S KIM 1205424 Bibliography

(1)

99 Rahmi Sri Setyawati Dewi, 2016

PENGEMBANGAN PROTOTYPE BUKU TEKS PELAJARAN BERBASIS INTERTEKSTUAL PAD A MATERI ASAM BASA

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu|perpustakaan.upi.edu DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Abidin, Y. (2012). Pembelajaran membaca berbasis pendidikan karakter. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Ahtineva, A. (2005). Textbook analysis in the service of chemistry teaching. Universitas Scientiarum, 10, hlm. 25-33.

Apriyani, A. N. (2015). Profil model mental siswa pada sub-materi asam basa dengan menggunakan TDM-POE. (Skripsi). Departemen Pendidikan Kimia UPI Bandung.

Artdej, R. dkk. (2010). Thai Grade 11 students’ alternative conceptions for acid– base chemistry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28 (2), hlm. 167-183.

Aydin, S. dkk. (2014). Turkish, Indian, and American chemistry textbooks use of inscriptions to represent ‘types of chemical reactions’. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10 (5), hlm. 383-393.

Ayodele dan Olagoke, M. (2013). Reading ease of basic science materials and students’ learning outcome in junior secondary school. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 1 (2), hlm. 118-123.

Azizah, I. I. (2015). Pengembangan strategi pembelajaran intertekstual dengan POGIL pada materi asam basa untuk meningkatkan penguasaan konsep dan keterampilan proses sains siswa. (Skripsi). Departemen Pendidikan Kimia UPI Bandung.

Barke, H., Hazari, A., & Yitbarek, S. (2009). Misconceptions in chemistry. Berlin: Springer.

Bergqvist, A. dkk. (2013). Representations of chemical bonding models in school textbooks-help or hindrance for understanding?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, hlm. 589-606.

Bormuth, J. R. (1967). Cloze test procedure. Los Angeles: University of California

Brady, J. E., Jespersen, N. D., & Hyslop, A. (2012). Chemistry the molecular nature of matter. United State: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Brown, T. E., LeMay, H. E., & Bruce E. (2012). Chemistry: The central science. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

(2)

Rahmi Sri Setyawati Dewi, 2016

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu|perpustakaan.upi.edu

Chang, R. & Overby, J. (2011). General chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill

Chavkin, L. (2012). Readability and reading ease revisited: State-adopted science textbooks. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 70 (3), hlm. 151-154.

Damanhuri, M. I. M. dkk. (2016). High school students’ understanding of acid -base concepts: An ongoing challenge for teachers. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2016, 11(1), hlm. 9-27.

DEMÐRCÐOGLU, G. (2009). Comparison of the effects of conceptual change texts implemented after and before instruction on secondary school students’ understanding of acid-base concepts. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10 (2), hlm. 1-29.

Depdiknas. (2008). Panduan pengembangan bahan ajar. Jakarta: Dirjen Dikdasmen.

Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21 (3), hlm. 242-252.

Furió-Más, C. dkk. (2007). How are the concepts and theories of acid–base reactions presented? chemistry in textbooks and as presented by teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (11), hlm. 1337–1358.

Gegios, T., Salta, K., & Koinis, S. (2016). The Greek chemistry textbook and students' difficulties. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, hlm. 1-19.

Gilbert, J. K. & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Macro, submicro, and symbolic representation and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. Dalam Gilbert, J. K. & Treagust, D. F., Multiple representation in chemical education (hlm. 1-8). Boston: Springer.

Gkitzia, V., Salta, K. & Tzougraki, C. (2011). Development and application of suitable criteria for the evaluation of chemical representations in school textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, hlm. 5-14.

Hoe, K. Y. & Ramanathan, S. (2015). On the prevalence of alternative conceptions on acid-base chemistry among secondary students: Insights from cognitive and confidence measures. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, hlm. 263-282.

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry – logical or psychological?. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1 (1), hlm. 9-15.

(3)

chemistry: A case for the concepts of ph, poh, and strength. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, hlm. 555-574.

Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. (2016). Prototype. [Online]. Diakses dari http://kbbi.web.id/prototipe.

Kousathana, M., Demerouti, M. & Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Instructional misconceptions in acid-base equilibria: An analysis from a history and philosophy of science perspective. Science & Education, 14, hlm. 173-193.

Lin, J., Chiu, M., & Liang, J. (2004). Exploring mental models and causes of students’ misconceptions in acids and bases. National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of Science Education, hlm. 1-12.

Mc.Clary, M. & Bretz, L. B. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (15), hlm. 2317–2341.

Mulyono. (2015). Handout perkuliahan perencanaan pembelajaran kimia. Bandung: Departemen Pendidikan Kimia FPMIPA UPI

Nyachwaya, J.M., dan Wood, N. B. (2014). Evaluation of chemical representations in physical chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, hlm. 720-728.

Nurhayati, T. (2009). Pengembangan strategi pembelajaran intertekstual pada materi asam basa kelas XI. (Skripsi). Departemen Pendidikan Kimia UPI Bandung.

Österlund, L., Berg, A., & Ekborg, M. (2010). Redox models in chemistry textbooks for the upper secondary school: Friend or foe?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, hlm. 182–192.

Oxford Dictionaries. (2016). Prototype. [Online]. Diakses dari http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prototype.

Paik, S. H. (2015). Understanding the relationship among Arrhenius, Brønsted-lowry and Lewis theories. Journal of Chemical Education, 92 (9), hlm. 1484-1489.

Petrucci, R. H. dkk. (2011). General chemistry: Principles and modern application. Toronto: Pearson Canada Inc.

(4)

Prastowo, A. (2011). Panduan kreatif membuat bahan ajar inovatif. Yogyakarta: DIVA Press.

Ramnarain, U. & Joseph, A. (2012). Learning di_ﬃculties experienced by grade 12 South African students in the chemical representation of phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, hlm. 462–470.

Readability Formulas. (2016). The Fry graph readability formula. [Online]. Diakses dari http://www.readabilityformulas.com/fry-graph-readability-formula.php.

Rosmaini. (2011). Keterbacaan buku teks. Medan : Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni Universitas Negeri Medan.

Saeed, M. & Rashid, S. (2014). Alignment between chemistry curriculum and textbooks at secondary level. The Sindh University Journal of Education, 43, hlm. 29-46.

Șendur G., Toprak, M., & Pekmez, E. S. (2011). An analysis of analogies used in secondary chemistry textbooks. Procedia Computer Science, 3, hlm. 307– 311.

Sesen, B.A. & Tarhan, L. (2011). Active-learning versus teacher centered instruction for learning acids and bases. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29 (2), hlm. 205–226.

Silberberg, M. S. (2007). Principle of general chemistry. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4 (2), hlm. 2-20.

Sitepu, B. P. (2012). Penulisan buku teks pelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Souza, K. A. F. D & Porto, P. A. (2012). Chemistry and chemical education through text and image: Analysis of twentieth century textbooks used in Brazilian context. Science & Education, 21, hlm. 705–727.

Stojanovska, M., Petruševski, P. M., & Šoptrajanov, B. (2014). Study of the use of the three levels of thinking and representation. CONTRIBUTIONS, Section of Natural, Mathematical and Biotechnical Sciences MASA, 35 (1), hlm. 37– 46.

(5)

Sukmadinata, N. S. (2012). Metode penelitian pendidikan. Bandung: Rosdakarya Offset.

Suryadi, A. (2007). Tingkat keterbacaan wacana sains dengan teknik klos. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 10, hlm. 196-200.

Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, hlm. 156-168.

Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamiala T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representation in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (11), hlm. 1353-1368.

Tümay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: Emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemical Education Research and Practices, 17, hlm. 229-245.

Tuysuz, M. dkk. (2011). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, hlm. 452–455.

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. (2015). Pedoman penulisan karya ilmiah. Bandung: UPI Press.

Whitten, K.W. dkk. (2004) General chemistry 7th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.

Wu, H. K. (2002). Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences intertextuality in a high school science classroom. Wiley Periodical, hlm. 868-891.

Yong, B. C. S. (2010). Can students read secondary science textbooks comfortably?. Brunei International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2 (1), hlm. 59-67.

Yunita, N. (2013). Implementasi strategi pembelajaran intertekstual pada materi asam basa kelas XI. (Skripsi). Departemen Pendidikan Kimia UPI Bandung.