This study uses a quantitative method with a cross-sectional survey design to identify students’ misconceptions about Earth and the solar system. Data were collected from 8th-grade students in West Bandung using a four-tier diagnostic test. This study investigates misconceptions about Earth and the solar system among junior high school students in West Bandung using a four-tier diagnostic test. The study aims to identify the types and causes of students' misconceptions and determine subtopics with the highest misconception rates. A quantitative approach, employing a cross-sectional survey design, was used to investigate the study, involving 509 eighth-grade students from 17 schools. The four-tier diagnostic test consisted of multiple-choice items integrated with confidence ratings and reasoning justifications. Students' responses were categorized into five diagnostic levels: Scientific Knowledge (SK), Misconception (M), False Positive (FP), False Negative (FN), and Lack of Knowledge (LK). Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to calculate the percentage distribution across these categories for each item and subtopic. In addition, item analysis techniques such as difficulty index, discrimination index, and reliability testing using Cronbach's Alpha were applied to ensure the quality and consistency of the instrument. A total of 32.61% of students had low understanding, 20.94% had misconceptions, and only 24.84% had scientific understanding. These results indicate the need for improved teaching methods to reduce student misconceptions. The study recommends applying the four-tier diagnostic test after students have studied the topic for optimal results. Clear, simple language in test items is essential to avoid confusion. Teachers should utilize visualization-based methods, such as 3D models and animations, to explain abstract concepts related to the Earth and solar system. Teachers' mastery of the topic is crucial to prevent student misconceptions.
Fasya et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: