THE SCAFFOLDING CAUSALITIC-THINKING APPROACH TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY OF STUDENTS ON FLUIDS

Joni Rokhmat, Marzuki Marzuki, Hikmawati Hikmawati, Ni Nyoman Sri Putu Verawati

Abstract

Scaffolding causalitic-thinking is a specific approach to facilitate students in analyzing cause and effect of a phenomenon and in establishing reason where some assistance stages are given. Patterns of the assistance include informing number of causes, effects, or both, some example of causes, effects, or both (causes and effects), or some of its arguments. This scaffolding orientation was to facilitate students to increase their Problem-solving Ability (PSA) and had been implemented on fluid in Senior High School (SHS). The PSA includes understanding, selecting, differentiating, determining, applying and identifying. This research aimed to investigate an impact of the approach on the PSA that is related to gender and Junior High School (JHS) origin of the students, Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP) and other (non-SMP). This research used mixed method of embedded experimental two-phase design and with sample of 33 students, 22 females and 11 males, for control class and 32 students, 17 females and 15 males, for experiment class. Total score of the six abilities were tested with ANAVA two factor design. The results, among 6 pairs of Fcounted and Ftable showed 67% that indicate Fcounted > Ftable. The results indicated that the approach affects PSA of students and the effect was different between male and female, also the interaction between the origin of JHS students and the approach. Next, patterns of the scaffolding approach are considerably used as reference when arranging worksheet to conduct Physics or other discipline learning with this approach in practice or further research.

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

 

Full Text:

PDF

References

Amer, A., (2005). Analytical Thinking. Cairo: Center of Advancement of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Engineering Sciences, Cairo University (CAPSCU), 1-14.

Anwar, M., N., Aness, M., Kizar, A., Naseer, M., and Muhammad, G. (2012). “Relationship of Creative Thinking with the Academic Achievements of Secondary School Students”. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(3), 44.

Baser, M. (2006). “Fostering Conceptual Change by Cognitive Conflict Based Instruction on Students’ Understanding of Heat and Temperature Concepts”. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2 (2), July, 96-108.

Cohen, G., A. (2000). Karl Marx’s Theory of History. US: Princeton University Press; OK: Oxford University Press, vii.

Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 67–71.

Dori, Y. J. & Belcher, J. (2004). “Improving Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism through Visualizations-A Large Scale Study”. The National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference (NARST).

Dykstra, D. I.,& Sweet, D. R. (2009). “Conceptual Development about Motion and Force in Elementary and Middle School Students”. American Association of Physics Teachers, Am. J. Phys., 77 (5), May, 468-476.

Escudero, C., Moreira, A. M., & Caballero, C. (2009). “A Research on Undergraduate Students’ Conceptualizations of Physics Notions Related to Non-sliding Rotational Motion”. Lat. Am. I Phys. Educ., 3 (1), January, 1-7.

Gopnik, A. & Schulz, L. (2007). Causal Learning; Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 86-94.

Hake, R. (2007). “Six Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort”. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), September, 24-27.

Hamilton, A. (2001). Managing Subjects for Success. London: Albert Hamilton and Thomas Telford Limited, 36-44.

Hill, S. E. (2011). “Reanalysing the Ampere-Maxwell Law”. AAPT Physics Education, The Physics Teacher, 49, September, 343-345.Redlands, CA: University of Redlands.

Hung, W. & Jonassen, D. H., (2006). “Conceptual Understanding & Causal Reasoning in Physics”. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (13), October, 1601-1621.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2011). Models of Teaching, Model-model Pengajaran, Edisi Kedelapan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Kasser J. L., (2006). ). Philosophy of Science, part 2 of 3. USA: The Theaching Company, 92-126.

Lenzen, V. F. (1954). Causality in Natural Science. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, 2-27.

Marquardt, M. J. (2004). Optimizing the Power of Action Learning: Solving Problems and Building Leaders in Real Time. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 91-103.

Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing & Assessing Educational Objectives: Applying the New Taxonomy. Thousand, CA: Corwin Press, 3.

Marzano, R. J. & Brown, J. L. (2009). A Handbook for the Art and Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 134-135.

Meder, B. (2006). Seeing versus Doing: Causal Bayes Nets as Psychological Models of Causal Reasoning, Dissertation, zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Mathematisch-Naturwisshensclaftlichen Fakultaten- Universitat zur Gottingen, 31.

Meyer, A. A., and Lederman, N. G. (2015). “Creative Cognition on Secondary Science: An exploration of divergent thinking in science among adolescents”.International Journal of Science Education. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1043599.

Minium, E. W., King, B. M., &Bear, G. (1993). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 488-489, 579.

Obaidat, I. & Malkawi, E. (2009). “The Grasp of Physics Concepts of Motion: Identifying Particular Patterns in Students’ Thinking”. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (1), January, 11-12.

Parselle, C. (n.d.). Analytical/Intuitive Thinking. Google, http://EzineArticle.com/expert/ Charles_Parselle/8291.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2003). The Foundations of Analytic Thinking: The Elements of Thinkingand The Standards They Must Meet, Second edition. Retrieved from:www.criticalthinking.org, 3-15, 42. [Accessed 11 August 2011].

Piaw, C., Y. (2013). “Relationship between thinking styles and ability to pay attention of Malaysian male and female student teachers.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4839 – 4843: Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.

Rasagama, I. G. (2011). Pengembangan Program Perkuliahan Fisika untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Menganalisis dan Mengkreasi Mahasiswa Teknik Konversi Energi Politeknik [The Development of Physics Lecturing Programme to Increase Ability to Analise and Create for Students of Energy Conversion Technical of Polytechnic]. Disertasi Doktor pada Pendidikan IPA. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: tidak diterbitkan.

Rokhmat, J. (2013). Peningkatan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Mahasiswa Calon Guru Fisika melalui Berpikir Kausalitas dan Analitik [The Increase of Problem-solving Ability of Physics Pre-service Student through Causality and Analytic Thinking]. Disertasi Doktor pada Pendidikan IPA. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: tidak diterbitkan.

Rokhmat, J. (2015). Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Proses Berpikir Kausalitas dan Analisik untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Mahasiswa Calon Guru [The Development of Learning-model Based on Causality and Analytic Thinking to Increase Problem-solving Ability of Pre-service Teacher]. Penelitian Strategis Nasional. Universitas Mataram: tidak diterbitkan.

Rokhmat, J., Marzuki, Hikmawati, and Verawati, N. N. S. P. (2017). “Instrument Development of Causalitic Thinking Approach in Physics Learning to Increase Problem Solving Ability of Pre-service Teacher.” American Institute of Physics Conference Proceeding, 03000-3 - 03000-5.

Yürük, N. (2007). “A Case Study of One Student’s Metaconceptual Processes and the Changes in Her Alternative Conceptions of Force and Motion”. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3 (4), 305-325. Turkey: Gaɀi Universitesi.

Zschunke, A. (2000). Reference Materials in Analytical Chemistry. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/seeds.v1i1.20276

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.