Published date: Apr 03 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2022): Learning Materials and Modules

Pages: 733–742

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i8.15639

Irwan Kotoirwan_koto@unib.ac.idDepartment of Physics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, Indonesia

Nadzipa SafhiraDepartment of Physics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, Indonesia

The study analyzed two grade X physics textbooks published by Erlangga and Yudhistira. The analyzed textbooks emphasized the insertion of four aspects of the nature of science (NOS), consisting of science as a body of knowledge, science as a way of investigating; science as a way of thinking; and science and its interaction with technology and society. The content analyzed is the subject matter in the odd semester. The raters consisted of one physics lecturer (rater 1) and two teachers (rater 2 and 3). The raters used the scoring rubric developed by the researchers based on indicators from the four aspects of NOS. The results stated that Erlangga’s Textbook inserted (a) the first 58.46% of the NOS aspects; (b) 26.28% second aspect of NOS; (c) 31.78% of the third aspect of NOS; and (c) 16.86% of the fourth aspect of NOS. Also, the results in Yudhistira’s book revealed that (a) the first 49.55% of the NOS aspects; (b) 13.88% second aspect of NOS; (c) 24.55% third aspect of NOS; and (d) 12.01% of the fourth aspect of NOS. The percentage of inter-rater agreements ranged from 70-88%. The percent agreement strengthens with the interval of kappa value from 0.60 to 0.88. The results indicated that the two books devoted half of the learning material that reflected science as a body of knowledge but neglected science as a way of investigating, and science and its interaction with technology and society.

Keywords: physics textbooks, insertion, nature of science

[1] Alwasilah C. Politik bahasa and pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya; 1997.

[2] Supriadi D. Anatomi buku sekolah di Indonesia: problematik penilaian, penyebaran, dan penggunaan buku pelajaran, buku bacaan dan buku sumber. Yogyakarta: Adicita Karya Nusa; 2000.

[3] Vojír K, Rusek M. Science education textbook research trends: a systematic literature review. Int J Sci Educ. 2019;41(11):1496–516.

[4] Bancong H, Song J. Do physics textbooks present the ideas of thought experiments?: A case in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 2018;7(1):25–33.

[5] Wilkinson J. A quantitative analysis of physics textbooks for scientific literacy themes. Res Sci Educ. 1999;29(3):385–99.

[6] Lumpe AT, Beck J. A profile of high school biology textbooks using scientific literacy recommendations. Am Biol Teach. 1996;58(3):147–53.

[7] Virkar AV. Nature of science: past, present, and future” abell, s. k & lederman n.g (handbook of research on science education. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2006.

[8] Lederman NG, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS. Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39(6):497–521.

[9] Lederman NG. Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. J Res Sci Teach. 1999;36(8):916–29.

[10] T.D. Garcia, “An analysis of earth science textbooks for the presentation of aspects of scientific literacy,” (1985).

[11] Chiappetta EL, Fillman DA. Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. Int J Sci Educ. 2007;29(15):1847– 68.

[12] Chiappetta EL, Fillman DA, Sethna GH. A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. J Res Sci Teach. 1991;28(8):713–25.