ explanations of some aspects of chemical reactions. Science Education, 70 (5), hlm. 549–563.
Arifin, Z. (2009). Evaluasi pembelajaran: Prinsip, teknik, prosedur. Bandung: PT
Remaja Rosdakarya.
Arikunto, S. (2002). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan. Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: PT
Bumi Aksara.
Bayrak, B. K. (2013). Using two-tier test to identifyprimary students’ conceptual
understanding and alternative conceptions in acid base. Mevlana International
Journal of Education, 3 (2), hlm. 19–26.
Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein J. (1986). Is an atom of copper malleable?.
Journal of Chemical Education, 63 (1), hlm. 64–66.
Brady, J. E. (1994). Kimia universitas: Asas dan struktur. Jilid 1. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga.
Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary
school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using
multiple level of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
8 (3), hlm. 293–307.
Chang, R. & Overby, J. (2011). General chemistry: The essential concepts. Sixth
Edition. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dahar, R. W. (2011). Teori-teori belajar dan pembelajaran. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga.
Daryanto (2008). Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
80
Wiji Lestari Khasannah, 2014
Pengembangan Tes Diagnostik Two-Tier Multiple Choice Untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi Siswa Kelas XII Pada Materi Sifat Koligatif Larutan
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2013). Standar proses: Untuk satuan
pendidikan pada jenjang pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2013). Lampiran E-4: C-1 kompetensi inti dan kompetensi dasar kimia. Dalam Departemen Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan, Standar proses: Untuk satuan pendidikan pada jenjang
pendidikan dasar dan menengah (hlm. 1–7). Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Firman, H. (2000). Penilaian hasil belajar dalam pengajaran kimia. Bandung:
Jurusan Pendidikan Kimia Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education
research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (4), hlm.
548–554.
Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V., & Hunn D. (1987). Understanding the particulate
nature of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64 (8), hlm. 695–697.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom
what they seem. Journal of Computer Assissted Learning, (7), hlm. 75–83.
Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing
response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (9), hlm.
701–705.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel
Psychology, (28), hlm. 563–575.
Luoga, N. E., Ndunguru, P. A., & Mkoma, S. L. (2013). High school students’
misconceptions about colligative properties in chemistry. Tanzania Journal of
Natural & Applied Sciences, 4 (1), hlm. 575–581.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical
misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69 (3), hlm. 191–196.
Nakhleh, M. B. & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as
presented by different technologies on students’ understanding of acid, base,
and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (10), hlm.
1077–1096.
Pinarbasi, T., Sozbilir, M., & Canpolat, N. (2009). Prospective chemistry teachers’
misconceptions about colligative properties: boiling point elevation and
freezing point depression. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, (10),
81
Wiji Lestari Khasannah, 2014
Pengembangan Tes Diagnostik Two-Tier Multiple Choice Untuk Mengidentifikasi Miskonsepsi Siswa Kelas XII Pada Materi Sifat Koligatif Larutan
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Silberberg, M. S. (2007). Principle of general chemistry. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Silverius, S. (1991). Evaluasi hasil belajar dan umpan balik. Jakarta: PT
Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
Sukardi, M. (2012). Evaluasi pendidikan, prinsip, dan operasionalnya. Jakarta:
PT Bumi Aksara.
Susetyo, B. (2013). Metode riset campur sari: Konsep, strategi, dan aplikasi.
Jakarta: PT Indeks.
Suyanti, R. D. (2010). Strategi pembelajaran kimia. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Tan, K. D. dkk. (2001). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice
diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of
inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39 (4), hlm. 283–301.
Tan, K. D. dkk. (2005). The ionization energy diagnostic instrument: A two-tier
multiple-choice instrument to determine high school students’ understanding
of ionization energy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6 (4), hlm.
180–197.
Tan, K. D. & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of
chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81 (294), hlm. 75–83.
Tüysüz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess
students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4 (6),
hlm. 626–631.
Usman, H. & Akbar, R. P. S. (2006). Pengantar statistika. Jakarta: PT Bumi
Aksara.
Whitten, dkk. (2004). General chemistry. Seventh Edition. Australia:
Thomson-Brooks/Cole.
Yarroch, W. L. (1985). Student understanding of chemical equation balancing.
