1
SELF DIRECTED LEARNING OF ECOSYSTEM TOPIC FOR GRADE 7 SMP NEGERI 1 LABUHANDELI
ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
THESIS
Submitted to Biology Education Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Magister Pendidikan
By:
HENNY PUSPITA DEWI Registration Number: 8I36174012
BIOLOGY POST-GRADUATED SCHOOL PROGRAM STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ABSTRACT
HENNY PUSPITA DEWI (8I36174012). The Effects of Project Based & Group Investigation Learning Models and Students’ Cognitive Styles toward Students’ Science Process Skills and Self Directed Learning of Ecosystem Topic for Grade 7th SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli Academic Year 2014/2015
The research was conducted to analyze the effect of learning models and students’ cognitive style toward science process skills and self-directed learning of ecosystem topic at SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli. The results shown that; 1) The total of 99 students were divided into three different treatment classes; PjBL, Group Investigation and conventional learning model. They were enrolled on Embedded Figure Test (EFT).EFT test results shown 15.15% in PjBL class grouped as FD learner and 18.18% classified as FI students. As many as 13.13% in G.I class were grouped as FD and 20.20% was marked as FI. In the Conventional class as many as 25.25% classified as FD learner and about 8.08%. 2) There was significantly effects of learning models toward students’ science process skills (F=10.915; p=0.000; 0.000 < 0.05). Project Based Learning model was better than Group Investigation learning model better than conventional learning model to increase the science process skills of students. 3) There was significantly effects of cognitive styles toward science process skills. The Field Independent learner show the best performance in the PjBL class. The score gained of Field Independent students were higher than Field Dependent. 4) There was an interaction between learning models and cognitive styles toward science process skills. 5) There was also an effect of learning models toward self-directed learning FD and FI. 6) There was also an effect of cognitive styles toward students’ self-directed learning who have field dependent (FD) and Field Independent (FI). 7) There was an interaction between learning models and cognitive styles toward students’ self-directed learning.
ABSTRAK
HENNY PUSPITA DEWI (8I36174012). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Proyek dan Investigasi Grup Investigasi dan Gaya Kognitif Siswa TerhadapKeterampilan Proses Sains Siswa dan Kemandirian Belajar Pada Topik Ekosistem Kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli Tahun Akademik 2014/2015
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pengaruh model pembelajaran dan gaya kognitif siswa terhadap keterampilan proses sains siswa dan kemandirian belajar pada topik ekosistem kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa 1) Sebanyak 99 siswa yang dibagi menjadi tiga kelompok perlakuan yang berbeda; PjBL, Investigasi grup dan pembelajaran konvensional. Siswa-siswi tersebut dilibatkan dalam instrumen Embedded Figure Test untuk memetakan gaya belajar mereka. Hasil Embedded Figure Test menunjukkan 15.15% pada kelas PjBL diklassifikasikan memiliki gaya belajar Field Dependent (FI)dan sekitar 18.18% digolongkan menjdi Field Independent (FI). Sebanyak 13.13% pada kelas G.I dipetakan sebagai Field Dependent (FD) dan 20.20% tergolong Field Dependent (FI). Sementara, pada kelas konvensional 25.25% bergaya belajar Field Dependent (FD) dan sisanya 8.08% bergaya belajar Field Dependent (FI). 2) Terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan antara model pembelajaran terhadap KPS (Keterampilan Proses Siswa) (F=10.915; p=0.000; 0.000 < 0.05). PjBL lebih baik daripada GI lebih baik daripada pembelajaran konvensional untuk meningkatkan KPS. 3) terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan antara gaya kognitif siswa terhadap KPS. Field Independent menunjukkan hasil terbaiknya pada kelas PjBL. Perolehan nilai siswa Field Independent lebih tinggi daripada Field dependent. 4) terdapat interaksi pada variabel model pembelajaran dan gaya kognitif siswa. 5) terdapat juga pengaruh pada model pembelajaran dan kemandirian belajar siswa. 6) terdapat interaksi antara model pembelajaran dan gaya kognitif siswa terhadap kemandirian belajar siswa.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Through only my name appears on the cover of this thesis, a great many people have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitute to all those people who have made this research possible and because of whom my gratitute experience has been one that I will cherish forever.
My greatful thanks to Allah Subhanahu Wata’ala for the good health and wellbeing that were necessary to complete this thesis. My deepest gratitute to my advisors, Dr. Ely Djulia, M.Pd and Dr. Hasruddin, M.Pd. I have been amazingly fortunate have gave me advisors who gave me the freedom to explore on my own, and the same time the guidance to recover when my steps faltered. They taught me how to question and express idea. Their patience and support helped me overcome many crisis situations and finish this study.
I am also indebted to all of my examinors, Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and Dr. Fauziyah Harahap, M.Si. They give me insihgtful comments and constructive criticisms at different stages of my research which were thought-provoking and they helped me focus on my ideas. I’m greatful to them for holding me to a high research standard and enforcing strict validations for each result and thus teaching me how to do good research. I would like to acknowledge to the headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli Mr. Yusmariono, S.Pd also for the science teachers Titi Hendrawati, S.Pd and Noni Faziera Sari, S.Pd., M.Si for the continuos encouragement.
Most importantly, none of this woul have been possible without the love and patience of my big family. My immediate family to whom this thesis is dedicated to, has been a constant source of love, concern, support and strength all these years. I would like to express my heart-felt gratitute to my parents, Sugeng Heriono, SH and Sabdiani, SH.I. Awesome indebted for my husband Pratu Irin Suharsin, my brother Dedek Dermawan, SH and Fauzi Kurniawan, my sister Elvida, S.Pd., M.Si who have accompany me throughout this endavor.
Finaly, without their supports, encouragement and dedication to assist me, the thesis would not have been possible.
Medan, August 2015
Writer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Title
Approval Sheet
Abstrak ... i
Abstract ... ii
Acknowledgement ... iii
Table of Contents ... v
List of Tables ... viii
List of Figures ... ix
List of Graphs ... x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem Identification ... 7
1.3 Research Scopes ... 7
1.4 Research Question ... 8
1.5 Objectives ... 9
1.6 Significance ... 9
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10
2.1 Learning and Learning Style. ... 10
2.1.1 Learning Overview ... 11
2.1.1.1 Internal Factor ... 11
2.1.1.2 External Factor ... 12
2.2 Important Component of Learning Process ... 13
2.2.1 Mastery Learning ... 13
2.3.1 Introduction to Learning Style ... 14
2.3.2 Kinds of Learning Style ... 15
2.3.3 Students’ Cognitive Style ... 18
2.3.4 Cognitive Versus Learning Style ... 19
2.3.5 Related but Different Concepts ... 20
2.3.6 Identification of Learning Style ... 24
2.3.7 Factors That Influence Student Learning Style ... 26
2.4 Overview of Science Process Skills ... 26
2.4.1 Basic Science Process Skills ... 27
2.5 Self Directed Learning ... 27
2.5.1 Keys Elements of Self Directed Learning ... 28
2.5.2 Skills required for Self Directed Learning ... 29
2.6 Learning Models ... 30
2.6.1 Project Based Learning Model ... 30
2.6.2 Group Investigation Learning Model ... 31
2.8 Conceptual Framework ... 38
2.8.1 The differences of SPS of FD and FI Students Taught Using PjBL, Group Investigation and Conventional Learning Model ... 38
2.8.2 The differences of SDL of FD and FI Students Taught Using PjBL, Group Investigation and Conventional Learning Model ... 40
2.9 Research Hyphothesis ... 40
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS ... 42
3.1 Location and Time ... 42
3.2 Population, Sample and Sampling Technique ... 42
3.3 Research Design ... 42
3.4 Developing Instruments ... 43
3.4.1 EFT (Embedded Figure Test) ... 44
3.4.2 Science Process Skills Test Instrument ... 45
3.4.3 Self-directed learning Questionnaire... 46
3.4.4 Biology Learning Observation Sheets ... 47
3.5 Testing For Instruments ... 47
3.5.1 Validity of EFT ... 47
3.5.2 The Way to Analyze EFT ... 47
3.5.3 Science Process Skills Test Instrument ... 47
3.5.4 Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 53
3.6 Research Procedures ... 54
3.6.1 Description of Research Procedures ... 54
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques ... 57
3.7.1 Requirement Test of Data Analysis ... 57
And Cognitive Styles Toward Self Directed Learning ... 75 4.6 Limitations of The Study ... 70
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion ... 80 5.2. Recommendations ... 81
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1.1 The Science average scores of 7th grade
students’ learning outcomes in SMP
Negeri 1 Labuhandeli from 2010 until 2014 ... 4
Table 2.1 Characteristics of FI and FD learners ... 16
Table 2.2 The Table of Instructional Design Strategies ... 42
Table 3.1 The Distribution of Grade Seven Students SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli Academic Year 2014/2015 ... 37
Table 3.2 Research Design ... 43
Table 3.3 The Scoring Scale of Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 43
Table 3.4 Biology Learning Observation Sheet... 47
Table 3.5 The Conclusion of Discrimination Indices Calculation For Science Process Skills Instrument... 50
Table 3.6 The Conclusion of Discrimination Indices Calculation For Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 51
Table 4.1 The Description of Statistic Data of SPS Test Instrument and SDL Questionnaire ... 59
Table 4.2 The Normality Test Results of Science Process S Skills and Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 59
Table 4.3 The Homogeneity Test Results of Science Process S Skills and Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 65
Table 4.4 Post Hoc Tests Effect of Learning Models toward Science Process Skills for Ecosystem Topic... 66
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 The Relational Transition of Cognitive Processes... 20
Figure 2.2 Cognitive Style and Learning Style ... 20
Figure 3.1 Example of Simple and Complex GEFT Figure... 44
Figure 3.2 Learning Style Interpretation ... 45
LIST OF GRAPHS
Page Graph 4.1 The Graph of Learning Styles Mapping Results
(Field Dependent and Field
Independent)... 59 Graph 4.2 The Post-test Science Process
Skills Scores Comparison ... 62 Graph 4.3 The Post-test Science Process
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
Appendix 1 Learning Syllabus ... 86
Appendix 2 Project based learning model Lesson plan ... 93
Appendix 3 Group Investigation learning model Lesson plan... 119
Appendix 4 Conventional learning model Lesson plan ... 144
Appendix 5 Learning Material For Ecosystem Topics ………. 160
Appendix 6 Embedded Figure Test... 166
Appendix 7 The Clues of Science Process Skill Test Instrument ... 168
Appendix 8 Science Process Skills Test Instrument ... 169
Appendix 9 The Rubric of Science Process Skill Test Instrument ... 175
Appendix 10 The Clues of Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 179
Appendix 11 Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 180
Appendix 12 Self Directed Learning Questionnaire Rubric Assessment ... 182
Appendix 13 Biology Learning Observation Sheets ... 183
Appendix 14 Validity of Science Process Skills Test Instrument ... 185
Appendix 15 Reliability of Science Process Skills Test Instrument ... 198
Appendix 16 Discrimination Indices of Science Process Skills Test Instrument... 199
Appendix 17 Difficulty Indices of Science Process Skills Test Instrument .... 200
Appendix 18 Research Data ... 201
Appendix 19 The Description Data of Science Process Skill Test Instrument and Self Directed Learning Questionnaire ... 207
Appendix 20 The Normality Test Results of Science Process Skills and Self DirectedLearning Questionnaire Using Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test ... 208
Appendix 21 Two Way Anova Result For The Effect of Learning Models Toward Students’ Science Process Skills Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ... 209
Appendix 22 Post Hoc Tests Results The Effect of Learning Models Toward Science Process Skills ... 210
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background
Nowadays, educational research is on advance increasing, in which studies are carried out in an attempt to find solutions of the problems arising either focuses on teachers or students. In addition to this problem, the researches ware held to provide the contribution to development and advancement in education. The issue is basically revolve around usual problems on learning process such as difficulties in learning, obstacles in applying learning method, low learning outcomes which represented by unachieved learning completion (KKM), teacher tendency of only use traditional method during learning process that certainly make student feel bored in participating lessons.
Classroom learning problem should also mention not only from students learning perspective but also educators’ classroom problem. Sometimes learning process only objected to educators, whereas the success of class achievement and activities also depend on students’ ability. Factors that contribute to students’ learning achievement for example are, their tendency on receiving stimuli, processing information, solving problem, either individually or in group work, self-motivation, self-awareness and self-directed learning which represent their learning characters (Cook, 2005).
The expected conditions are an educator must be able to provide various
effective learning and teaching strategies model for encouraging or handling the
diverse personalities and needs of students and also suing students understand the
topics not only cognitively but also another learning domains, learn actively,
develop critical and creative thinking, problem solving, behavioral changes,
self-directed learning and etc.
In fact, According to Anita (2013), the Indonesian teacher’s average competence has not been as expected. The average of mastery learning topic ability of biology teacher is approximately about 57%. This may become one of several factor which influence pupils’ understanding and reasoning biology topic. This case closely related with the teacher quality. Teacher quality is widely believed to be important for effective teaching. The good teacher has a role not only to deliver information in the form of recitation but also to set learning environment and strategies which allow students to learn. Actually, biology is one of the important subjects in formal school. It is enables learners correlate theory with the real cases.
Furthermore, Depdiknas (2003) states that in studying science, students tend
to be more memorizing concepts, theories, and principles without interpret the
acquisition process. Learning more geared to the success of the exam tests
essentially take more emphasis on low-dimensional cognitive processes such as
memorizing concepts, while the higher cognitive processes; analyzing, process
skill, evaluating and creating are rarely emphasized. In addition, the true meaning
of the nature of science itself has been neglected, as well as aspects of attitude and
its application in everyday life. As a result, students become less trained to think
and use the power of reason in understanding natural phenomena that occur or
when faced with a problem. When given a new problem, they can only move
sentences from text books to a blank paper.
Science learning assessment process is currently only focused on the
cognitive (Maryam, 2006; Rapi, 2005). This statement is supported by the result of research which conducted by Suastra (2006), which indicates that the assessment used to assess students' science process skills 100% only measure
general tests, and homework less assessing student performance. This led to the
evaluation of the aspects of the skills and attitudes that also become demands of
the curriculum in term of learning process assessment in the classroom is not
doing optimally. Meanwhile assessment of student performance in the form of
assignment is rarely performed as an alternative scoring model that is more
meaningful. Student performance needs to be assessed at the time of ongoing
activities (Suastra, 2007).
Similar problem happened in SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli. Based on the
preliminary observation in this school, researcher found that the average learning outcome is tending to be low category. More, the assessment is also only concern
in cognitive domain. In other words, the learning outcomes show that the
assessment is less valuing of performance or project and science process skill.
Learning processes are less of encouraging students to activate their science
process skill. Students are accused to be smart exploring their abilities and also
they must be able to show good behavioral changing after studying the lesson.
Table 1.1. The Science average scores of 7th grade students’ learning outcomes in
SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli from 2010 until 2014.
Academic Year VII-6 VII-7 VII-8
students’ science process skill, attitudes, creativities, activities and self-directed learning.
Discussing about students’ self-directed learning in this school, it is unspecifically define by the teacher. This school does not yet have an appropriate tool to assess their students' independence and still need development of the instruments. According to Guglielmino, et al (2001), teachers need Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) to measure the students’ directed learning. It is a self-report questionnaire with Likert-type items developed by Guglielmino in l977. It is also designed to measure the complex of attitudes, skills, and characteristics that comprise an individual's current level of readiness to manage his or her own learning (Guglielmino, et al, 2001).
Up to now, the teacher has not been specifically mapping their student's cognitive styles; learning style. In fact, if this is done, the teacher will be easier to evaluate and choose appropriate learning models for their students. The selection of the learning model must be accompanied consideration the characteristics of the subject matter and learners. An abundance of information exists concerning learning styles and their implications for learning and teaching.
It is important to study learning styles because recent studies have shown that a match between teaching and learning styles helps to motivate students’ process of learning. That is why teachers should identify their own teaching styles as well as their learning styles to obtain better results in the classroom. Discovering these learning styles will allow the students to determine their own personal strengths and weaknesses and learn from them. Teachers can incorporate learning styles into their classroom by identifying the learning styles of each of their students, matching teaching styles to learning styles for difficult tasks, strengthening weaker learning styles.
fact that different student will reflect different way of thinking, and treating them equally will remains meaningless since they represent different style in learning. If such condition continuously happened, an effective expectation of learning cannot be reached.
The way to package these problems are through project work and experimental activities. These learning models are quite challenging and they considered as an effective tool for treating students actively. They are encouraged to not depend on entirely on the teacher, but it is directed participant to be able to learn more independently. Project-based learning method is learning model which refers to the philosophical constructivism, that knowledge is the result of cognitive construction through a student activity which includes the skills and scientific attitude of students so that students can construct their own knowledge and meaningful through real experience. Project work includes complex tasks based on questions and problems are very challenging and require students to design, solve problems, make decisions, conducting investigations, as well as provide opportunities for students to work independently (Cheong & Christine, 2002).
Relevant researches about the effects of project based learning model and cognitive style towards science process skill was conducted by Siwa, et al, 2013). The results of the research shown that there are differences in learning outcomes on the science process skills of the students who treated by Project-based learning model and the students who teach by conventional learning model. There is also an interaction effect between the model of learning and cognitive style on learning outcomes of science process skills. There are differences in learning outcomes on the science process skills of the students who have a field independent cognitive style and students who have a field dependent cognitive style (Siwa, et al, 2013).
differences in identifying responding variable, controlled variables, formulating hypotheses and manipulating variables skills.
Science process skill and self directed learning could be also promoted through scientific investigations during science lessons. Winda, et al (2013) has been implemented group investigation learning model to train students’ scientific process skill of junior high school students. The results show that learners are able to start their ability in process science. Furthermore, Shunk, & Ertmer, (2000) have been conducted a research to identify the extent in which experiments and scientific investigations promote the self-regulation skills of 15 years old Romanian pupils. The participants’ answers revealed the reduced concern for developing students’ abilities, establish independently learning goals and preparing independently planning, the selection of strategies. (Shunk, & Ertmer, 2000).
In accordance with the previous studies Ulfa, et al (2014) also investigates the effects of group investigation learning model towards science process skill in senior high school. The results show there is significant differences (of science process skill between previous and after students taught with group investigation learning model. The contribution of this model is relatively high category, which about 37.5%. More, Pitoyo, et al (2014) were examine the effect of group investigation learning model, accelerated learning team and role playing on elementary school students’ writing skills viewed from cognitive style. The results reveal that the writing skills of students who follow the group cooperative learning model in the type of investigation group is better than the group of students who are learning in accelerated learning team and role playing
.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background elaboration, the problems are identified as followed:
1. Students learning outcomes is in low category from 2010 until 2014.
2. Teachers tend to treat students classically and traditionally less considering their students’ learning style.
3. Students do not have good science process skill and self directed learning. 4. Teacher never asks the students to generate a product, idea and investigation
about ecosystem that can be used for increasing students’ process skills and self-directed learning. The activities of the students are limited only inside of the classroom based on the text book.
5. SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli has not had the data base about learning style mapping. They need to design various best teaching learning processes. 6. It is necessary to consider the differences of students’ learning style and
proper learning model. Project Based Learning and Group Investigation learning model will choose as solution for carry out differences of students’ cognitive style, improving learning outcomes and self-directed learning. 1.3 Research Scope
In order to make this research have clear objectives and scope, so the researcher makes some problems limitation, namely:
1. The research was done at SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli and the participants are the students in three different classrooms; VII-6, VII-7 and VII-8. This research is quasi experiment research method.
2. The learning models were treated for the learners were projecting based learning, group investigation and conventional learning models.
3. Students’ learning outcomes are concerning cognitive domain, which is science process skills and for affective domain is self directed learning. 4. The science process skills were examined include basic science process
5. Learning styles which is investigated in this research only focus on cognitive style differences according to the psychology Herman Witkin (field dependent and field independent).
6. Mapping on student’s learning style are also limited to the field dependent and field Independent learning style using Embedded Figure Test developed by Witkin. The mapping was done in the first stage of research conduction. 7. The topics of learning models implementation were focused on Ecosystem
that consist of four sub topics; definition of environment, what did you find in an environment, interaction in an ecosystem construct a particular pattern of living things and the pattern of living things will effect of ecosystem. 1.4 Research Questions
It is important to know the effect of learning models, Project Based, Group Investigation and Conventional Learning models and students’ cognitive styles (FD-FI) toward science process skills and self directed learning for ecosystem topic, the researcher were pointed some problems formulation, namely:
1. Is there any effect of learning models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli?
2. Is there any effect of cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli?
3. Is there any interaction between learning models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) and cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli?
4. Is there any effect of models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) toward students’self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli?
5. Is there any effect of cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli?
1.5 Objectives
The objectives of the study were to:
1. Examine the effects of learning models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
2. Analyze the effect of cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
3. Analyze the interaction between learning models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) and cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
4. Investigate the effects of models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) toward students’self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
5. Analyze the effects of effect of cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward students’ self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
6. Analyze the interaction between learning models (PjBL, GI and Conventional) and cognitive styles (FD and FI) toward self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli.
1.6 Research Significance
The research significances of this study are theoretically significance and practical benefit, namely:
BAB V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Conclusion
Based on the results of the study and data analysis, some conclusions were drawn as followed:
1. The learning styles results mapping (using Embedded Figure Test) in the three different classes at SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli especially for grade seven, the analyses of the EFT (Embedded Figure Test) scores indicate that student tend to have different cognitive styles. Most of grade 7th students at SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli were categorized as field dependent. It is suitable with Vigotsky’s metal development where junior high school students were presence in the 11-14 years old (about first grade to early
adolescence).
2. There was significantly effects of learning models (Project Based, Group Investigation and Conventional Learning models) toward students’ science process skills of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli Project Based Learning model was better than Group Investigation learning model better than conventional learning model to increase the science process skills of students.
3. There was significantly effect of cognitive styles (Field Dependentand Field Independent toward science process skill. The Field Independent learners show the best performance in the PjBL class. The score gained of Field Independent students were higher than Field Dependent. This suitable with the characteristics of each cognitive styles, where FI more analytic, extrinsic motivatited than FD students.
4. There was an interaction between learning models and cognitive styles toward science process skills.
significantly different, but if it compare with conventional, both PjBL and Group Investigation show the significance different.
6. There was also an effect of cognitive styles toward students’ self directed learning of SMP Negeri 1 Labuhandeli who have field dependent (FD) and Field Independent (FI).
5.2 Recommendation
This recommendation was basically the follow up steps based on the research findings and conclusions, so some suggestions can be considered for educational improvement. Namely:
1. It was important for the educator know their students’ learning style, because every student has a uniqueness and learning preferances in the processing information. In this case, the improvement of the learning style mapping also need for better ressult. Conducting learning mapping in the initial stage of new students’ revenue may become a good considaration for school. Furthermore, understanding students learning styles not only useful for pupils but also helping teacher in arranging learning strategies for overcoming student’s diversity of learning styles. By understanding several kinds of learning styles, it will give students information about their own style in learning. So that, they able to develop their self not only in one learning style but also in several styles in learning to get good mark in learning process, improve their science process skills and self-directed learning.
REFERENCES
Abucay, A.R. (2009). Factors that may affect the Learning Process. Retrieved February 21, 2015, from.
http://www.infosforyouandme.com/2015/03/factors-that-may-affect-learning.html.
Achilles, C. M., Hoover, S. P. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning (PBL) in grades 6-12. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Ahmadi, A. (2002). On the relationship between field dependence independence and the use of listening comprehension strategies by Iranian EFL students. Shiraz University, Iran.
Alberta. (2009). Learning, Instructional Strategies and Using Technology in the Classroom. Spanish Language Arts Guide to Implementation. Alberta Education, Alberta, Canada.
Altun, A., & Cakam, M, (2006). Undergraduate Student’s Academic Achievement, Field Dependent/Independent Cognitive Styles and Attitude toward Computers. Education Technology & Society, 9 (1), 289-297.
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2012). Cognitive Styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 26, 337-354.
Azizi, Y, Asmah, S, Zurihanmi, Z, & Fawziah, Y (2005). Aplikasi Kognitif Dalam Pendidikan. (1st. Ed.) Pahang: PTS Professional. 80-91.
Beitler, M. A. (2001). Self-directed learning readiness at General Motors Japan. In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Self-directed learning and the information age (pp. 158-169). Boynton Beach, FL: Motorola University. Belland, B. R.,Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Perceptions of the value of
problem-based learning among students with special needs and their teachers. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learing, 1(2), 1-18.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (2009). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist.
Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R. (2010). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice: Routledge London.
Carin, A. A., Bass, J. E., & Contant, T. L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
ChanLin, L. J. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
Cheong, A.C.S., & Christine, C.M.G. (2002). Teachers’ Handbook On Teaching Generic Thinking Skills. New York: Prentice Hall.
ChanLin, Lih-Juan. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 55-65.
Cook, D. A. (2005). Learning and Cognitive Style in web – based learning: Theory, evidence, and application. Academic Medicine, 80 (3), 266.
Depdiknas. (2003). Kurikulum 2004 SMA: Pedoman khusus pengembangan silabus dan penilaian mata pelajaran kimia.Jakarta: Ditjen Dikdasmen Direktorat Dikmenum.
Doyle, J. (2004). Prospects for Preferences. Computational Intelligence, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. Hans-Meerwein Strabe, Lahnberge, 35032 Marburg.
Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2005). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today,
Furnkranz, J., & Hullermeier, E. (2012). Preference Learning: An Introduction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21:135–191. Technical University Darmstadt, Germany.
Ford, N., Wilson, T.D., Foster, A., Ellis, D., Spink, A. (2002). Information Seeking and Mediated Searching. Part 4. Cognitive Styles in Information Seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(9), 728 – 735.
Findley, B. W. (2009). The relationship of self-directed learning readiness to knowledge-based and performance-based measures of success in third-year medical students. Florida Atlantic University.
Franzoni, A. L., & Assar, S. (2009). Student Learning Styles Adaptation Method Based on Teaching Strategies and Electronic Media. Education Technology & Society, 12 (4), 15 -29.
Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Liu, T.-C. (2009). Supporting Teachers in Identifying Students' Learning Styles in Learning Management Systems: An Automatic Student Modelling Approach. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 3– 14.
Guglielmino, L. M., Guglielmino, P.J. & Choy, S. (2001). Readiness for self-directed learning, job characteristics, and workplace performance: An Australian sample. In H. B. Long & Associates, Self-directed learning in the information age. Schaumberg, IL: Motorola University (refereed CE ROM publication).
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31. Hall, J. K. (2000). Field Independence-Dependence and Computer Based
Instruction in Geography. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: (Dissertation).
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning and Instruction, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, M. G. & Wheatley, J. (2010). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. J. of Res. in Science Teach., 2
Joyce, B & Weil, M. 2009. Models of Teaching. (Edisi Terjemahan oleh Achmad Fawaid dan Ateilla Mirza. Yogjakarta: Pustaka Pelajar).
Karaman, S. & Celik, S. (2008). An exploratory study on the perspectives of prospective computer teachers following project-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 203-215. Kazu, I. Y., Kazu, H., & Ozdemir, O. (2005). The Effects of Mastery Learning
Model on the Success of the Students Who Attended “Usage of Basic Information Technologies” Course. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (4), 233-243.
Kramer, B. S., Walker, A. E., & Brill, J. M. (2007). The underutilization of information and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based learning among international educators: A Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development.
Korchin, S. J. (1986). Field Dependence, personality theory, and clinical research. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S, Wapner, (Eds.), field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 119-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lunyk-Child, O. I., Crooks, D., Ellis, P. J., Ofosu, C., O'Mara, L., & Rideout, E. (2001). Self-directed learning: Faculty and student perceptions. The Journal of Nursing Education.
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive style: Problem and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59-74
---, (1976). Individuality and Learning. San Francisco, California: Jossey – Bass Inc.
Miller, G. (1997). Are distance education programs more accepTable to field-independent learner? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 409854).
Murphy, H, J, (1997). Score on the group embedded figure test by undergraduates in information management. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1135-1138. Prashnig, B, (2007). The Power of Learning Style: Memacu anak melijitkan
prestasi dengan mengenali gaya belajarnya. Bandung. Kaifa.
Railsback, J. (2002). Project-based instruction: Creating excitement for learning. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
http://www.nwrel.org/request/2002aug/index.html*
Raven, M.R, Cano, J, Garton, B. L. & Shelhamer, V. (1993). A Comparison of learning Styles, Teaching Style, and Personality Styles of Preservice Montana and Ohio Agriculture Teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education. 31 (1). 40 – 50.
Simonson, M. R. (1985). Persuation: Five studies dealing with the relationships between media, attitudes, and learning style. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.256 337).
Surry, D. W. & Robinson, M. A. (2001). A taxonomy of instructional technology service positions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
Tillema, H. H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: immersion in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Ulfa, A., Sahputra, R., Rasmawan, R. (2014). The Effect of Group Investigation Learning Model Towards Science Process Skill For Colloids Topics in SMA Negeri 9 Pontianak. Education Research Article. Pontianak.
Pitoyo, A., Waluyo, H.J., Suwandi, S., Andayani. (2014). The Effect of Group Investigation Learning Model, Accelerated Learning Team and Role Playing on Elementary School Students’ Writing Skills viewed from Cognitive Style. Journal of Education and Practice. Surakarta.
Witkin, H, A, Raskin, E, & Karp, S, (1971). A Manual for The Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. http://www.lib.usm.my/press/SSU/Lourd/ (Retrieved Ogos 17, 2006).
Witkin, H, A. (1973). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. Paper presented at a symposium on Cognitive styles, Creativity and Higher Education. Sponsored by the Graduate Record Examination Broad, Montarial, Canada. Princeton, N.J: Educational testing Service, Research Bulletin 73 – 11.
Witkin, H. A, Moore, C.A, Goodenough, D.R & Cox, R.W, (1977). Field-dependent and field-inField-dependent cognitive style and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 1-64.
Yea-Ru Chuang. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: A study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement (Electronic version). Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Compute-Enhances Learning.
Yunos, Md, Rashid, M, Madar, R.A, (2007). Field-dependent-independent Students and Animation Graphic Courseware Based Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. MEDC Volume.
