Penerapan Instruksi pada Tahap Conclusion di Pembelajaran Guided Inquiry untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Menemukan dan Menghubungkan Konsep
Abstract
instruction in the conclusion of Guided Inquiry learning. The research is a classroom action research with 2
cycles. The research procedure consists of plan, implementation, observation and reflection. The subjects of
the research were 40 high school students. Data obtained from observation, interview, documentation and test
that used concept map to measuring ability to find and connect the concept. Data of the research are result of
observation, result of test thats calculation score of concept map based on expert concept map, result of
interview and documentation. Validity test of data used triangulation method. Analysis data techniques are
datareduction, data presentation and conclusion. The result showed the ability of find and connect concept
based on concept map scores on Pre-Cycle have range ie 2,1%-22,2% and the average of concept map score
was 5,1% with 11 learners scoring above average. The concept map scores on Cycles I have range ie 5,6%74,5%
and
the
average
of
concept
map
score
was
39,9%
with
15
learners
scoring
above
average.
The
concept
map
scores
on
Cycles
II
have
range
ie
11,6%-77,2%
and
the
average
of
concept
map
score
was
42,5%
with
15
learners
scoring above average. Based on the result can conclude that implementing instruction in the
conclusion of Guided Inquiry learning increase the ability to find and connect the concepts based on concept
map score of learnersfrom the Cycles I to Cycles II.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adlaon, R. B. (2012). Assessing Effectiveness of
Concept Map As Instructional Tool in High
School. Louisiana State University.
Ajoux, A., Bohatka, L., De Lotto, P., Onobote, M.,
Papadopoulou, P., Poletto, D., & Pypaert, P.
(2013). Introduction to Inquiry An Online Course
for Teachers to Learn about the Inquiry Learning
Cycle. Ark of Inquiry, 1–20.
Almuntasheri, S., Gillies, R. M., & Wright, T. (2016).
The Effectiveness of a Guided Inquiry-based ,
Teachers’ Professional Development Programme
on Saudi Students’ Understanding of Densit y.
Science Education International, 27(1), 16–39.
Bächtold, M. (2013). What Do Students “Construct”
According to Constructivism in Science
Education? Research in Science Education, 43(6),
–2496.
https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-0139369-7
Baker-Lawrence, A. R. (2013). An Investigation into
Instructional Support for Data Analysis in High School Science Inquiry. Portland State University
PDXScholar. Portland State University.
Barak, M. (2016). Science Teacher Education in the
Twenty-First Century: a Pedagogical Framework
for Technology-Integrated Social Constructivism.
Research in Science Education, (1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-0159501-y
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R.
(2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: models,
tools, and challenges. International Journal of
Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.
Cañas, A. J., Carff, R., Hill, G., Carvalho, M.,
Arguedas, M., Eskridge, T. C., … Carvajal, R.
(2005). Concept Maps: Integrating Knowledge
and Information Visualization. S.-O. Tergan, & T.
Keller, (Eds.) (in Press). Knowledge and
Information Visualiza- Tion: Searching for
Synergies. Heidelberg / New York: Springer
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (1), 205–219.
https://doi.org/10.1007/11510154
Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of
interactivity and instructional scaffolding on
learning: Self-regulation in online video-based
environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018
Erawanto, U. (2013). Pengaruh Konstruktivisme
Dalam Pembelajaran. CAKRAWALA
PENDIDIKAN Forum Komunikasi Ilmiah Dan
Ekspresi Kreatif Ilmu Pendidikan, 15(4), 150–156.
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., Briggs, D. C.,
Seidel, T., & Iverson, H. (2012). Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based
Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When
Collections of Creatives Become Creative
Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at
Work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A.
(2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased
and inquiry learning: A response to
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
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.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102
Liu, S.-H., & Lee, G.-G. (2013). Using a Concept Map
Knowledge Management System to Enhance the
Learning of Biology. Computers & Education, 68,
–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.007
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Handbook
of Research on Learning and Inatruction.
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Newyork And
London.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839089.ch13
Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Bene fi ts of
emotional design in multimedia instruction.
Learning and Instruction, 33, 12–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.004
McTighe, J., & Seif, E. (2004). Teaching for
Understanding A Meaningful Education for 21st
Century. Learning and Leading with Technology,
(4), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260102
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of instruction.
Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43–59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010).
Inquiry-based science instruction-What is it and
does it matter? Results from a research synthesis
years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The Origins of
the Concept Mapping Tool and the Continuing
Evolution of the Tool. Information Visualization,
(3), 175–184.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ Science Process Skills
within a Cognitive Domain Framework. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 8(4), 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.846a
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T.,
van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., … Tsourlidaki,
E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning:
Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational
Research Review, 14, 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2004). Examining Concept Maps
as an Assessment Tool. Concept Maps: Theory,
Methodology, Technology. Proc. of the First Int.
Conference on Concept Mapping, 1, 555–563.
Retrieved from http://eprint.ihmc.us/14/
Siswono, T. Y. E. (2014). Developing Teacher
Performances to Improving Students Creative
Thinking Capabilities in Mathematics, (10).
Sugiyono. (2013). Memahami Penelitian Pendidikan
Pendekatan Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D.
Bandung: ALFABETA.
Wu, H.-L., Weng, H.-L., & She, H.-C. (2016). Effects
of Scaffolds and Scientific Reasoning Ability On
Web-Based Scientific Inquiry. International
Journal of Contemporary Educational Research
Volume, 3(1), 12–24.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
