KESIMPULAN DAN IMPLIKASI
B. IMPLIKASI DAN REKOMENDASI 1.Implikasi
Temuan-temuan di dalam penelitian ini dapat memberikan implikasi sebagai berikut:
a. Untuk dosen matakuliah Fisika Dasar, dapat memanfaatkan temuan dalam penelitian ini berupa model pembelajaran Fisika berbasis problem solving yang digunakan untuk meningkatkan kemampuan metakognisi dan pemahaman konsep mahasiswa. Dosen matakuliah Fisika Dasar dapat memanfaatkan fasilitas laboratorium komputer yang tersedia untuk menunjang perkuliahan Fisika Dasar yang menggunakan video. Penggunaan fasilitas ini sangat dimungkinkan, karena umumnya saat ini setiap jurusan telah memiliki laboratorium komputer sendiri.
b. Untuk institusi, sebagai bahan pertimbangan untuk merancang kurikulum, pendekatan, metode, dan strategi dengan mengadopsi dan mengadaptasi MPFD-BPS.
c. Untuk peneliti selanjutnya, penelitian ini masih terbatas penerapannya pada matakuliah Fisika Dasar pada topik Kinematika dan Dinamika Partikel bagi
165 mahasiswa. Penelitian selanjutnya dapat dilakukan dengan menerapkan MPFD-BPS pada matakuliah lain yang memiliki karakteristik mirip dengan matakuliah Fisika Dasar, misalnya matakuliah Mekanika. Kemampuan yang dikembangkan melalui penerapan MPFD-BPS adalah kemampuan metakognisi dan pemahaman konsep. Penelitian selanjutnya dapat dilakukan untuk mengetahui apakah MPFD-BPS ini dapat digunakan untuk melatihkan kemampuan yang lain, seperti keterampilan berpikir kritis, keterampilan berpikir kreatif atau keterampilan generik.
2. Rekomendasi
Berdasarkan hasil-hasil yang dicapai pada penelitian ini, dapat direkomendasikan hal-hal sebagai berikut:
a. Model pembelajaran MPFD-BPS dapat dijadikan sebagai model percontohan bagi dosen dalam mengembangkan kemampuan metakognisi dan pemahaman konsep untuk mata kuliah lain.
b. Guru/Dosen dapat memanfaatkan MPFD-BPS bagi siswa/mahasiswa untuk mengembangkan kemampuan metakognisi dan pemahaman konsep.
c. Agar implementasi model pembelajaran MPFD-BPS menjadi optimal, diperlukan fasilitas laboratorium dan komputer yang memadai sehingga mahasiswa dapat berlatih menggunakan alat dengan lebih baik.
166 DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Adair, John. (2007). Decision Making & Problem Solving Strategies. London: Kogan Page.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning
Teaching and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of education
Objectives. New York: Addisin Wesley.
Anderson, D. dan Nashon, S. (2006). “Predators of Knowledge Construction: Interpreting Students’ Metacognition in an Amusement Park Physics Program”. Wiley InterScience. Tersedia: http//www.interscience.wiley.co. Arends, R. L. (1997). Classroom Instruction and Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
. (2004). Learning to Teach. 5th Ed. Boston: McGraw Hill
. (2008a). Learning to Teach. Buku I. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
. (2008b). Learning to Teach. Buku II. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar. Baser, M. (2006). Effect of Conceptual Change Oriented Instruction on Students’
Understanding of Heat and Temperature Concepts. Journal Maltese Education Research. Vol:4 No.1 2006 64-79. Tersedia:
www.educ.um.edu.mt/jmer.
Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational Research. 4st Edition. New York: Longman, Inc.
Campbell, J. (2007). “Using Metacogs to Collaborate with Students to Improve Teaching and Learning in Physics”. Tersedia http://www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insight/v11n02/articles/campbell. html
Cartwright, C. A. & Cartwright, G. P. (1984). Developing Observation Skills. 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Costa, A.L. (ed). (1985). Developing Minds, A Resource Book for Teaching
167 Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test
Theory, New York: CBS College Publishing.
Dahar, R.W. (1996) Teori-teori belajar. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Desoete, A., (2007). “Evaluating and improving the mathematics teaching-learning process through metacognitiaon”. Electronic Journal of Research
in Educational Psychology. 5, (13), 705-730.
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., dan Buysse, A. (2001). “Metacognition and Mathematical Problem Solving in Grade 3”. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 34, (5), 435-449.
Dori, Y. I & Belcher, J. (2005). “How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts”. The journal of learning science. 14, (2). 243-279. Tersedia: http://web.mit.edu/.[26 September 2007].
Escalada, L., & Zollman, D. A., (1997). “An Investigation on the Effects of Using Interactive Digital Video in a Physics Classroom on Student Learning and Attitudes”. Journal of research in science teaching. 34, (5). 467–489. Gaigher, E., Rogan J. M. and Braun, M. W. H. (2007). “Exploring the
Development of Conceptual Understanding through Structured Problem-solving in Physics”. International Journal of Science Education. 29, (9),
1089–1110.
Garritz, A. (2010). Pedagogical Content Knowledge and the Affective domain of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Vol. 4, No. 2 (July 2010). ISSN 1931-4744. Tersedia: http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl.
Giancoli, D. C. (2001). Physics: Principles with Applications, Fifth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
Gok, T. (2010). “The general Assessment of Problem Solving Processes and Metacognition in Physics Education”. Eurasian Journal Physics Chemical
Education. 2,(2).110-122.
Grinnel, Jr., R. M. (1988). Social Work Research and Evaluation. Illionis: F.E. Peacock Pub. Inc.
Guilford, J. P. and Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental Statistic in Psychology and
Education. Singapure: McGraw-Hill.
Guskey T. R. & Marzano, R. J. (2001). Scoring Rubrics in The Classroom. Using Performance Criteria for Assessing and Improving Student Performance.
168 Corwin Press, INC. A Sage Publications Company Thousand Oaks, California.
Heller, K., & Heller, P. (1999). Problem-Solving Labs. Introductory Physics I Mechanics. Cooperative Group problem-solving in physics.
Henderson, C., & Kuo, V. (2001). Instructors’ Ideas about Problem Solving –
Setting Goals. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research
Conference, Rochester, NY.
Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1997). Mechanics Baseline Test.
Hollingworth, R. & McLoughlin. (2002). The Development of Metacognitive Skilss among Firts Year Science Student. Tersedia
http://fyhe.Qut.Edu.au./FYHE-Previous/Papers/HollingworthPaper.doc.
Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., Kinnucan-Welsch (Ed). (2005).
Metacognition in Literacy Learning. Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and
Professional Development. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher. Mahwah, New Jersey. London.
Joice, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2008). Models of Teaching. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
Jennifer L. (2006). Physics Problem Solving. University of Minnesota.
Kaplan & Saccuzzo. (2005). Psychological Testing. USA: Thomson Wadsworth. Kipnis, M. dan Hofstein, A. (2007). “The Inquiry Laboratory as a Source for
Development of Metacognitive Skills”. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education.
Kuo, V. (2004). An explanatory model of physics faculty conception about the problem solving process. University of Minnesota: Ph. D. Thesis.
Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. Jr. (2004). Metacognitive: A Bridge between Cognitive Psycology and Educational Practice. Theory Into Practice. Volume 43. No. 4.
Lorenzo, M. (2005). The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Problem Solving Heuristic. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 3: 33–58.
Livingston, J.A. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.
169 Malone, L. K. (2006a). A comparative Study of the Cognitive and Metacognitive between Modeling and Non-Modeling High School Physics Students.
Thesis.
Malone, L. K. (2006b). “The convergence of knowledge organization, problem-solving behavior, and metacognition research with the Modeling Method of physics instruction” – Part I. Journal Physics Teacher Education. Online, 4(1).
_____. (2007). “The convergence of knowledge organization, problem-solving behavior, and metacognition research with the Modeling Method of physics instruction” – Part II. Journal Physics Teacher Education.
www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo. 4, (2).
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, Virginia USA. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z.,
Rankin, S. C., Suhor (1998). Dimensions of Thinking: Framework for
Curriculum and Instruction. CUSO: ASCD.
Matlin, M. E. (2009). Cognitive Psychology. Seventh Edition. International Student Version. Jhon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
_______ (2003). Cognition. Fifth Edition. Jhon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McGregor, D. (2007). Developing Thinking Developing Learning : A Guide to Thinking Skills in Education Berkshire: Open University Press, Mc Graw-Hill.
Mehrens & Lehmann. (1984). Measurement and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology. New York: New York: CBS College Publishing.
Meltzer, D. E. (2002). “The Relationshif between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gain in Physics: A Possible Hidden Variable in Diagnostic Pretest Score”. Am.J.Phys.70,(2),1259-1267.[Online].
Tersedia: w.physic.lastate.edu/per/does/addendum_on_normalizedgain. [10 Februari 2008].
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education
Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. [Online]. Tersedia:
http://books.nap.edu/html/inquiry_addendum/notice.html. [9 Oktober
2001].
National Research Council (1996). Inquiry and the National Science Education. Washington DC: National Academic Press.
170 Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R., & Haugan, M. P. (2008). What Makes Physics Difficult? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 2008. 3(1).
Panaoura, A. & Philippou, G. (2004) The Measurement of Young Pupils’
Metacognitive Ability in Mathematics: The Case of Self-Representation and Self-Evaluation. In Journal CERME 4 [Online] Provided:
http://Cerme4.crm.es/papers%20 definities /2/ panaoura.philippou.pdf
Panaoura, A. & Panaoura, G. (2006) Cognitive and Metacognitive Performance
on Mathematics. [Online]. Provided : http:/self.uws.edu.au/conferences/ 2004 panaoura. philippou
Perfect, T. J. & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Applied Metacognition. Cambridge University Press.
Phang, F. A. (2006). The Patterns of Physics Problem-Solving From the
Perspective of Metacognition. Master dissertation, University of
Cambridge. Retrieved:
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.ok./kst/24/ResearchStudents/Abdullah2006meta-cognition.pdf
Pretz, J.E., Naples, A., & Sternberg, R.J. (2003). Recognizing, Defining, and Representing Problems dalam Davidson & Sternberg (Eds). The
Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Priyatno, D. (2009). Lima jam Belajar Olah Data dengan SPSS 17. Penerbit Andi Yogyakarta
Ruseffendi, H. E. T. (1998). Dasar-dasar Penelitian Pendidikan dan Bidang
Noneksakta Lainnya. Semarang: IKIP Semarang.
Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saleh, S. (2011). The Level of B.Sc.Ed Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Newtonian Physics. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences October 2011, Vol. 1, No. 3 ISSN:
2222-6990
Santyasa, I. W. (2006). Pengembangan Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Fisika bagi Siswa SMA dengan Pemberdayaan Model Perubahan Konseptual Berseting Investigasi Kelompok.
171 Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology, Departement of Educational Psychology Papers and Publications.http://www.springerlink.com/content/1040-726X.
Selçuk, G. S., Çalı kan, S., dan Erol, M. (2008). “The Effects of Problem solving Instruction on Physics Achievement, Problem Solving Performance and Strategy Use”. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ. 2, (3). 151-166.
http://www.journal.lapen.org.mx
Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational Psychology: Thoery and Practice. Sixth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Publisher.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational Psychology: Theories and Practies. Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Publisher.
Solaz-Portolés, J. J. & Sanjosé, V. (2007). Representation in Problem Solving in
Science: Direction for Practice. Asia Pasific Forum Science Learning and
Teaching. Volume 8, Issue 2, Article 4, p.1.
Solaz-Portolés, J.J. & Sanjosé, V. (2007). “Cognitive variables in science problem solving: A review of research”. Journal Physics Teacher Education.
www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo. 4, (2).
Sugiyono, (2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
______ , (2006). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif,
Kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sukmadinata, N.S. (2007). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Sukmadinata, N. S. (2004). Pengembangan Kurikulum, Teori dan Praktek. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Supranata, S. (2006) Analitis, Validitas, Reliabilitas, dan Interpretasi Hasil Tes. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Tan, O. S. (2004). Enhanching Thinking Problem Based Learning Approached. Singapura: Thomson.
Teese, R. (2007). Video Analysis - A Multimedia Tool for Homework and Class
Assignments. 12th International Conference on Multimedia in Physics Teaching and Learning, 13-15 September 2007, Wroclaw, Poland.
172 Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S. & Semmel, M. (1974). Instructional Development
for Training Teachers of Exceptional Children. Source Book.
Bloominton: Center for Innovation on Teaching the Handicapped.
Thomas, G., Anderson, D. and Nashon, S. (2008).
“
Development of an Instrument Designed to Investigate Elements of Science Students’ Metacognition, Self-Efficacy and Learning Processes: The SEMLI-S”. InternationalJournal of Science Education. 30, (13), (17). 1701–1724.
Ronald K. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula”. Am. J.
Phys. 66, (4). 338-352.
Tipler, P. A. (1991). Fisika untuk Sains dan Teknik. Jilid 1. PT. Gelora Aksara Pratama. Penerbit Erlangga.
Wagner A., Altherr, S., Eckert, B., and Jodl, H. J. (2006). Multimedia in physics education: a video for the quantitative analysis of the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. Eur. J. Phys. 27 (2006) L27–L30.
Weinert, F. E. and Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Metacognition, Motivation, and
Understanding. The Psycholigy of education and Instruction. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Hillsdale, New Jersey. London.
Weisberg, R.W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem
Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Wenning, C. J. and Wenning, R. E. (2006). “A generic model for inquiry-oriented lab in postsecondary introductory physics”. Journal of Physics Teacher
Education Online. 3(3). 24-33. Available at: http://www.phy.ilstu. edu/jpteo
Winn, W. and Snyder, D. (1998). Metacognition. Graduate Student, SDSU Depart-ment of Educational Technology
Yürük, N. (2007). “A Case Study of one Student’s Metaconteptual Process and the Changes in Her Alternative Conceptions of Force and Motion”.
Eurasia Journal, Sciences & Technology Education. 3, (4). 305-325.
Zainul, A. (2008). Asesmen Sumatif dan Formatif. Makalah. PPs UPI. Bandung: tidak diterbitkan.
Zollman, D. A. (2001). Modeling Real World Events and Video Data Collection.