Pemetaan Tipologi Pemahaman Konseptual Mahasiswa dalam Penentuan Basis Logaritma  Pada Indeks Shannon-Wiener

Lia Auliandari; Marlina Ummas Genisa

doi:10.32502/didaktikabiologi.v10i2.1826

Authors

Lia Auliandari Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4182-1695
Marlina Ummas Genisa Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-1859

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32502/didaktikabiologi.v10i2.1826

Keywords:

pemahaman konseptual, indeks Shannon-Wiener, effective species numbers, tipologi profil mahasiswwa

Abstract

Pemahaman terhadap basis logaritma pada Indeks Shannon-Wiener merupakan prasyarat penting bagi interpretasi kuantitatif keanekaragaman hayati, namun aspek ini masih jarang dikaji dari perspektif literasi matematis-biologis mahasiswa. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pemahaman konseptual mahasiswa dalam menentukan dan memaknai basis logaritma pada Indeks Shannon-Wiener sebagai representasi literasi matematis-biologis. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif eksploratif terhadap mahasiswa yang telah menempuh mata kuliah Ekologi atau materi terkait keanekaragaman hayati. Data dikumpulkan melalui kuesioner terbuka-terarah dan dianalisis menggunakan analisis tematik, kemudian diverifikasi melalui focus group discussion bersama ekolog dan matematikawan serta analisis dokumen. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa disparitas literasi tidak hanya berupa kesenjangan antara kemampuan prosedural dan pemahaman konseptual, tetapi membentuk tiga tipologi profil mahasiswa, yaitu Praktisi Prosedural (68,29%), Pembelajar dengan Literasi Terbatas (19,51%), dan Konseptualis Terputus (12,20%). Mayoritas mahasiswa mampu menggunakan rumus Indeks Shannon-Wiener secara prosedural, tetapi belum memahami dasar matematis pemilihan basis logaritma, makna satuan entropi, maupun keterkaitannya dengan Effective Species Numbers (ESN). Temuan ini memberikan kontribusi berupa pemetaan profil pemahaman konseptual mahasiswa sebagai dasar pengembangan pembelajaran ekologi kuantitatif yang lebih adaptif. Secara pedagogis, penelitian ini merekomendasikan rekonstruksi silabus melalui integrasi eksplisit konsep logaritma, entropi, dan ESN, disertai aktivitas berbasis interpretasi data dan pemecahan masalah biodiversitas agar pembelajaran bergeser dari orientasi prosedural menuju literasi kuantitatif yang konseptual dan aplikatif.

References

Abou-Moustafa, K. T. (2014). On the use of divergence measures as diversity indices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.2863. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1408.2863

Adillah, G., Ridwan, A., & Rahayu, W. (2022). Content validation through expert judgement of an instrument on the self-assessment of mathematics education student competency. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 9(3), 780–790. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v9i3.3738

Auliandari, L., & Genisa, M. U. (2026). Beyond the Shannon-Wiener index: Disparities in lecturers' conceptual knowledge of effective species numbers. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA (JPMIPA), 27(1), 522-538. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa.v27i1.pp522-538

Barrantes, G., & Sandoval, L. (2009). Conceptual and statistical problems associated with the use of diversity indices in ecology. Revista de Biología Tropical, 57(3), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v57i3.5467

Barraquand, F., Kennicutt, M. C., Baliga, N., Steinberg, P. D., Moore, J. A., Shima, J. S., Navarrete, S. A., & Levin, S. A. (2014). Lack of quantitative training among early-career ecologists: A survey of the problem and potential solutions. PeerJ, 2, e285. https://peerj.com/articles/285/

Barumbun, M., & Kharisma, D. (2022). Procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge? Developing the so-called proceptual knowledge in mathematics learning. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 15(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v15i2.472

Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. (2021). Conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognition in routine and nonroutine problem solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13048. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13048

Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34, 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001

Chao, A., Chiu, C-H., & Jost, L. (2014). Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through Hill numbers. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091540

Chao, A., Kubota, Y., Zelený, D., Chiu, C. H., Li, C. F., Kusumoto, B., Yasuhara, M., Thorn, S., Wei, C. L., Costello, M. J., & Colwell, R. K. (2020). Quantifying sample completeness and comparing diversities among assemblages. Ecological Research, 35(2), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12102

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Daly, A. J., Baetens, J. M., & De Baets, B. (2018). Ecological diversity: Measuring the unmeasurable. Mathematics, 6(7), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/math6070119

Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186

Dušek, R., & Popelková, R. (2012). Theoretical view of the Shannon index in the evaluation of landscape diversity. AUC Geographica, 47(2), 5–13. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/167033

Elangovan, N., & Sundaravel, E. (2021). Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX, 8, Article 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326

Ellison A. M. (2010). Partitioning diversity. Ecology, 91(7), 1962–1963. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1692.1

Jost, L. (2006). Entropy and diversity. Oikos, 113(2), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x

Krebs, C. J. (2009). Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance (6th ed.). Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Latimer, A. M. (2014). Species diversity. In Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05151.pub2

Luque-Vara, T., Linares-Manrique, M., Fernández-Gómez, E., Martín-Salvador, A., Sánchez-Ojeda, M. A., & Enrique-Mirón, C. (2020). Content validation of an instrument for the assessment of school teachers' levels of knowledge of diabetes through expert judgment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), Article 8605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228605

Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing.

Magurran A. E. (2005). Biological diversity. Current Biology (CB), 15(4), R116–R118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.02.006

Michael, P. (1995). Metode ekologi untuk penyelidikan ladang dan laboratorium (Y. R. Koestoer, Trans.). UI Press.

Miller, G. T., Jr., & Spoolman, S. E. (2009). Living in the environment: Concepts, connections, and solutions (16th ed.). Brooks/Cole.

Morris, E. K., Caruso, T., Buscot, F., Fischer, M., Hancock, C., Maier, T. S., Meiners, T., Müller, C., Obermaier, E., Prati, D., Socher, S. A., Sonnemann, I., Wäschke, N., Wubet, T., Wurst, S., & Rillig, M. C. (2014). Choosing and using diversity indices: Insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecology and Evolution, 4(18), 3514–3524. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1155

Morrison, M. L., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2023). Mathematical bounds on Shannon entropy given the abundance of the ith most abundant taxon. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 87, article number 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-023-01997-3

Odum, E. P. (1993). Dasar-dasar ekologi (T. Samingan, Trans.). Gadjah Mada University Press.

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (volume I and II): Country note – Indonesia. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_2fca04b9/indonesia_0e09c072/c2e1ae0e-en.pdf

Oliveira, A. P., Paramés, A., Bajanca, A., & Martinez-Perez, C. (2025). Higher education students’ biodiversity knowledge. Education Sciences, 15(4), article number 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040499

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Rahimi, S., & Khatooni, M. (2024). Saturation in qualitative research: An evolutionary concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 6, Article 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100174

Ramadhan, F., Purnomo, M., Ruron, A. T. T., & Tampubolon, J. (2025). Analisis literasi numerasi mahasiswa pendidikan biologi berdasarkan asesmen kompetensi minimum. Biocaster: Jurnal Kajian Biologi, 5(4), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.36312/biocaster.v5i4.680

Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Spellerberg, I. F., & Fedor, P. J. (2003). A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon–Wiener’ Index. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(3), 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00015.x

Speth, E. B., Momsen, J. L., Moyerbrailean, G. A., Ebert-May, D., Long, T. M., Wyse, S., & Linton, D. (2010). 1, 2, 3, 4: Infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033

Strong, W. L. (2016). Biased richness and evenness relationships within Shannon–Wiener index values. Ecological Indicators, 67, 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.043

Tuomisto, H. (2010). A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia, 164(4), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1812-0