DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom‟s Taxonomy of education Objectives. New York: Addisin Wesley.
Ball, D.L. & McDiarmid,G.W. (1990). “The Subject Matter Preparation of Teachers” Handbook of Research on Techer Educacation. A Project of Associate of Teacher Education
Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1999).The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement standards-based mathematics curricula.Kappan, 80, 503-512.
Beichner, R. J. (1996). “The Impact of Video Motion Analysis on Kinematics Graph Interpretation Skills”. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1272 – 1277.
Beichner, R. J. (1996). Test of Understanding Graph of Kinematics version 2.6
Beichner, R. J (1994).“Testing Students‟ Interpretation of Kinematics Graphs”. American Journal of Physics, 62 (8), 750 – 762.
Berland, L..& Reiser, B. (2009).“Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation”.Science Education. 93, 26 – 55.
Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). “Conceptualizations of Argumentation from Science Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for The Practices of Science Education”. Science Education, 92, 473 . 498.
Brooks, K. (2002). “Reading, Writing, and Teaching Creative Hypertext: A Genre-Based Pedagogy”. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 2 (3), 337–358.\
Carter, L. M. (1997). Arguments in Hypertext: Order and Structure in non-sequentialEssays. Disertasi pada University ofTexas, Austin.
Charles, M., Eliot R. S.,&Lousie, H. K. (1991). Research Methods in Social Relations: International Edition(6th ed).London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1987). “gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Team Design Deliberation”.Proceedings of Hypertext ‘87. Chapel Hill, NC: Association of Computing Machinery, 247- 268.
Cox Suzy (2006) A Conseptual Anallysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Department of Instructional Psychology &Technology Brigham Young University July 2006
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches( 2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dahar, R.W. (1989), Teori-Teori Belajar. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga
De Vries, E.,&De Jong, T. (1999). “The Design and Evaluation of Hypertext Structures for Supporting Design Problem Solving”. Instructional Science
27, 285–302.Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”. Science Education.84, 287-312.
Duke, K. (2005). Real-life Projects Energize Learning. Tersedia:
http://www.riviewjournal.com/wrg.home/2005/opinion/682710 [10 Januari 2012]
Duschl, R. (2008). “Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria”, dalam Erduran, S& Jiménez- Aleixandre, M. P (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 159 -169. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse”. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Eckstein, S. G., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1997). “Parallelism in the Development of Children's Ideas and the Historical Development of Projectile Motion Theories”.International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1057 - 1073.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). “TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin‟s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse”. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
padaThe Annual Conference of the Association of TeacherEducation in Europe, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Eylon, B., & Reif, F. (1984). “Effects of Knowledge Organization on Task Performance”.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 5-44.
Foltz, P.W. (1996). “Comprehension, Coherence and Strategies in Hypertext and Linier Text”, dalam Route, J.F (Ed) Hypertext and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ford, M. (2008). “Disciplinary Authority and Accountability in Scientific Practice and Learning”.Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
Frank, B.W. (2009). The Dynamics Of Variability In Introductory Physics Students’ Thinking: Examples From Kinematics. Disertasi pada University of Maryland
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Science Education, (5th Ed.) NY. McGraw – Hill, Inc.
Gerace, W. J. (2001) “Problem Solving and Conceptual Understanding”, dalam S. Franklin, J., Marx & K. Cummings (Eds) Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, 33 -45.New York: PERC Publishing, 33.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999a). “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Introduction and Orientation”, dalam J. Gess-Newsome& N. Lederman (Eds.) Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The Netherlands: Kluwer
Grinnel, Jr., R. M. (1988). Social Work Research and Evaluation. Illionis: F.E. Peacock Pub. Inc.
Grossman, P. L. (in press). “Subject Matter Knowledge and the Teaching of English”, dalam J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: The Teachers College Press.
Halliday,D.,Resnick, R.,& Walker,J. (2011). Fundamental of Physics(10th ed). Singapore:John Wiley & Sons, Ptc Ltd
Hasweh, M. (1987). “Effects of Subject-Matter Knowledge in the Teaching of Biology and Physics”.Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991).Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity, dalam L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. 331-348. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hayes-Roth, B. and Hayes-Roth, F. (1979) “A Cognitive Model of Planning”, Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310.
Heller, K & Heller, P. (2010). Cooperative Problem Solving in Physics A User’s Manual. Tersedia: http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed [10Januari 2011]
Heller, P & Hollabaugh, M (1992b). “Teaching Problem Solving Through Cooperative Grouping: Designing Problems and Structuring Groups”.American Journal of Physics, 60 (7). 637-644.
Hollabaugh, M. (1995). Cooperative Learning Groups, Disertasi pada The University of Minnesota
Ingraham, B. D. (2002). Scholarly Rhetoric in Digital Media.A Paper. Center forLifelong Learning, The University of Teesside, Middlebrough, UK. Tersedia: http//:www. acm.com. [5 April 2010].
Inherder, B & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic
Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext/hypermedia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). “Designing hypertext for learning”, dalam E. Scanlon & R. T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology, 123– 130. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). “Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem Solving Learning Outcomes”. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 45(1), 65-94.
Kelly, G. (2008). “Inquiry, Activity and Epistemic Practice”, dalam R. A. Duschl.,& R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation, 99-117. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers
Kolbs, D. (1995). Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy, Eastgate Systems, Cambridge. Tersedia: http://www.acm.com [6 Januari 2012]
Kuhn, D. (2010). “Teaching and Learning Science as Argument”.Science Education, 4(5), 810-824.
Lawson, A.E., Lawson, D. I., Lawson, C. A. (1984). Proportional Reasoning and The Linguistic Abilities Required for Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (2), 119–131.
Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Develpment of Thinking.Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lorenzo, M. (2005). “The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Problem Solving Heuristic”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 33-58
Magnusson, S., Krajcik , J. & Borko, H. (2002). “Nature, Sources, and Development of PCK for Science Teaching”, dalamJ. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds), Examining PCK: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education, 95 - 132. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
Mallia, G. (2009). “Hypertextual Processing and Institutional Change:Speculations on the Effects of Immersed New Media Users on the Future of Educational Institutions”.The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review2(3), 80- 97.
MacKay, R.S. (2008). Nonlinearity in Complexity Science. Mathematics Institute and Centre for Complexity Science. University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Maloney, D.P. (1994). “Research on Problem Solving: Physics”, dalam D.L. Gabel (Ed.)Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,327-354. NewYork: Macmillan.
Manurung, S.R., & Rustaman, N.Y. (2011). Laporan Field Study. Tugas Mata Kuliah Pengembangan Program Pedidikan IPA. Tidak dipublikasikan.
Martinez, M. E. (1998). “What is Problem Solving?, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 605-609.
Matlock- Hetzel, S (1997). “Basic Concepts in Item and Test Analysis”. Makalah pada the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin.
McDermott, L.C., Rosenquist, M.L&., van Zee, E.H. (1987). “Student Difficulties in Connecting Graphs and Physics: Examples from Kinematics”. American Journal of Physics, 55 (6), 503 513
McDermott, L.C. (1990). “A Perspective on Teacher Preparation in Physics and Other Science: The Need for Special Science Course for Teachers”. American Journal of Physics.58 (8), 734-742
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). “Curvilinear Motion in the Absence of External Forces: Naive Beliefs About the Motion of Objects”. Science, 210(4474), 1139-1141
Meltzer, D. E. (2002). “ The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gain in Physics: „ hidden variable‟ in Diagnostic Pretest Scores”.American Journal Physics. 70(12), 1259 -1267.
Meskill, C. (1996). Computers, Creativity and Communivative Competence: An Association Machine. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(2-3), 115 – 123
Nelson, T.H. (1987) Literary Machines.N.p.: Theodore Nelson.
Newmann, S. E. & Marshal, C. C. (1998). Pushing Toulmin Too Far: Learning from an Argument RepresentationScheme. Tersedia: http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/toulmin.pdf [5 April2012].
Nguyen, T-H.(2002). Hypertext Structure and Student’s Learning StrategiesTersedia: http//:www. acm.com. [5 April 2010].
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academic Press.
OECD, PISA 2006.Tersedia:
Piaget, J. (1964) The Development of Thought: The Equilibrtion of cognitive Structures, New York: Viking
Reif, F., Larkin, H., Brackett, C. (1976). “Teaching general learning and problem -solving skills”. American Journal of Physics,44, 212-217.
Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu. T (2008) “ThePlace of Subject Matter Knowledge in Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study of South African Teachers Teaching the Amount of Substance and Chemical Equilibrium”. International Journal of Science Education 30(10), 1365–1387
Sadler, T.D.,& Zeidler, D.L. (2005). “Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision- Making”.Journal of Research in Science Education, 42 , 112-138.
Santyasa, I. W. (2006). Pengembangan Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Fisika bagi Siswa SMA dengan Pemberdayaan Model Perubahan Konseptual Berseting Investigasi Kelompok.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). “Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions”. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
Sanders, L.R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). “Secondary Science Teachers‟ Knowledge Base when Teaching Science Courses in and Out of Their Area of Certification”. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 30(7), 723–736.
Schommer – Aikin, M. (2004). “Explaining the Epistemological Belief of System Introducing the Embeded systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach”. Educational Psychologist, 39(1).19-28.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the Structure of the Disciplines dalam I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays, 229-272. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seroto, J.(2012). “Student Teachers‟ Presentations of Science Lessons inSouth African Primary Schools: Ideal and Practice”. International Journal Education of Science, 4(2), 107-115.
on Educational Communications and Technology, (2nd ed), 605–620. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D.S. (in press). Learning from Hypertext: Research Issues and Findings, dalam D. Jonassen (Ed.)Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, (2nd ed), MacMillon
Shulman, L.S. (1986). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). “Learning to Teach Argumentation; Research and Development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260
Siregar, N., Rustaman, N. Y. & Hidayat, E.M. (1995).Studi Penerapan Pedagogi Materi Subjek dalam Penulisan Buku Teks MIPA untuk Mengembangkan Keterampilan Intelektual Mahasiswa FPMIPA IKIP Bandung.Penelitian IKIP Bandung: Tidak dipublikasikan.
Siregar, N. (1998). Penelitian Kelas: Teori, Metodologi, dan Analisis. Bandung: IKIP Bandung Press
Siregar, N. (2000). Penelitian Kelas dan Penelitian Pendidikan: Suatu Tinjauan Epistemologi. Mimbar Pendidikan
Siregar, N., & Dahar, R.W. (2000). “Pedagogi Materi Subyek: Suatu Upaya untuk Meletakkan Dasar keilmuan dari PBM”. Makalah pada Seminar Staf Dosen FPMIPA UPI.
Siregar, N., Kurnia., & Setiawan, Setiawan, W. (2009) . Pedagogi E-Learning: Antar-Muka Pembaca Sebagai Dasar. Penelitian FPMIPA UPI. Tidak dipublikasikan.
Smith, D. C.,& Neale, D. (1991). “The Construction of Subject Matter Knowledge in Primary Science Teaching”, dalam J. Brophy (Ed.) Advances in Research on Teaching, 2. London: JAI Press.
Smith, J. B., Weiss, S. F., & Ferguson, G. J. (1987). “A Hypertext Writing Environment and Its Cognitive Basis”, dalam Proceedings of Association forComputing Machinery‟s Hypertext.Tersedia: http//:www.acm.com. [10 Mei 2010]
Spiro, R., & Jehng, J. (1990). “Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Theory and Technology for The Non-Linear and Multi-Dimensional Traversal of Complex Subject Matter”, dalam Nix,D &Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, Education, Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, 163-205. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). “Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism and Hypertext:Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisitionin Ill-Structured Domains”. Tersedia: http://phoenix.sce.fct.unl.pt/simposio/Rand_Spiro.htm. [23 April 2012]
Tobin, Kenneth G.; Capie, William (1981) The Development and Validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 (2), 413-423
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk,T. & Kintsch,M. (1984). Strategis of Discourse Comprehension.New York: Academic Press
Van Driel, J. H.,& Verloop, N. (2002). “Experienced Teachers Knowledge of Teaching and Learning of Models and Modelling in Science Education”. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1255-1272.
Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2005). “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes”, Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145: 339-370.
Wenning, C. J. & Wenning, R. E. (2006). “A generic model for inquiry-oriented lab inpostsecondary introductory physics”. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online.3(3). 24-33. Available at: http://www.phy.ilstu. edu/jpteo
Whitaker, R. J. (1983). “Aristotle is not dead: Student Understanding of Trajectory Motion”. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 352-357.
