THE EFFECT OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TOWARD STUDE NT ’S HI GH ER O RDE R TH INKING S KILL I N
DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY SUBJECT MATTER AT SMA RAKSANA MEDAN A.Y. 2014/2015
By : Kristin Natalia T ID Number. 4113322005 Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eliglible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMNET
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iv
PREFACE
Praise to God Almighty for all His bless and grace so that the study can be completed well in accordance with the planned time. This thesis titled "The Effect of Discovery Learning Model Student’s Toward Higher Order Thinking Skills in Dynamic Electricity Subject Matter at High School a giant field Academic Year 2014/2015". It’s requirement of a Bachelor's degree in Physical Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan.
In this moment I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, MS., M.M. as thesis supervisor who has provided guidance and advice to the author since the beginning of the writing of the proposal until the end of this thesis. Thanks also submitted to Prof. Dr. Nurdin Bukit, M.Si as a lecturer comparison I, Sir Alkhafi Maas Siregar, M.Si as a lecturer comparison II, and Mam Rita Juliani, S.Si., M.Si as comparison lecturer III. Thanks also to Drs. J H Panggabean,, as academic lecturer and to all the faculty and staff employees of the Department of Physics Faculty Unimed who have helped me to finish this thesis. Thank you to Mr. H. Situmorang as Headmaster in SMA Raksana Medan that has allowed the authors to conduct research.
The author has tried as much as possible in the completion of this thesis, but the authors recognize there are still many weaknesses in terms of content, as well as grammar, author needs any suggestions and constructive criticism from readers for the perfection of this thesis. This thesis would be beneficial to the reader.
Medan, June 2015 Writer
iii
THE EFFECT OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TOWARD STUDENT’S HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILL IN
DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY SUBJECT MATTER AT SMA RAKSANA MEDAN
A.Y. 2014/2015 Kristin Natalia T
ABSTRACT
This study aims to analyze the effect of discovery learning model toward student’s higher order thinking skill. The type of this research was quasi experimental, with experiment class used discovery learning and control class used conventional learning. The population was all of the tenth class of SMA Raksana Medan academic year 2014/1015 which consist of seven classes. Sample was taken with a simple random sampling technique. The data in higher order thinking skill was collected by essay tests. Data were analyzed with t test. The result of the study showed that there was positive effect of discovery learning model toward student’s higher order thinking skill in experiment class or given by discovery model. It proved from posttest result in experiment class was higher than control class or there was significant difference of post test score, although in higher order thinking level, both of class still in less level, but student who given discovery learning had higher value than control class.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Approval Sheet i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Preface iv
Table of Contentv i
Figure List viii
Table List ix
Appendix List x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Identification 4
1.3 Problem Limitation 4
1.4 Problem Formulation 4
1.5 Purpose of Research 5
1.6 Research Benefit 5
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework 6
2.1.1 Learning 6
2.1.2 Learning Theory 7
2.2 Discovery Learning Model 7
2.2.1 Definition Discovey Learning 8
2.2.2 Concept Discovery Learning 9
2.2.3 Characteristic of Discovery Learnng 10
2.2.4 Application Procedure Discovery Learning Model 10
2.3 Conventioanl Learning 12
2.3.1 Teaching Methods 13
2.3.2 Answer Question Method 13
2.3.3 Assesment Method 13
2.3.4 Material Center 14
2.4 Scoring 14
2.5 Learning Outcomes 15
2.5.1 Cognitive Domain 16
vii
2.6.1 Current 19
2.6.2 Potential Difference 20
2.6.3 Ohm’s Law 20
2.6.4 Series Circuit 21
2.6.5 Kirchhoff’s Law 24
2.6.6 Electric Power 25
2.7 Relevant Research 26
2.8 Conceptual Framework 27
2.9 Hypothesis 27
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Location 28
3.2 Population and Sample Research 28
3.2.1 Population of Research 28
3.2.2 Sample of Research 28
3.3 Research Variable 28
3.3.1 Independent Variable 28
3.3.2 Dependent Variable 28
3.4 Type and Research Design 28
3.4.1 Type of Research 28
3.4.2 Design of Research 29
3.5 Research Instrument 29
3.5.1 Instrument of Higher Order Thinking Skill Test 29
3.5.2 Validity Test 31
3.6 Research Procedure 32
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques 33
3.7.1 Average Mean 33
3.7.2 Standard Deviation 34
3.7.3 Normality Test 34
3.7.4 Homogeneity Test 35
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test 35
CHAPTER IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Processing and Data Analyze 39
4.2 Testing and Data Analyse 41
4.2.1 Average Value and Standard Deviation 41
4.2.3 Homogeneity Test Data 42
4.3 Hypothesis Test 43
4.3.1 Hypothesis Test for Pre Test 43
4.3.2 Hypothesis Test for Post Test 44
4.4 Higher Order Thinking Skill 44
4.5 Discussion 46
CHAPTERV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 49
5.2 Suggestion 49
ix
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1 Table of Discovery Learning Phase 10
Table 2.2 Table of Relevant Research 26
Table 3.1 The Design of Research 29
Table 3.2 The Specification of Higher Order Thinking Skill 30 Table 3.3 Scorinf System Higher Order Thinking Skill 30 Table 4.1 Data Pretest Experiment Class and Control Class 39 Table 4.2 Data Posttest Experiment Class and Control Class 40
Table 4.3 Mean and Standard Deviation 41
Table 4.4 Normality Test Experiment Class and Control Class 42
Table 4.5 Test Homogeneity Data 43
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1 Discovery Learning Model Cycle 12
Figure 2.2 Difference Between Bloom’s Txonomy and Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised 18
Figure 2.3 Charge Moves Past a Fixed Point 20
Figure 2.4 Series Circuit 21
Figure 2.5 Parallel Circuit 22
Figure 2.6 Series Parallel Circuit 23
Figure 2.7 Series Circuit 23
Figure 2.8 Parallel Circuit 24
Figure 2.9 Kirchhoff’s Circuit 24
Figure 3.1 The Overview of Research Planning 33
x
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan I 52
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan II 59
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan III 68
Appendix 4 Worksheet I 76
Appendix 5 Worksheet II 79
Appendix 6 Worksheet III 82
Appendix 7 Test Specification 85
Appendix 8 Test of Higher Order Thinking Skill 96
Appendix 9 Validity Test 98
Appendix 10 Higher Order Thinking Skill Data Experiment Class 101 Appendix 11 Higher Order Thinking Skill Data Control Class 105
Appendix 12 Normality Test 109
Appendix 13 Homogeneity Test 112
Appendix 14 Hypothesis Test 114
Appendix 15 Research Document 118
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In performing activities of daily life, people cannot be separated from the process of thinking hence to survive in the ever-changing circumstances, uncertain, and the competitive, they must have the ability to acquire, select, and process information. This capability requires critical thinking, systematic, logical, and creative and has a willingness to cooperate effective that can be obtained from the learning process in schools.
Therefore, in the learning process, students should be trained in the skills of thinking, especially higher order thinking skill. Higher order thinking skills are very important to be integrated in any subjects, including physics lessons in high school.
Higher order thinking skill is thinking at a higher level than just memorize facts or say something to someone exactly like something that was delivered to us. King et al. assumed that higher order thinking skills include critical, logical, reflective, metacognitive, and creative thinking. They are activated when individuals encounter unfamiliar problems, uncertainties, questions, or dilemmas.
2
more meaningful, therefore children will not easily forget to formulas and concepts of Physics.
According to one of the International Study on students' cognitive abilities are TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) conducted by the IEA (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).TIMSS 2011 results in the field of physics shows Indonesia gained 397 value, this value is below the international average is 500. The data indicates that the absorption of learners in learning in physics education. Based on the results ofTIMSS, it can be said that the students' ability to think critically Indonesia is still low
Researcher has observed that higher order thinking skill in physics lesson is low. Students in X just reached 62 score in final examination physics lesson. Student in XI achieve score 60, then student in XII just reached 62. Those are average score student reached in final physics examination. It’s too far from absolute score (KKM) 75 who students must reached. In addition, students are not familiar to solve physics problems in divergent question. According to the students, they only solve problem that had already given by teacher. Teacher use conventional learning from beginning till end of learning process, teacher just use question and answer, discussion tends to procedural and more emphasis on learning outcomes, instead of the understanding of the concept. Students learn in accordance with the examples who given by teacher and an example in the book. The questions were given to students only convergent questions that directly use the existing formula. Hence, students do not have the opportunity to develop the creativity and productivity of thinking, it makes when teacher give divergent question in final examination, student can’t reach out good score.
with a domain, and inferring rules from the results of reviews these experiments. The basic idea of this kind of learning is that learners can design because reviews their own experiments in the domain and infer the rules of the domain themselves they are actually constructing reviews their knowledge. Because of reviews these constructive activities, it is assumed they will understand the domain at a higher level than when the necessary information is just presented by a teacher or an expository learning environment (Joolingen.1999). The use of this model is expected to increase students learn on cognitive outcomes compared to taught by conventional learning.
Research of models with the type of discovery has been made by Yurahly et al. (2014) in SMA N 4 Palu, the results showed that the average value of the experimental class students 6.7% higher than the control class. Putrayasa et al. (2014) founded the average value of students who learned by discovery model was 79.39, while the average value of a class of students who follow the conventional learning was 70.51. Balim (2009) obtained data that the students of class VII of the Public Elementary School in Turkey who used discovery model was 71.17 while students who used conventional learning had 67.03 average values. Yang et al. (2010) conducted a study in Taiwan's elementary education obtain data that discovery class obtain an average value 57.63 while the class who do conventional model was 46.41.
From the research conducted, Yang et al. (2010) revealed that the discovery learning is benefit to the students in the medium and high performance level, but for the low performance were less used. This weakness was also founded by Putrayasa et al. (2014) that the discovery model is more effective to students who have high desire to learn while for students who lack interest in learning takes a long time to implement this model. Likewise, Yurahly et al. (2014) found that the model need more time because this model need mature of teacher as be facilitator and a good motivator.
4
guided the students' difficulties in solving problem, but also other factors associated with the learning process.
Based on the description above, the researchers felt compelled to examine and investigate more about the various factors and problems faced by students in physics with the title: "The Effect of Discovery Learning Model Toward Student’s Higher Order Thinking Skills in Dynamic Electricity Subject Matter at SMA Raksana Medan Academic Year 2014/2015".
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on the background, the identification of problems research are: 1. Physics learning process is teacher center.
2. The low student higher order thinking skill. .
3. The lack of analytical ability of students to the problems of physics. 4. The use of methods or models of teaching are less varied.
1.3 Problem Limitation
Based on the identification, the authors limit this problem, those are: 1. Learning model used is the Discovery Model.
2. Subject matter that will be present is Dynamic Electricity to student at SMA Raksana Medan in 10thgrade student.
3. Analysing student higher order thinking skill.
1.4 Problem Formulation
Based on the problem definition, the problem formulations in this research are: 1. How is student higher order thinking skill using Discovery Learning Model in
Dynamic Electricity subject matter to 10th grade student semester II at SMA Raksana Medan?
3. Is student higher order thinking skill using Discovery Learning Model better than using Conventional Learning in Dynamic Electricity subject matter to 10th grade student semester II at SMA RAKSANA Medan?
1.5 Purpose of Research
The purpose of this study at SMA Raksana Medan in Dynamic Electricity subject matter to student in 10th grade are :
1. To analyze student higher order thinking skill using discovery learning model. 2. To analyze student higher order thinking skill using conventional learning on. 3. To analyze which one is better, student higher order thinking skill in discovery
model or conventional learning.
1.6 Research Benefit
After research is complete, the expected benefits of this research are:
1. Student mastery and likely study about physics because students can pull out, thinking, researching, hypothesized, discuss and conclude physics lessons. 2. As input for physics teachers in an effort to use the model in physics learning
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion
1. Higher Order Thinking Skill student who given Discovery Learning Model on Dynamic Electricity Topic in X grade at SMA Raksana Medan Semester II A.Y. 2014/2015 have initial ability 4.2 and after student given treatment, there is 41.1% increased level of thinking processes to be 44.3 2. Higher Order Thinking Skill student who given Conventional Learning
that only have 31.96% and initial ability 5.6 increased to 37.56.
3. There is positive effect of Discovery Learning Model to Student’s Higher Order Thinking Skill because the value of post test in experimental class is higher than control class, that is 44.3 and 37.56 with tcount> ttable = 2.59 > 1,667 withα = 0,05, therefore, the both value is not significant.
5.2. Suggestion
Based on conclusion, there are suggestion to next researcher, they are :
1. For the next researcher who wants to study discovery learning model, will be better if motivation prior to students who will present discussion to improve confidence in the students because it is not all students are ready to present discussion results when the number of its members was called by the teacher.
2. Attention to the use of time in learning process for each phase, because it requires a lot of time, especially when students try to find their own information in experiment and discussion group.
3. For teacher will be better if using vriaety model moreover discovery learning to improve student knowledge.
REFFERENCES
Balim, A. G., (2009), The Effects of Discovery Learning on Students Success and Inquiry Learning Skills, Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 35,1-20.(Retrieved February 2015)
FHHST, (2005), A Textbook for High School Students Studying Physics. Free Software Foundation
Gulo,W., (2002), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT Grasindo, Jakarta. Hewitt, G., (2006), Conceptual Physics, Pearson Addison Wesley, America.
Hosnan, M., (2014), Pendekatan Saintifik dan Kontekstual Dalam Pembelajaran Abad 21, Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor.
Joolingen, V.W., (1999), Cognitive Tools for Discovery Learning, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 10, 385-397.(Retrieved December 2014)
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, (2013),Model Pembelajaran Penemuan, Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Jakarta.
Krathwohl, D. R, (2002), Theory into Practice (Volume 41), Ohio, College of Education The Ohio State University.
King, F.J., Ludwika, G., & Faranak, R., (2015), Higher Order Thinking Skill, A Publication of Educational Service Program.
Lefrancois, G. R., (1997), Psychology for Teacher (9th ed), Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Majoribanks, K., (1991), The Foundation of Students Learning, Pergamon Press, Australia.
Matondang, Z., (2013),Statistika Pendidikan, Unimed Press, Medan.
Mayer, R., (2004), Should There be a Three Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning, Journal American Psychological Association, Inc, Vol. 59, No. 1, 14–19.(Retrieved January 2015)
Popham, W.J., & Kenneth, A.S., (1973), Educational Statistics Use and Interpretation, Harper & Row Publisher, New York.
51
Resnick, L.B., (1987), Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Russo, R., (2003),Statistic for the Behavioural Science, Psychology Press, USA. Sadirman., (2009), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, PT Grafindo,
Jakarta.
Stephens, L., (1998), Schaum’s Outline of Theory and Problem of Bennning Sattistics, McGraw Hill, America.
Sudjana., (2005),Metode Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Travers, R.M., (1977), Essentials of Learning, Macmillan Publishing Co Inc, New York.
Trianto., (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Kencana, Jakarta.
Utari, R., (2009),Taksonomi Bloom, PT Graffindo, Jakarta.
Yang, E., Calvin, L., Emily, C., Tina, C.,& Tak Wai, C,. (2010), The Effectiveness of Inductive Discovery Learning in 1:1 Mathematics Classroom, Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Taiwan, (1) 743-747. (Retrieved January 2015)
Yurahly, D., I Wayan, D., & Darsikin., (2014), Model Pembelajaran Guided Discovery dan Direct Instruction Berbasis Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa SMA Negeri 4 Palu, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Tadulako, Vol. 2 No. 2ISSN 23 383 240.(Retrieved January 2015)
Essentials Teaching., retrieved January from :
http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-revised/
Kompas., retrieved January from:
