Penerapan Instruksi di Tahap Hypothesis Testing Pada Discovery Learning untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Menemukan dan Menghubungkan Konsep
Abstract
of instruction in hypothesis testing of Discovery Learning model. The research is a Classroom Action Research
(CAR) conducted in 2 cycles. Subjects of this research were 29 students of Senior High School in Karanganyar.
The research consist of: planning, acting, observing and reflecting. Data collected through observation,
interview, documentation and concept map test. The data validation used triangulation method. The obtained
data were analyzed using qualitative-descriptive analysing technique that consist of data reduction, data display
and drawing inference. The result of the analysis the ability of student’s discovering and relating concept
showed by score of concept map in the pre-cycle is range 5,67%-9,97%, the average of concept map in the precycle
is
7,7%
and
10
students
get
high
score
of
concept
map
from
average.
Cycle
I
is
range
8,02%-37,65%,
the
average
of
concept
map
in
the
cycle
I
is
23,23%
and
19
students
get
high
score
of
concept
map
from
average.
Cycle
II
is
range
8,08%-42,73%,
the
average
of
concept
map
in
the
cycle
II
is
27,56%
and
15
students
get
high
score
of concept map from average, the conclusion of implementation of instruction in hypothesis testing of
Discovery Learning model improved the score of concept map from cycle I to cycle II.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alfieri, Louis, et al. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning? A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Balım, A. G. (2009). The Effects of Discovery
Learning on Students ’ Success and Inquiry
Learning Skills. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 35(35), 1–20.
BSNP. (2010). Paradigma Pendidikan Nasional Abad
XXI (pp. 1–59). Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Burris, S., & Garton, B. L. (2007). Effect of
Instructional Strategy on Critical Thinking and
Content Knowledge: using Problem-Based
Learning in the Secondary Classroom. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 48(1), 106–116.
http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.01106
Han, N. S., Li, H. K., Sin, L. C., & Sin, K. P. (2011).
The Evaluation of Students ’ Written Reflection
on the Learning of General Chemistry Lab
Experiment. Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Science, 2(4), 45–52.
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive Failure in Learning the
Concept of Variance. In Proceedings of the 32nd
annual meeting of the North American Chapter
of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 776–784).
Kapur, M. (2015). The Preparatory Effects of Problem
Solving versus Problem Posing on Learning
from Instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39,
–31.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.00
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006).
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does
Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of
Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102
Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Supporting Students in
Developing Literacy Science. Science (New
York, N.y.), 328.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182593
Legare, C. H. (2014). The Contributions of
Explanat ion and Exploration to Children’s
Scientific Reasoning. Child Development
Perspectives, 8(2), 101–106.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12070
Liu, S.-H., & Lee, G.-G. (2013). Using a Concept Map
Knowledge Management System to Enhance
The Learning of Biology. Computers & Education, 68, 105–116.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.007
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes
Rule Against Pure The Case for Guided Methods
of Instruction. American Psychological
Association, Inc., 59(1), 14–19.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Handbook
of research on learning and instruction.
http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839089.ch13
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching Scientific Practices :
Meeting the Challenge of Change. Journal
Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Ozgelen, S. (2012). Students’ Science Process Skills
Within a Cognitive Domain Framework. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 8(4), 283–292.
http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.846a
Saab, N., Joolingen, W. R. van, & Hout-Wolters, B.
H. A. M. van. (2005). Communication in
Collaborative Discovery Learning. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 603–
http://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X42905
Vanides, J., Yin, Y., Tomita, M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A.
(2014). Using Concept Map In The Science
Classroom. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 259–
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2143
Villalon, J., & Calvo, R. A. (2011). Concept Maps As
Cognitive Visualisations Of Writing
Assignments. Educational Technology &
Society, 14(3), 16–27. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/465699/Concept_map
s_as_cognitive_visualisations_of_writing_assig
nments
Youssef, S., & Mohammed, C. (2016). Teaching
Strategies For Developing Scientific Literacy
and On Students’ Achievement In Biology.
Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 6–19.
http://doi.org/www.asrongo.org/doi:3.2016.1.1.
This
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.