WANT-LEARN) WORKSHEET ON CREATIVE THINKING IN SOLVED PHYSICS PROBLEMS
THESIS
ACCOMPLISHED BY:
SATRIA MIHARDI 8106175017
Submitted to The Physics Education Study Program In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements For The Degree of Magister Pendidikan
Physics Education Department
GRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
The Author was born on February 16th, 1987 in Marenda.
The Author is the second of five brothers by the name of
father is Ngatino S. and mother is Aswati. The Authors
start from SD Negeri 2 Peukan Bada, Banda Aceh. Then
continue to SLTP Negeri 2 Delitua, Medan and continue
to SMA Swasta Istiqlal Delitua, Medan. For high level
Education, Author entered into State University of Medan in Education Physics
Department in 2005 and finished study in 2010 with the minithesis titled "Pengaruh
Model Problem Based Instruction Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Listrik
Dinamis Di SMA Istiqlal Delitua T.P. 2009/2010" and has been published in the
Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Edition I, then The Authors continue education to graduate
level in Education Physics Departement in 2011 and completed the study S2 in 2013
with the Thesis titled “Effect of Project Based-Learning Model With KWL
ABSTRAK
Satria Mihardi. Pengaruh Model Project Based Learning Dengan Lembar Kerja KWL (Know-Want-Learn) Terhadap Berpikir Kreatif Pada Penyelesaian Masalah Fisika.
Studi Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengaruh model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL (Know-Want-Learn) terhadap Berpikir Kreatif pada penyelesaian masalah Fisika di Universitas Negeri Medan. Tujuan penelitian menganalisi perbedaan pada Berpikir Kreatif Siswa yang dicapai melalui model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL dan model Cooperative Learning dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika, menganalisis perbedaan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dengan tingkat Berpikir Divergen di atas rata-rata dan di bawah rata-rata dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika, dan menganalisi interaksi antara model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL dan model Cooperative Learning dengan tingkat Berpikir Divergen terhadap Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika. Jenis penelitian yang dilakukan adalah eksperimen-semu dengan desain dua grup pretes dan posttest pada populasi Mahasiswa Universitas Negeri Medan T.P 2012/2013 yang dipilih secara random dn dibagi menjadi dua kelas: kelas eksperimen dan kelas kontrol. Instrumen yang digunakan berupa soal Uraian dengan jumlah 5 (lima) soal yang telah diuji validitas dan reliabelitasnya. Setiap soal memiliki penilaian indikator Berpikir Divergen dan Berpikir Kreatif. Analisis data menggunakan uji Anava dua jalur untuk statistik parametrik dan Kruskall-Wallis untuk statistik non-parametrik jika sampel tidak berdistribusi normal atau homogen. Dari hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan Pertama, hasil menunjukkan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dengan model Project Based Learning lebih besar daripada model Cooperative Learning. Hal ini membuktikan adanya perbedaan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa yang dicapai melalui model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL dan model Cooperative Learning dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika. Kedua Second, hasil menunjukkan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dengan tingkat Berpikir Divergen di atas rata-rata lebih besar dibandingkan Berpikir Divergen di bawah rata-rata. Hal ini membuktikan adanya perbedaan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dengan tingkat Berpikir Divergen di atas rata-rata dan di bawah rata-rata dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika. Ketiga, secara umum hasil menunjukkan tidak adanya pengaruh Berpikir Divergen terhadap Berpikir Kreatif Siswa pada model Project Based Learning. Hal ini membuktikan adanya interaksi antara model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL dan model Cooperative Learning dengan tingkat Berpikir Divergen terhadap Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dalam menyelesaikan permasalahan Fisika. Dari perbedaan tersebut dapat dilihat pengaruh model Project Based Learning dengan lembar kerja KWL terhadap Berpikir Kreatif pada penyelesaian masalah Fisika.
ABSTRACT
Satria Mihardi. Effect of Project Based Learning Model with KWL (Know-Want-Learn) Worksheet on Creative Thinking in Solved Physics Problems.
This study research was aim to analyze effect of project based learning model with KWL worksheet on creative thinking in solved physics problems at State University on Medan. The aim of the research were analyzed the differences in creative thinking of Students through between the project based learning model with KWL worksheet and cooperative learning model to solved problems in physics, analyzed the differences in the creative thinking of students who have under average and above average category in divergent thinking to solved physics problems, and analyzed interaction between the Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model with the divergent thinking level in Student creative thinking to solved problems in Physics. The type of this research was quasy-experiment with two-group pretest and posttest design with the population in this research is all college in Undergraduated Education Physics of State University of Medan A.Y. 2012/2013 were randomly selected and divided into two classes: the experiment class and the control class. The instruments of the research was a essay test in higher order thinking with five item. Every item will be assessment for divergent thinking and creative thinking indicators. Analysis data would be using Anova Two ways for parametrics statistical and Kruskall-Wallis if sample is nonparametric sample distribution. From the result were concluded First, The result shown that Student creative thinking in project based learning model is greater than cooperative learning models. It proved there were different in creative thinking of Students through between the Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model to solved problems in Physics. Second, The result shown that Student creative thinking in above average Divergent Thinking was greater than under average Divergent Thinking in learning. It proved there were different in the creative thinking of Students who have Under Average and Above Average category in Divergent Thinking to solved Physics problems. Third, as generally result shown that DT wasn’t effect Student creative thinking in PjBL model. It proved there were any interaction between the Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model with the divergent thinking level in Student creative thinking to solved problems in Physics. From those different could be seen that the effect of project based learning model with KWL worksheet on creative thinking in solved physics problems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Author would like to express thanks to several persons. They are: Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., M.M as the head of Physics Education Department in UNIMED and Dr. Nurdin Bukit, M.Si as the secretary. They have given a lot of advice and guidance to finish this thesis. The Author also wishes to pass gratitude to Supervisor Prof. Dr. Mara Bangun Harahap, M.S and Dr. H. Ridwan A. Sani, M.Si who have kindly assisted in guiding, directing, revising, and correcting the organization or the concept of this thesis. May God bless Them.
The writer is indebted to all lecturers and tutors, who have given the valuable knowledge during to study in Physics Education Department of Graduate School in the State University of Medan (UNIMED).
Finally, the writer would like to thank to beloved parents, brothers, and sisters for their patience to let him continue study until finish this thesis. Also to all friend who gave supports. May God bless who ever has been given constructive suggestion for the shape of this thesis.
Medan, August 1st, 2013 The Author,
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.1.2. Know-Want-Learn (KWL) Worksheet 27 2.1.3. Model of Project Based Learning With KWL Worksheet 37 2.1.4. Cooperative Learning 38
2.1.5. Divergent Thinking 40
2.1.6. Creative Thinking 41
2.2. Conceptual Study 50
2.3. Research Hypothesis 51
CHAPTER III METHOD RESEARCH
3.1. Location and Time Research 52
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Research Result 71
4.1.1. Data Research Description 71 4.1.2. Hypothesis Test of Research 75 4.1.2.1. Result Creative Thinking on Learning Models 77 4.1.2.2. Result Creative Thinking on Divergent Thinking Levels 77 4.1.2.3. Result Creative Thinking on Interaction of Learning
Models and Divergent Thinking Levels 78
4.1.3. Observations 81
4.1.3.1. Assessment Work and Product 81
4.1.3.2. KWL Analyze 82
4.1.3.3. Assessment Project 82 4.1.3.4. Assessment Activity Learning 83
4.2. Discussion 83
4.2.1. Discussion of Student Creative Thinking on Learning Models 83 4.2.2. Discussion of Student Creative Thinking on Divergent
Thinking levels 84
4.2.3. Discussion of student Creative Thinking on Interaction
of Learning Models and Divergent Thinking Levels 84
CHAPTER VCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion 86
5.2. Recommendation 86
LISTS OF TABLE
Table Page
Table 2.1 Advantages, Weakness, And Solusion Problem of PjBL Model 17 Table 2.2 Role of Teachers And Students in Learning 19 Table 2.3 Differences PjBL And PBL 20 Table 2.4 Syntax of Project-Based Learning Model 22 Table 2.5 Description of Phase Student Activities 23 Table 2.6 Instructional Learning of Teaching Activity In Phase of PjBL 25 Table 2.7 Using KWL Chart In Learning 29 Table 2.8 The KWL In Action Learning 34
Table 2.9 Form of KWL Worksheet 36
Table 2.10 Explanation And Time Using of KWL Apply 37 Table 2.11 Syntax Model of Cooperative Learning 39 Table 2.12 Previous Research Model of Project Based Learning 47 Table 3.1 Determining Sample Size (S) From A Given Population (N) 53
Table 3.2 Group Designs 54
Table 3.3 Design Research 54
Table 3.4 Assessment Work And Product 56
Table 3.5 KWL Rubric 58
Table 3.6 Assessment Creativity of Project 58
Table 3.7 KWL Student Checklist 59
Table 3.8 The Project Rubrics 60
Table 3.9 Criteria for Assessing PjBL 61 Table 3.10 Assessment Rubrics of Creative Thinking 61 Table 3.11 Assessment Rubrics of Divergent Thinking 61 Table 4.1 Pretest Descriptive Experiment Class and Control Class 71 Table 4.2 Normality Tests of Pretest 72 Table 4.3 Homogeneity Test of Pretest 72 Table 4.4 Pretest Independent Sample T Test 73 Table 4.5 DT Score Descriptive Experiment Class and Control Class 73 Table 4.6 Posttest Descriptive Experiment Class and Control Class 74 Table 4.7 Normality Tests of Posttest 74 Table 4.8 Homogeneity Test of Posttest 75 Table 4.9 ANOVA Descriptive Variables Value 76 Table 4.10 ANOVA Analysis Between-Subjects Effects 76
LISTS OF FIGURE
Figure Page
Figure 3.1 The Study Designs Scheme 63
Figure 3.2 Hypothesis Designs 69
Figure 4.1 Interaction of Learning Model and Divergent Thinking Level 78
Figure 4.2 Assessment Work and Product 81
Figure 4.3 KWL Analyze 82
Figure 4.4 Assessment Project 82
LISTS OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1 Physics Syllabus Learning 97
2 Creative Thinking Test 120
3 Subject Matter 122
4 The KWL Worksheet 140
5 Assessment 142
6 Analysis Test 149
7 Instrument Assessment 153
8 Data Descriptive 155
9 Assessment Process 161
10 Documentation 164
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Background
Education is a support in creating the nation's progress and the countries.
This was seen at the education level of the people who becomes an assessment of
the human resources (HR) level of a country. The higher the human resources
level in a country considered the more developed countries. Assessment in human
resources level development can be seen in the attention to education in a country.
Attention may be the government roles in advancing the education of the nations
and states. Participation such as improving the quality of education, education
fundings, improving the educational facilities, and improving the education
competences.
Increased competence can be shown in making the media presentation of
learning material can be seen from the delivery of the techniques presented in the
media and activity learning. This competence has been given to Teachers in the
educational process at the university in growing up of a new generation of
Teacher. These competencies are required to be developed and adapted in the
learning process. In addition, a Teacher is expected to connect the learning
environment because the environment influences the learning process has its own
role in the development of Students. In addition to the application of the material
can be used as a Student can make the learning experience for the discovery of the
concept being taught. Fraser (2002) describes the relationship between the
environment and the learning process as an illustration of the variation in
comparing, evaluation, and applying learning as observation in assessment
learning outcomes.
In the teaching competence assessment can also be observed from the use
of media in learning and advance of creativity of Students. Media in learning that
can be used very many kinds. The media used can be as simple as a visual media,
multimedia by Purwandari and Fatta (2009), and the use of interactive multimedia
by Lucyana (2006). Learning outcomes achieved in harmony in improving
Students in learning. According to Muller (2008) use of media in learning can
significantly improve the ability and knowledge in serving and confirming the
initial conception of the Student.
Development of instructional media adapted to the development of
technology to present new things in teaching so as to attract interest from
Students. It can be seen from the use of ICT in learning that done by Jarosievitz
(2012) in Physics teaching methods combined in the project. In application,
activities more attractive by engaging multimedia and internet communication.
Student can awareness to making project from media ICT to applied of knowledge
to making material visualisation in Physics. It will be shown cretivity in Students
activities.
The using of instructional media and learning through environmental
adaptation of Students to be more creative and motivated in learning activities.
Roy (2007) explained that express complex thinking can be achieved by looking
at the environment and seek through the experience and views are obtained, which
can lead to creativity in line with the spirit of understanding and goals
achievement. In this case, Students can imagine, rational thinking, investigating,
and designing something in the imagination realize. This activity is scientific
knowledge in the values and assumptions of the Nature of Science (NOS) as
proposed Liang, et al, (2005). With these Students will be motivated and more
interested in learning because Student will feel that do have more meaning in life.
Even so, in learning activity at classroom as based on observations and
interviews of Students in Undergraduated Physics Education at State University of
Medan concluded that as long as the learning almost 80% Students are thinking
how can finished study as quickly, whereas motivation of Students have high
learning outcome in Physics learning but nothing support from learning to
creativity advance, espesially in creative thinking. Student learn Physics just with
following instruction from Teacher. Thus, Student can’t thinking in a divergent
like as examples given. In solving problem of material Physics, Students can
finished and solved it. But, Student rarely using another ways to solved it. This is
due to lack of direct awareness to solving project effectively and efficiently in
learning. It was shown with Student activity which less applied Physics concept in
real life problems. Student solved of task and problem test of Physics just for
getting pass of examination from Teachers.
In learning Physics theory, Student rarely thinking for advance creating
ability to making something a new idea or way innovation in solving concept
problem in Physics. Student just answer calculating of test but not understood of
problem as clearly. So that the creativity of Students is not reached and the pattern
of thinking is not systematic. Students are also arguments on the issues are rarely
a problem. While the Physics experiment observation, Student just following steps
in instruction of experiment. Student is rarely trained to making a new steps or
innovation in experiment. Student just trained to proved in experiment.
Therefore, researchers are seeking a learning model with media in learning
supported to enhance creative thinking in the learning of Physics so that Students
can make sense of learning and motivated to do in applying Physics in their life.
Based on consideration of the increased motivation and thinking ways of
Students, the appropriated model can reached is Project Based Learning (PjBL)
models. With PjBL Student will be trained to creative and innovative in learning.
In this case, PjBL can also improve Student’s creative thinking that can
lead to the creation or realization of the planned project. Hong, et al, (2010) states
that PjBL is a significant approach in enhancing the potential of changing the way
teaching and learning is passive to enable Students with the tools and media
support to improving learning outcomes. According Holubova (2008) PjBL has
advantages in this type of teaching on Student activities and opportunities to solve
multidisciplinary problems.
In addition, PjBL can be done in an environment outside of school, work
together to teach, train Students examined, using various tools, technologies, and
materials. This is confirmed ChanLin (2008) which states that it is important to do
PjBL implementation by integrating technology in learning as Students planning
methods, so as to facilitate the internalization of values and spirit of the methods
scientists to Students. Ravitz, et al, (2004) says that PjBL different models using
collaboration and research for the PjBL adopted on sharing, conduct evaluation or
contribute to a shared database. Bell (2010) stated PjBL as innovation in learning
approaches by Teachers with multiple strategies critical for success in the
twenty-first century. In this study Students are expected to control the learning through
inquiry properly, cooperative, collaborate, and create works from the reflection of
knowledge.
However according to Roessingh and Chambers (2011) had explained of
characteristics PjBL on professionallity Teachers services, support facilities,
capabilities, competencies, dispositions required to the make the successful
transition. On the other hand, Barron and Hammond (2007) stated PjBL as a
model to explore Students learning to real world problems, compete, and
collaborate in groups. In a study Mahanal, et al, (2012) PjBL proved effective in
improving attitudes, empowering attitude towards the environment, interaction in
groups, and learning outcomes. This is consistent with the conclusion Kurzel and
Rath (2007). In addition, Rillero and Zambo (2006) confirmed the increased
participation in science at the level of Teacher training on Student interest in
science at a low level. In this case, Doppelt (2003) indicate that technology can be
used as PjBL science at an elevation of Student motivation and self-image at all
levels. Kteily and Hawa (2010) also explained that the application of PjBL
Students through an extended process from inquiry in the face of a problem, a
complex question, and challenge.
To reached success in learning to PjBL according to Heo, et al, (2010)
there are two things to note. First, learning support in order to create quality of
Student interaction in learning. Second, the complexity of the project that made
the problems that formed the topic of shared knowledge. In this case, as Teachers
are expected to continue to maintain that Students remain on the right track,
because Students need a facilitator as a guide in determining the success and
motivation as the spirit to realize their project. However, the problems must be
planning and design. Not to mention if there is a failure in implementation, not all
groups can set up an existing project, and cost issues.
For that, use the Know-Want-Learn (KWL) worksheet as controlling the
activities to be more systematic and efficient use of time because it can focus
more on Student work. In addition, Teachers are expected to be able to give
encouragement, motivation, and facilitation of referrals when Students need it.
This is done so that Students are more excited that the results are expected to be
more optimal (Al-Khateeb and Idrees, 2010; Tucker, et al, 1997). KWL worksheet
is proven to streamline the use and effectiveness of performance based on
research Tucker, et al, (1997). According to Tucker, et al, (1997) to organize their
ideas Students must be exploration in hand writing, illustrations, and determine
for themselves the things that can assist them in connecting the ideas of settlement
of a problem, both personally and in groups. This is confirmed by Cassady, et al,
(2004) that the KWL is a self-report of what Students know and have learned,
whereas the anchor task provides a way for Students to demonstrate what Student
have learned. Moreover, KWL can be reach three-dimensional in learning ie
service learning, social issues, and content learning.
Besides PjBL, the divergent thinking can also enhance Student creativity
especially in a creative thinking. Students will be trained to think of the
possibilities that can be done to solve the problems faced with divergent thinking,
in particular the completion of the Physics issue. According to Awang and Ramly
(2008) creative thinking can be done by making some choices settlement obtained
from different perceptions, different concepts, different points of view in order to
vary the settlement method. Rosenblum, et al, (1970) concluded that the basis for
discussion in the conclusion might be described with the hypothesis results,
predicting both need for approval and anxiety to be negatively related to divergent
thinking, with interaction between need, for approval and anxiety on divergent
thinking, when originality was used. The results were obtained for Fluency,
Flexibility, or Combined of Divergent Thinking Scores.
The relationship between anxiety and originality approached significance
in the direction predicted. The need to measure creativity as comprehensively as
to divergent thinking was suggested.
Another means, according to Barlow (2000) on the structure of which is
presented on the level of intelligence of Guilford that divergent thinking is the
ability to do something with the memory access in discovering a large number of
ideas that matched a simply criteria. In this case, it is advisable to increased the
creativity is focused on the various divergent production skills there seems to be a
strong argument in favor of focusing upon the various skills related to
transformations, which would support the idea of focusing some attention upon
shifts in insight. This is confirmed by Rabari, et al, (2011) supports the evidence
from several theoretical viewpoints suggested a link between divergent thinking
and critical thinking, the creative attitude, and interaction with materials science.
However, it points to some Level of independence among various components of
the construct.
Based explanation Munro (2004) that creativity is seen as synonymous
with divergent thinking. But, the link between divergent thinking and convergent
thinking measured by the traditional intelligence is complex. The results obtained
with traditional tasks intelligence measures not indicate creative potential. The
creative thinking in science indicates some of the ways of thinking that have led to
creative outcomes. The creativity in science involves search combined with
recognition of patterns, enabling the use of information stored, evidence for the
thinking used. In otherwise, processes for creative production are indicated in
diaries, laboratory notebooks, and experiments. So, it takes the optimality in
directing and implementing PjBL in learning. Based on these problems
researchers are trying to get research on Effect of Project Based Learning Model
with KWL (Know-Want-Learn) Worksheet On Creative Thinking In Solved
Physics Problems at State University of Medan.
1.2 Problems Identification
Based on backgrounds that are identified as follows :
a. Students have high learning outcomes in Physics learning but nothing
b. Student learn Physics just with following instruction from Teacher. Thus,
Student can’t thinking in a divergent ways to create something.
c. Student activity which less Physics concept applied in real life problems.
d. Student rarely thinking for advance creating ability to making something a
new idea or way innovation in solving concept problem in Physics.
1.3 Problems Limitation
By considering the constraints of time, funds, and the ability of researcher,
this study is focused to:
a. Using of PjBL Model with KWL Worksheet which is comparing with
Cooperative Learning,
b. Divergent Thinking Level of Students which is different to be Under
Average and Above Average category, and
c. Student Creative Thinking to solved problem in Electrostatics materials at
State University of Medan.
1.4 Research Questions
Based on the backgrounds, identifications, and problem limitation then
study can be stated in the following questions of:
1. Are there differences in creative thinking of Students through between the
Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative
Learning model to solved problems in Physics?
2. Are there differences in the creative thinking of Students who have Under
Average and Above Average category in Divergent Thinking to solved
Physics problems?
3. Are there any interaction between the Project Based Learning model with
KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model with the divergent
The aim of the research are :
a. To analyze the differences in creative thinking of Students through
between the Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and
Cooperative Learning model to solved problems in Physics.
b. To analyze the differences in the creative thinking of Students who have
Under Average and Above Average category in Divergent Thinking to
solved Physics problems.
c. To analyze the interaction between the Project Based Learning model with
KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model with the divergent
thinking level in Student creative thinking to solved problems in Physics.
1.6 Operational Definition
To greater understanding of meaning about every word that is used in
operational research will be described in general as follows: “Cooperative
learning is a teaching model or strategy that is characterized by cooperative task,
goal, and reward structures, and requires students to be actively engaged in
discussion, debate, tutoring, and teamwork” (Arends and Kilcher, 2010:306).
“Project based learning (PBL) is a model that organizes learning around
projects, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in
design, problem-solving, decision making, or investigative activities; give
students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods
of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations.” (Thomas, 2000:1).
“KWL (Know-Want-Learn) Worksheet is a graphic organizer used to help
students predict and connect the new information with prior knowledge” (Ogle,
1986).
“Divergent thinking is recognized for its role in improving quality of life
generally and through scientific innovations, which involve creative application of
principles of basic sciences, such as Physics” (Rabari, et al, 2011:216).
“Creative thinking was initially believed as a talent possessed by
exceptional individuals, and much research was conducted asserting that such
1.7 Research Benefits
The benefits of this research is divided into two, namely :
a. Practical benefits, to provide input and information in the teaching of
Physics concepts with model of project based learning in Static Electrics
material and assist the process of learning to be greater.
b. Academic benefits, be material information regarding the development of
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the research with PjBL model for classroom experiments and the
cooperative model for the control class, then from the analysis data, and
hypothesis testing concluded as follow :
First, The result was shown that Student creative thinking in project based
learning model was greater than cooperative learning models. It proved there were
be different in creative thinking of Students through between the Project Based
Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning model to solved
problems in Physics.
Second, The result was shown that Student creative thinking in above
average DT was greater than under average DT to reach creative thinking of
student in learning. It proved there were be different in the creative thinking of
Students who have Under Average and Above Average category in Divergent
Thinking to solved Physics problems. From those difference could be seen that
the effect of project based learning model with KWL worksheet on creative
thinking in solved physics problems.
Third, as generally result was shown that DT wasn’t effect Student
creative thinking in PjBL model. It proved there were any interaction between the
Project Based Learning model with KWL Worksheet and Cooperative Learning
model with the divergent thinking level in Student creative thinking to solved
problems in Physics.
5.2 Recommendation
Based on the implementation, results, and conclusions of research,
researchers suggest for the next researcher who conducted the study with PjBL
model with KWL worksheet to subject which has more time in semester to get
study and recommended more attention to guiding students for work in groups
motivated to be active in groups to complete tasks with socializing. Beside it,
before to start of learning first time described and given examples how the
implementation and the results obtained so at the time of execution of students
already understand what to do and not take more time for phases other learning.
For next research about PjBL model, The Writer recommendationed to
other Researcher for don’t compare or using Divergent thinking to Project
Based-Learning models in analysis Student Creative thinking. It caused that
implementation PjBL with KWL worksheet had been giving same ways to
advance Students divergent thinking. Then, The Writer recommendationed
another variables like as Academic Success Skill, another thinking process, or the
Al-Khateeb, O. S. M. & Idrees, M. W. K. 2010. The Impact of Using KWL Strategy on Grade Ten Female Students' Reading Comprehension of Religious Concepts in Ma'an City. European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 12, Number 3 (2010). Taibah University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Allert, H., Dhraief, H. & Nejdl, W. 2002. Meta-Level Category ‘Role’ In Metadata Standards For Learning: Instructional Roles And Instructional Qualities Of Learning Objects, COSIGN 2002 - The 2nd International Problem-Based Learning: Pedagogy and Practice in the Engineering Classroom. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences 3:1 2008.
Baker, E., Trygg, B., Otto, P., Tudor, M. & Ferguson, L. 2011. Project-Based
Learning Model Relevant Learning For The 21st Century. Pacific
Education Institute, www.pacificeducationinstitute.org.
Barlow, C. M. 2000. Guilford's Structure of The Intellect. The Co-Creativity Institute; Glen Ellyn, Illinois; (630) 221-9456 barlow@cocreativity.com; www.cocreativity.com.
Barron, B. & Hammond, L. D. 2007. Teaching For Meaningful Learning: A Review Of Research On Inquiry-Based And Cooperative Learning Implementing Project-Based Learning Districtwide. Stanford University. Adapted From Edutopia Article, “River Journeys And Life Without Bathing: Immersive Education,” By Laura Scholes (May 15, 2007).
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. 1991. Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining The Doing, Supporting The Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
Buck Institute for Education, 2010. Project Based Learning Handbook: A Guide to Standards-Focused Project Based Learning, Second Edition. The Buck Institutes for Education’s Handbook for Project Based Learning.
Retrieved July 15, 2010. Accessed in
http://www.bie.org/index.php/site/PBL/pbl_handbook/
Cakmakci, G. & Tasar, M. F. 2010. Contemporary Science Education Research: Learning And Assessment A Collection Of Papers Presented At ESERA 2009 Conference. ISBN 9786053640332 © Copyright ESERA, 2010.
Capraro, R. M. & Slough, S. W. 2009. Project-Based Learning An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics (STEM) Approach. Published by: Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Http://www.sensepublishers.com. All Rights Reserved © 2009 Sense Publishers.
Carr, E., & Ogle, D. M. 1987. K-W-L Plus: A Strategy For Comprehension And Summarization. Journal of Reading, 30, 626-631.
Cassady, S., Leff, J., Stanley, L., Stern, M., Khatchadourian, L. T., Ukaha, S. & Roncalli, S. W. 2004. KWLs And Anchor Tasks: Assessing The Dimensions of Student Learning Through Service. California Study Group.
ChanLin, L. J. 2008. Technology Integration Applied to Project-Based Learning In Science. Department of Library & Information Science, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Hsin-Chuang, Taiwan. Innovations In Education And Teaching International. Vol. 45, no. 1, February 2008, 55–65. Email: lins1005@mails.fju.edu.tw. ISSN 1470-3297 © 2008 Taylor & Francis. Http://www.informaworld.com.
Doppelt, Y. 2003. Implementation And Assessment of Project-Based Learning In A Flexible Environment. International Journal of Technology And Design Education 13, 255–272, 2003. Science & Technology Youth Center, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel. E-mail: yaron@noar.technion.ac.il ©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed In The Netherlands.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., Helen & Hyun. 2012. How to design and evaluate
research in education 8th edition. McGraw-Hill, A Business Unit Of The
And Tomorrow. Curtin University of Technology, Australia.
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. 1962. Creativity And Intelligence: Explorations With Gifted Students. New York: Wiley.
Gibbs, S. 2003. Project-Based Online Learning By Steve Gibbs. A Classroom Connect Presentation San Antonio, Texas, October 2003.
Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. 1962. Creativity: Its Measurement And Development. In J. J. Parnes and H. F. Harding (eds.) A Source Book For Creative Thinking. New York: Scribners.
Guilford, J. P. 1966. Intelligence: 1965 Model. American Psychologist, 21, 20-26.
Guilford, J. P. 1968. Intelligence, Creativity, And Their Educational Implications. San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp. Guilford JP. Creativity. Am Psychol 1950; 5: 444-54.
Hadgraft, R. 2012. Project handbook 2012: Project based learning. Accessed in http://www.google.com/project+based+learning.pdf. Downloaded in PDF Files at http://pbworks.com.
Halliday & Resnick, 2008. Fundamentals of Physics, ed. 8th. Editor: Jearl Walker. Copynght @ 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Halliday, Resnick, & Walker, 2008. Study Guide to Accompany: Fundamentals of Physics, ed. 8th Condensed. Editor: Thomas E. Barret. Copynght @ 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Han, S. & Bhattacharya, K. 2001. Constructionism, Learning By Design, And Project-Based Learning. In M. Orey (ed.), Emerging Perspectives On Learning, Teaching, And Technology. Ebook Learning, Teaching & Technology, Michael Orey, Editor. Available Accessed In Website: http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/learningbydesign.htm
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y. & Kim, Y. 2010. Exploratory Study On The Patterns of Online Interaction And Knowledge Co-Construction In Project-Based Learning. Computers & Education Journal Homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Hong, J. C. 2007. The Comparison of Problem-based Learning (PmBL) Model and Project-based Learning (PtBL) Model. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, Coimbra, Portugal.
Hong, L., Yam, S. & Rossini, P. 2010. Implementing A Project-Based Learning Approach In An Introductory Property Course. 16th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference Wellington, New Zealand, January 2010. University of South Australia.
Jarosievitz, B. 2012. ICT In Physics Teaching For Secondary Schools And Colleges. Jarosievitz@gdf.hu. Dennis Gabor College SEK Budapest International School (Hungary). NPSE Journal 2012.
Kim, K. G. 2008. Meta-Analyses of The Relationship of Creative Achievement To Both IQ And Divergent Thinking Test Scores. Volume 42 Number 2 Second Quarter 2008.
Kirton, M. 1987. Adaptors And Innovators: Cognitive Style And Personality. In S.G. Isaksen (Eds). Frontiers Of Creativity Research: Beyond The Basics. Buffallo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Klein, J. I., Taveras, S., King, S. H., Commitante, A., Bey, L. C. & Stripling, B. 2009. A Guide To Project-Based Learning In Middle Schools: Inspiring Students To Engage In Deep And Active Learning. 52 Chambers Street, New york, New York 10007. NYC Department of Education.
Kovacs, M. 2011. Teaching And Learning Strategies For The Thinking Classroom A Sampler. Http://www.rwctic.org Or Charles Temple, Director Of Critical Thinking International (temple@hws.edu). http://www.criticalthinkinginternational.org. Copyright © 2011 Critical Thinking International.
Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities, Educational and Psychological Measurment. Vol. 30 : 607 – 610.
Kteily, R. & Hawa. 2010. The Effect of Project Based Learning And Student Engagement And Motivation: A Teacher Inquiry. Page: 1 – 7. Accessed in http://www.google.com/Article10.pdf
Support System For Project-Based Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 73–86.
Liang, L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M. & Ebenezer, J. 2005. Student Understanding Of Scientific Inquiry (Susi): Development And Validation of An Assessment Instrument. Paper Prepared For The Eighth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference (IHPST), Leeds, UK 2002.
Lucyana, M. 2006. Multimedia Interaktif Sebagai Media Pemelajaran Mata Pelajaran Praktik Mesin Listrik Sub Pokok Bahasan Pelilitan Ulang Motor Induksi 1 Fasa Di Smk N 4 Semarang. Mini Thesis. Semarang: Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES).
Mahanal, S., Darmawan, E., Corebima, A. D., & Zubaidah, S. 2012. Pengaruh Pembelajaran Project Based Learning (PjBL) Pada Materi Ekosistem Terhadap Sikap dan Hasil Belajar Siswa SMAN 2 Malang. Jurusan Biologi FMIPA Universitas Negeri Malang. Accessed in http:// www.google.com/1_susriyati_univ.negeri_malang.pdf
McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, Divergent Thinking, And Openness To Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258– 1265.
Mokaram, A. K., Al-Shabatat, A. M., Foong, F. S. & Abdallah, A. A. 2011. Enhancing Creative Thinking through Designing Electronic Slides. International Education Studies Vol. 4, No. 1; February 2011 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 39. Http:// www.ccsenet.org/ies.
Muller, D. A. 2008. Designing Effective Multimedia For Physics Education. Thesis. School of Physics University of Sydney, Australia.
Munro, J. 2004. Insights Into The Creativity Process Thinking Skills Models Of Creativity. Accessed in PDF Files.
Nurohman, S. 2008. Pendekatan Project Based Learning Sebagai Upaya Internalisasi Scientific Method Bagi Mahasiswa Calon Guru Fisika. Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
Ogle, D. M. 1986. K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading Of Expository Text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564-570.
Pearson. 2009. Physics. Pearson Education Canada. Editor: Chan, C. Http://www.google.com/09_PearsonPhysics_ch09.pdf.
Pereira, L. Q. 2002. Divergent Thinking And The Design Process. IDATER 99 Loughborough University, Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA.
Purwandari, E. & Fatta, H. A. 2009. CD Pembelajaran Berbasis Multimedia Untuk Mata Pelajaran Fisika Kelas 2 SMP. Yogyakarta: STMIK AMIKOM Yogyakarta. Accessed in http:// www.google.com/1.pdf
Rabari, J. A., Indoshi, F. C. & Omusonga, T. O. 2011. Full Length Research Paper Correlates Of Divergent Thinking Among Secondary School Physics Students. Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol. 2(3) pp. 982-996 March 2011. Available online@ http://www.interesjournals.org/ER Copyright © 2011 International Research Journals. Department of Educational Communication, Technology and Curriculum Studies, Maseno University, Kenya.
Ravitz, J., Mergendoller, J., Markham, T., Thorsen, C., Rice, K., Snelson, C. & Reberry, S. 2004. Online Professional Development For Project Based Learning: Pathways To Systematic Improvement. Running Head: Online Professional Development For Pbl Paper Presented At Meetings Of The Association For Educational Communications And Technology. October 21, 2004. Chicago, il. Buck Institute For Education And Boise State University.
Redish, E. F. 2002. Teaching Physics With The Physics Suite. University of Maryland.
Reed, O. 2009. Parent Information: The GATE Identification Process. Los Alamitos Unified School District Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) Program Rev. 2008.
Richardson, F. 2012. Comprehension and Learning Strategy Before, During and After Reading Comprehension Strategy. Navan Education Centre, Athlumney, Navan. National Behaviour Support Service. Email: nbss@ecnavan.ie. Web: www.nbss.ie.
Rillero, P. & Zambo, R. 2006. Science Fairs, Inquiry, And Project-Based Learning: Perspectives From Intel Educator Academy Participants. Arizona State University. August 31, 2006.
Teacher Preparation: Staking Out The Theoretical Mid-Ground. International Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher Education, 2011, Volume 23, Number 1, 60-71, ISSN 1812-9129. University of Calgary. Http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Rosenblum, N. D., Treffinger, D. J. & Feldhusen, J. F. 1970. The Effects of Need for Approval and General Anxiety on Divergent Thimking Scores. U.S. Department Of Health, Education & Welfareoffice of Education. Purdue University.
Roy, S. 2007. Creativity, Complexity And Physics Education. Queen’s University, Canada. Proceedings of 2007. The Complexity Science And Educational Research Conference. February 18–20, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Runco, M. A. 1992. Children’s Divergent Thinking and Creative Ideation. Developmental Review, 12, 233 – 264.
Shelley, A. C., Bridwell, B., Hyder, L., Ledford, N. & Patterson, P. 1997. Revisiting The K-W-L: What We Knew; What We Wanted To Know; What We Learned. Reading Horizons, 1997, Volume 37, #3, 233-242.
Siswono, T. Y. E. 2009. Level of Student’s Creative Thinking In Classroom Mathematics. Educational Research and Review Vol. 6 (7), pp. 548-553, July 2011. Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper. E-mail:
tatagyes@yahoo.com. Available Online At
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR. ISSN 1990-3839 ©2011. Accepted 8 January, 2009.
Smith, J. 1967. Setting Conditions For Creative Teaching In The Elementary School. Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon and Company.
SPSS Inc. 2008. SPSS Statistics Base 17.0 User’s Guide. http://www.spss.com. SPSS Inc., USA.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart T. I. 1995. Defying The Crowd: Cultivating Creativity In A Culture Of Conformity. Free Press, New York.
Sudjana, (1995), Metoda Statistik, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung
The Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. 2002. Program Design And
Torrance, E. P., & Safter, H. T. 1999. Making The Creative Leap Beyond. Hadley, MA: Creative Education Foundation Press.
Tucker, Tampa & Rey, H. 1997. Learning Strategies Resource Guide- Region Xiv Comprehensive Center Educational Testing Service 1979 Lakeside Parkway, Suite 400. Educational Testing Service Escort Center For Applied Linguistics Litton/Prc, Inc. Dream, Inc. David C. Anchin Center, University of South Florida.
Vangundy, A. 2005. 101 Activities For Teaching Creativity And Problem Solving. Copyright © 2005 By John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published By Pfeiffer An Imprint Of Wiley. 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741. www.pfeiffer.com.
Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. 1965. Modes of Thinking In Your Children: A Study of The Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinerhart & Winston.
Wallach, M. A. & Wing, C. W., JR. (1969). The Talented Student: A Validation Of Creativity-Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Wallach, M. A. 1970. Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s Manual Of Child Psychology, 1273 – 1365. New York: Wiley.
York, NY: ACM Press. Retrieved February 7, 2007, From Website
