Pemetaan Kompetensi Kognitif Calon Guru Fisika Berdasarkan Taksonomi SOLO

Authors

  • Abdul Haris Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
  • Mahir Mahir Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
  • Dirgah Kaso Sanusi Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
  • Usman Usman Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53696/venn.v5i5.683

Keywords:

Physics Teacher Candidates, cognitive competence, SOLO Taxonomy, diagnostic assessment, basic physics

Abstract

Prospective physics teachers are expected not only to master concepts procedurally but also to hold an organized conceptual understanding. Assessment that only counts correct answers does not adequately describe the structure of that understanding. This study aimed to map the structure of conceptual understanding of prospective physics teachers in an open-ended essay test on Basic Physics I, based on the levels of the SOLO Taxonomy, and to describe the distribution of responses across levels. A descriptive quantitative design with content analysis of written responses was used. Twenty-nine students of the Physics Education Study Program, selected by incidental nonprobability sampling, completed a test of 10 items adapted from Basic Physics I. Responses were classified into five SOLO levels using a rubric, and frequencies, percentages, and 95% Wilson confidence intervals were calculated. Most students were classified at the unistructural level (13 students; 44.8%; 95% CI 28.4–62.5%), followed by multistructural (10 students; 34.5%; 95% CI 19.9–52.7%) and relational (6 students; 20.7%; 95% CI 9.8–38.4%). No responses were classified as prestructural or extended abstract. These results indicate that most prospective physics teachers use relevant concepts but do not yet consistently integrate several concepts into a coherent structure. The findings point to the need for diagnostic assessment and instruction that explicitly encourage a shift from partial toward relational understanding and the ability to transfer concepts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adjei, E. A., & Oppong, R. A. (2024). Exploring pre-service teachers’ algebraic thinking levels: A Mixed Method Research. International Journal of Current Educational Studies, 3(1), 1–13.

Bao, L., & Fritchman, J. C. (2021). Knowledge integration in student learning of Newton’s third law: Addressing the action-reaction language and the implied causality. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 020116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020116

Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1995). The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 14(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436950140201

Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9210-4

Carter, K. P., & Prevost, L. B. (2023). Formative assessment and student understanding of structure-function. Advances in Physiology Education, 47(3), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00215.2022

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Davies, O., & Mansour, N. (2022). Exploring the use of cognitive science approaches alongside SOLO taxonomy as a pedagogical framework to build deeper knowledge in science and foundation subjects at primary schools in UK. Education Sciences, 12(8), 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080523

Desyana, N. (2020). Analisis respon belajar siswa menggunakan taksonomi SOLO materi suhu dan kalor. INKUIRI: Jurnal Pendidikan IPA, 9(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.20961/inkuiri.v9i1.41407

Farokhah, L., Herman, T., & Jupri, A. (2020). The SOLO taxonomy: Classify students’ responses in solving linear program problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1538, 012107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1538/1/012107

Fernandez, P. J. M., & Guzon, A. F. H. (2025). A SOLO taxonomy-based rubric for assessing conceptual understanding in applied calculus. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(2), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i2.pp559-580

Fries, L., Son, J. Y., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2021). Practicing connections: A framework to guide instructional design for developing understanding in complex domains. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 739–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09561-x

Groth, R. E., & Choi, Y. (2023). A method for assessing students’ interpretations of contextualized data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 114(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10234-z

Hardianti, D., Priatna, N., & Priatna, B. A. (2017). How to analyze the students’ thinking levels based on SOLO taxonomy? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, 012031. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012031

Liu, Z., Pan, S., Zhang, X., & Bao, L. (2022). Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of simple electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 18(2), 020102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020102

Mae, K., & Arceo, M. (2024). Structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy based teaching on the students cognitive learning outcome and performance. International Journal of Research Publications, 149(1), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001491520246512

Medriati, R. (2025). Analysis of student understanding levels based on the SOLO taxonomy in the physics curriculum and learning course. Proceeding OCERI Conference, 1(1), 1–8.

Morris, R., Perry, T., & Wardle, L. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9(3), e3292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292

Sudjana. (2005). Metode statistika (6th ed.). Tarsito.

Sugiyono. (2013). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Svensäter, G., & Rohlin, M. (2023). Assessment model blending formative and summative assessments using the SOLO taxonomy. European Journal of Dental Education, 27(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12787

Triana, H., Abustang, P. B., Utomo, E., Rakhman, G. G. F., & Fahrurrozi, F. (2023). Assessment evaluation using SOLO taxonomy for measuring levels of critical thinking skills: PYP International Baccalaureate case study. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 11(2), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i2.7894

Zeinali, Z., Ahmadi, F., & Delavar, M. (2026). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyse students’ conceptual understanding of friction force. Physics Education, 61(4), 045043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ae8213

Downloads

Published

29-10-2026

How to Cite

Haris, A., Mahir, M., Sanusi, D. K., & Usman, U. (2026). Pemetaan Kompetensi Kognitif Calon Guru Fisika Berdasarkan Taksonomi SOLO. Venn: Journal of Sustainable Innovation on Education, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, 5(5), 1280–1288. https://doi.org/10.53696/venn.v5i5.683

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.