DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Ambross, J.N. (2011). A Case Study of the Implementation of Science Process Skills for Grades 4 to 7 Learners in Natural Sciences in a South African Primary School. Johannesburg: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Arikunto, S. (2011). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Ashkenazi, G & Zimrot, R. (2007). Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: A Tool for Exploring and Enhancing Conceptual Change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), hlm. 197 – 211.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan. (2006). Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: BSNP.
Bao, L. (2006). Theoretical Comparison of Average Normalized Gain Calculations. American Journal of Physics, 7(10), hlm. 917 – 922.
Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming Student Learning With Classroom Communication Systems. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 3, hlm. 1 – 13.
Brown, D. (2014). Tracker 4.84. [Online]. Diakses dari
http://www.opensourcephysics.org.
Chang, W. (2002). Interactive Teaching Approach in Year One University Physics in Taiwan: Implementation and Evaluation. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1), hlm. 1 – 23.
Churukian, A.D. (2002). Interactive Engangement in an Introductory University Physics Course: Learning Gains and Perceptions. (Disertasi). Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Crouch, C, dkk. (2004). Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment? American Journal of Physics. American Association of Physics Teacher.
Dahar, R.W. (1996). Teori-teori Belajar. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Daluba, N.E & Mama, R.O. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of The Effect of Greeno Problem Solving and Demonstration Teaching Methods on
David, H. (1996). Misconceptions or P-Prims: How May Alternative Perspectives of Cognitive Structure Influence Instructional Perceptions and Intentions?. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 5(2), hlm. 97 – 127.
Demirci, N. (2005). A Study About Students’ Misconceptions in Force and Motion Concepts by Incorporating a Web-Assisted Physics Program. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), hlm. 40 – 48.
Dori, Y.J & Belcher, J. (2005). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning
Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism
Concepts?. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 14(2), hlm. 243 – 279.
Dufresne, R.J, dkk. (1996). Classtalk: A Classroom Communication System For Active Learning. Journal of Computing In Higher Education, 7, hlm. 3 – 47.
Dufresne, R.J, dkk. (2000). Assessing Student Knowledge With Instructional Technology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Physics Education Research Group.
Eryanti. (2012). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Konstruktivisme dengan Pendekatan Keterampilan Proses Sains untuk Meningkatkan Penguasaan Konsep dan Keterampilan Berkomunikasi Siswa pada Konsep Hormon. (Tesis). Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change
Discussions on Students’ Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), hlm. 1001 – 1015.
Eryilmaz, H. (2004). The Effect of Peer Instruction on High School Students’ Achievement and Attitudes Toward Physics. (Tesis). The Middle East Technical University, Istanbul.
Escalada, L.T. (1995). An Investigation on The Effect of Using Interactive Digital Video in a Physics Classroom on Student Learning and Attitudes. (Tesis). Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Fisher, K. (2010). Technology-Enabled Active Learning Environments: An Appraisal. Paris: OECD.
Fraenkel, J.C., and Wallen N.E. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, inc.
Guemez, J, dkk. (2009). Toys in Physics Lectures and Demonstrations – A Brief Review. Physics Education, 44(1), hlm. 53 – 64.
Harcharan, P. (2000). Science Activities and Ideas, Experiencing Science Process Skills. Edmonton: CMASTE, University of Alberta.
Harvard – Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (2001). Science in Focus: Force and Motion. Burlington: Anneberg/CPB.
Hestenes, D, dkk. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, hlm. 141 – 158.
Jalaludin, D. (2009). Penggunaan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah dengan Pendekatan Inkuiri Terbimbing untuk Meningkatkan Penguasaan Konsep Listrik Dinamis dan Kecakapan Ilmiah Siswa SMA. (Tesis). Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung.
Johnson, D & Brock, M. (2009). Using Learning Progressions to Develop and Implement an Inquiry Model for Force and Motion at K-5 Level, The Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference. Iowa City.
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), hlm. 212 – 218.
Maftei, G. (2011). The Interactive Teaching Methods – The Vectors of Success In Learning Physics, The 6th International Conference On Virtual Learning, hlm. 160 -166.
Marusic M & Slisco J. (2012). Increasing The Attractiveness of School Physics: The Effect of Two Different Designs of Physics Learning. Revista Mexicana de Fisica, E(58), hlm. 75 – 83.
Mazzolini, A.P, dkk. (2010). Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Enhance Student Learning in Electronics, proceedings of The 2010 AaeE Conference, Sydney, hlm. 417 – 422.
Meltzer, D.E & Thornton, R.K. (2012). Active-Learning Instruction In Physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), hlm. 478 – 496.
Monaghan, J.M & Clement, J. (2000). Algorithms, Visualization, and Mental
Models: High School Students’ Interactions With a Relative Motion Simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(4), hlm. 311
– 325.
Mualem, R & Eylon, B.S. (2007). “Physics With A Smile” – Explaining Phenomena With A Qualitative Problem-Solving Strategy. The Physics Teacher, 45, hlm. 158 – 163.
Panggabean, L. (1996). Penelitian Pendidikan. Bandung : Jurusan Pendidikan Fisika FPMIPA UPI.
Panggabean, L. (2001). Statistika Dasar. Bandung : Jurusan Pendidikan Fisika FPMIPA UPI.
Picard, R.W, dkk. (2004). Active Learning – A Manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), hlm. 253 – 269.
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of The Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), hlm. 223 – 231.
Pundak, D, dkk. (2009). Instructors’ Attitude Toward Active Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, hlm. 215
– 232.
Rahmawati. (2014). Tes PISA Higher Order Thinking Contextual Assessment, Bimbingan Teknis Sosisalisasi PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). Surabaya: Puspendik.
Sabatka, Z. (2009). Interactive Physics Laboratory for High School Students (Experiences and Teachers’ Opinions). WDS ’09 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, Part III(hlm. 252 – 257).
Shieh, R.S, dkk. (2011). Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) in Introductory Physics: Impact On Genders and Achievement Levels. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), hlm. 1082 – 1099.
Sokoloff, D.R. (2012). Active Learning of Introductory Optics: Strategies for The U.S. and Develoving World. Latin American Journal of Physics Education. 6(1), hlm. 16 – 22.
Sokolof, D & Thornton, R. (2004). Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: Active Learning in Introductory Physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sudjana, N & Ibrahim. (2010). Penelitian dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo.
Tebabal, A & Kahssay, G. (2011). The Effects of Student-Centered Approach in
Improving Students’ Graphical Interpretation Skills and Conceptual
Understanding of Kinematical Motion. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 5(2), hlm. 374 – 381.
Temizkan, D. (2003). The Effect of Gender on Different Categories of Students’ Misconceptions About Force and Motion. (Tesis). Middle East Technical University, Istanbul.
Terenzini, P.T, dkk. (2001). Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture Discussion:
Turker, F. (2005). Developing a Three-Tier Test to Assess High School Students’ Misconceptions Concerning Force and Motion. (Tesis). The Middle East Technical University, Istanbul.
