HE EFFEC OF SCIENIFIC INQUIRY LEARNING MODEL
BASED ON CONCEPUAL CHANGE ON PHYSICS
COGNIIQE COMPEENCE AND SCIENCE
PROCESS SKILL (SPS) OF SUDENS
A SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
A hesis
Submitted to he Physics Education Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Pendidikan
By:
FEBRIANI HASINI NASUION
Registration Number: 8136175006
POSGRADUAE SCHOOL
SAE UNIQERSIY OF MEDAN
FEBRIANI HASTINI NST (Reg. Number: 8136175006) The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change on Physics Cognitive Competence and Science Process Skill (SPS) of Students at Senior High School.
The purpose of this study was to analyze is physics cognitive competence and science process skill of students using scientific inquiry learning model based on conceptual change better than using conventional learning. The research type was quasi experiment and two group pretest-posttest designs were used in this study. The population was Class XI MS1 and XI MS2 with the totaling of sixty two students. The sample was the entire population. The instruments in this research were essay test for physics cognitive competence of students and observation sheet for science process skill of students. The essay instrument has been validated and fulfilled the requirements of validity and reliability of test. Based on the data tabulation obtained the mean of physics cognitive competence of students in experimental class was 72.97 and 54.97 in control class, the mean of science process skill of students in experimental class was 79.66 and 63.97 in control class. Based on the hypothesis testing can be concluded that physics cognitive competence and science process skill of students using scientific inquiry learning model based on conceptual change was better than using conventional learning.
ABSTRAK
FEBRIANI HASTINI NST (NIM: 8136175006) Efek Model Pembelajaran Scientific Inquiry Berbasis Conceptual Change Terhadap Kemampuan Kognitif Fisika dan Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa SMA.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis apakah kemampuan kognitif dan keterampilan proses sains siswa menggunakan model pembelajaran scientific inquiry berbasis conceptual change lebih baik daripada pembelajaran konvensional. Jenis penelitian ini adalah quasi eksperimen dengan desain two group pre-test and post-test. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah kelas XI MS1 dan XI MS2 yang berjumlah 62 orang. Sampel dalam penelitian adalah seluruh populasi. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalah berupa tes essay untuk kemampuan kognitif fisika siswa dan lembar observasi untuk keterampilan proses sains siswa. Instrument essay telah memenuhi syarat validitas dan reliabilitas tes. Melalui pengolahan data diperoleh nilai rata-rata kemampuan kognitif fisika siswa pada kelas eksperimen adalah 72.97 sedangkan pada kelas kontrol adalah 54.97, nilai rata-rata keterampilan proses sains siswa pada kelas eksperimen adalah 79.66 sedangkan pada kelas kontrol adalah 63.97. Melalui pengujian hipotesis dapat disimpulkan bahwa kemampuan kognitif fisika dan keterampilan proses sains siswa menggunakan model pembelajaran scientific inquiry berbasis conceptual change lebih baik daripada pembelajaran konvensional.
CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
n the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, Alhamdulillah all praises belongs to Almighty Allah, the Lord of the worlds and prayers and peace be upon Muhammad His servant and messenger.
First and foremost, must acknowledge my limitless thanks to Allah, the Ever-magnificent, the Ever-Thankful, for His help and bless by giving me the opportunity, courage and enough energy to carry out and complete the entire thesis work titled “The Effect of Scientific nquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change on Physics Cognitive Competence and Science Process Skill (SPS) of Students at Senior High School” submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Pendidikan Fisika Postgraduate School in State University of Medan.
am grateful to some people, who worked hard with me from the beginning till the completion of the present research and have assisted me throughout the completion of this research. Thus, wish to acknowledge my appreciation to certain people, they are:
1. The Rector State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd. 2. The Director Postgraduate School State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. H.
Abdul Muin Sibuea, M.Pd.
3. The Head of Physics Education Study Program, Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., M.M., as my first supervisor and Dr. Ridwan Abdullah Sani, M.Si., as my second supervisor for their excellence advice and encouragement from the beginning till the completion of this thesis.
4. The Secretary of Physics Education Study Program, Prof. Dr. Nurdin Bukit, M.Si., as my first examiner, Dr. Derlina, M.Si., as my second examiner and Dr. Eva Marlina Ginting, M.Si., as my third examiner, for their comments on this thesis and advice on the completion of this thesis.
5. Dr. Karya Sinulingga, M.Si., and Dr. Makmur Sirait, M.Si., as the instrument validator.
4
7. The principle and teachers in SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Medan, for their helping in this research.
8. My beloved parents; H. Jumroddin Nasution, S.Sos., and Syahri Banun Harahap, and also to my beloved sisters and brothers Nurhidaya Fithriyah Nasution, M.Pd., Rahimah Nasution, Amd., Bripda Muhammad Syukur Nasution., and Muhammad Syukri Nasution, for their generous support they provided me throughout my entire life and particularly through the process of pursuing the master degree because of their unconditional love and prayers, so have the chance to complete this thesis.
9. All my beloved friends in Postgraduate School Year 2013, especially Class A (Regular) Physics Education Study Program, who have been so supportive along the way of doing my thesis.
The author has endeavored to as much as possible in completing this thesis, but the author is aware there are many deficiencies, drawbacks in terms of both content and grammar, then the authors welcome any suggestions and constructive criticism from readers for this thesis perfectly. The author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge and education.
Medan, 2015
Author,
Febriani Hastini Nst
ABLE OF CONENS
2.2.. Physics Cognitive Competence of Students 4
2.2... The Knowledge Dimension 4
2.2..2. The Cognitive Process Dimension 2
2.2.2. Science Process Skill 24
2.2.2.. Definition of Science Process Skill 24
2.2.2.2. Benefits of Process Skill 25
2.2.2.3. Process Skills in Science Process Skill 2n 2.3. Factors that Affect the Learning Outcomes 32
2.4. Learning Theory 34
2.5. Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual 38 Change
3.. Location and Time of Research 64
6
3.4. Type and Design of Research 65
3.5. Procedure of Research 66
3.9. The Testing Result of the Research Test Instrument n2
3.9. Validity of Test n2
3.9.2 Reliability of Test n3
3.0. Techniques of Data Analysis n4
3.0.. Descriptive Analysis n4
3.0.2 Inferential Analysis n4
3.0.2.. Determine the Mean and Standard Deviation n4
3.0.2.2. Normality Test n5
3.0.2.3. Homogeneity Test n6
3.0.2.4. Hypothesis Test nn
CHAPER IV RESUL OF SUDY AND DISCUSSION 80
4.. Result of Study 80
4... Pre-test 80
4.... Pre-test of Students’ Physics Cognitive Competence 80
4..2. Post-test 83
4..2.. Post-test of Students’ Physics Cognitive Competence 83 4..2.2. Data of Students’ Science Process Skill (SPS) 88
4..3. Analysis of Data 94
4..3.. Normality Test of Post-test 95
4..3.2. Homogeneity Test of Post-test 9n
4..3.3. Hypothesis Testing 98
CHAPER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESION 119
5.. Conclusions 9
5.2. Suggestios 9
REFERENCES 121
ist of Figure
Page
igure 2.1 Basic ramework for Conceptual Change 40 Science Teaching
igure 2.2 The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning Model 46 igure 3.1 Scheme of Research Procedure 67 igure 4.1 Bar Chart of Physics Cognitive Competence Pre-test Data 81
in Experimental and Control Class
igure 4.2 Bar Chart of Physics Cognitive Competence Post-test 84 Data in Experimental and Control Class
igure 4.3 Bar Chart of Each Category in Physics Cognitive 88 Competence in Experimental and Control Class
igure 4.4 Bar Chart of SPS Observation in Experimental and 89 Control Class
igure 4.5 Bar Chart of Each SPS Indicator Observation in 94 Experimental and Control Class
0
ist of Appenoices
Page
ppendex 1 Lesson Plan 124
ppendex 2 Students’ ctevety Sheet 145
ppendex 3 Competence Test of SPS 156
ppendex 4 Observateon Sheet of Students’ SPS 163
ppendex 5 Rubrec of SPS 165
ppendex 6 Pre-test and Post-test of Students’ Cogneteve en Experemental Class 167 ppendex 7 Pre-test and Post-test of Students’ Cogneteve en Control Class 168 ppendex 8 The Result of Cogneteve Pre-test en Experemental Class 169
ppendex 9 The Result of Cogneteve Pre-test en Control Class 170
ppendex 10 The Result of Cogneteve Post-test en Experemental Class 171
ppendex 11 The Result of Cogneteve Post-test en Control Class 172
ppendex 12 Students’ SPS en Experemental Class 173
ppendex 13 Students’ SPS en Control Class 174
ppendex 14 The Result of SPS (Meeteng I) en Experemental Class 175
ppendex 15 The Result of SPS (Meeteng II) en Experemental Class 176 ppendex 16 The Result of SPS (Meeteng III) en Experemental Class 177
ppendex 17 The Result of SPS (Meeteng I) en Control Class 178
ppendex 18 The Result of SPS (Meeteng II) en Control Class 179
ppendex 19 The Result of SPS (Meeteng III) en Control Class 180
ppendex 20 Observateon Result of SPS en Experemental Class 181
ppendex 21 Observateon Result of SPS en Control Class 182
ppendex 22 The Percentage Of SPS Observateon Result of Each Indecator en 183 Experemental Class
ppendex 23 The Percentage Of SPS Observateon Result of Each Indecator en 183 Control Class
ppendex 24 Output of Normalety and Homogeneety Test of Pre-test data 184
ppendex 25 Output of Pre-test data Testeng 186
ppendex 26 Output of Normalety and Homogeneety Test of Post-test Data 187 ppendex 27 Output of t test Physecs Cogneteve Competence Post-test 191
ppendex 28 Output of t test Of SPS Post-test 192
ppendex 29 Output of Instrument Valedety 193
ppendex 30 Output of Instrument Releabelety 195
ppendex 31 Documentateon of Research 196
ppendex 32 The Result of Students’ ctevety Sheet I 200
ppendex 33 The Result of Students’ ctevety Sheet II 204
ppendex 34 The Result of Students’ ctevety Sheet III 207
1.1. Background
Science is a cumunative and endness series of empirican observations which
resunt in the formation of concepts and theories. Concepts and theories being
subject to modification in the night of further empirican observation, thus science
is both a body of knownedge and a process of acquiring it (Frederic Fitzpatrick in
Kumari & Rao, 2008). One branch of science is physics which nearns about
naturan phenomenon systematicanny and has big rones in knownedge and
technonogy. The structure of physics knownedge anso obtains empiricanny method
thus make students to acquire conceptuan and proceduran knownedge and henp
them to devenop and understand the practican appnications of physics to a wide
variety of other fiends.
Studying physics is not onny focusing to the facts, naw, theory, principne,
modens, and mastery the formunas but anso focus to understand the basic concepts.
Concepts are abstract or psychonogican constructs that represent ideas or notions
that a nearner uses in reasoning and thinking. They constitute the generan toons of
inquiry used in making sense of the wornd and are the most significant infnuence
in nearning. In physics, nearner’s existing concepts are known to have a profound
infnuence on how phenomena is interpreted, and nearners draw on these concepts
in making predictions and expnaining what they see and experience in the wornd.
Studying physics anso requires more than just nearning about the products of
2
science process skinn which nay the foundation for scientific inquiry. The science
process skinns describe the actions or active doing within
the cunture of science that students can devenop through practice and provide
benefits to the cnassroom that extends beyond science nearning. Too much content
can stifne student interest, whereas paying too much attention to the process skinns
can distract students from nearning the substantive ideas within science. It might
imagine the punn in opposite directions, to one side is the attraction of having
students activeny invonved in working with materians whine the other side is the
desire for students to master essentian scientific concepts. Thus, teachers, in terms
of supporting their students’ science nearning are channenged to achieve a banance
between science concepts and process skinns. Were teacher to teach without
devenoping students’ abinities to use the process skinns, teacher wound be teaching
not science but actuanny some other odd subject that has nittne renationship to the
cunture of science (Settnage & Southernand, 2007).
Based on the observation and interview resunt from Physics teacher at SMA
Muhammadiyah Medan obtained students’ nearning outcomes in cognitive
domain is stinn in now neven because they are stinn ness abinity to sonve the probnems
renated to the physics concept and they are mostny concerned to the formuna and
cancunation. Thus, students fent so difficunt to appny what they have known in their
dainy nife situation. This is indicated from physics means grades of students before
remedian in academic year 204/205 is 69, this average vanue has not achieved
KKM, that is 70.
Moreover, students’ science process skinn is anso in now neven which is
meant nearning physics just theoreticanny. Learning which faminiarized conducts
by teacher are direct instruction and cooperative nearning where methods are
nectured, discussion, investigation and mapping concept. But, ann this modens have
not conducted as the phases of each moden. This condition make students have not
faminiarized to find knownedge by themsenves through scientific inquiry, thus
students cannot provide expnanations based on evidence. Furthermore, students
have not trained to observe, infer, ask, interpret, cnassify, predict, communicate,
make a hypothesis, pnan, appny concepts and principnes and generanize thus
students are stinn ness abinity in observing, inferring, questioning, interpreting,
cnassifying, predicting, communicating, making hypothesis, pnanning, appnying
concepts or principnes, and generanizing.
The skinns can be enhanced through the preparation of synnabus for physics
naboratory courses that incnude now cost materians instead of naboratory equipment
(Hırça, 203). Furthermore, science process skinns winn increase students’
achievement and scientific creativities (Aktamis & Ergin, 2008). Moreover, the
science process skinns anso can be improved by I-diagram (Karamustafaoğnu,
20). From this study reported that the skinns in which the student teachers are
neast successfun are ypotesizing, identifying and controlling te variables, and
interpreting data. Making experiment is their most successfun skinn among the
integrated process skinns.
Most of student’s difficunties in nearning physics are not caused by nacking of
their understanding because they often come to schoon with anready formed ideas
on many topics, incnuding how they view and interpret the wornd around
4
ideas scientists have which denivered in the cnass. At one point in time, might have
dismissed their expnanation as simpny wrong. This is cause some difficunties and
errors in understanding the science concept. It is no surprise that regardness of
their content, these views winn be highny resistant to change. Change and form
students’ understanding winn be difficunt because what their obtained have been as
their habit and based on personan experiences.
Teacher needs nistening to how nearner expnain their understanding because
that’s not possibne that their ideas are certain nogics, therefore it is inappropriate to
dismiss their thinking as errors that simpny need to be corrected. As the resunt,
teacher need to devenop nearning that wound move nearners away from their initian
ideas so they became anigned with accepted scientific expnanations. This naben
suggests that students are using evidence to support their expnanation and in that
way is consistent with the actions within the cunture of science. This kind of
nearning is canned as conceptual cange.
Conceptual cange refnects the desire to have students discard naive concepts
about the wornd in favor of expnanations that are more scientificanny accurate. A
conceptuan change guides student to buind knownedge after the experiment is over
conceptuan change requires that students discover improved knownedge that
moves them cnoser to the understanding of scientist. The purpose of conceptual
cange is henping students to change their non-scientific preconceptions. It has
been found that by expnicitny recognizing the discrepancy between their current
beniefs and the scientific ones (experience), students can be motivated to change
their current beniefs (Bao et an., 203). Besides, conceptual cange nearning has
203). Then, conceptual cange become as an anternative source materian for
students and science teacher Şahin & Çepni (20).
The new conception must be sensibne and non-contradictory, its meaning
must be understood by the nearner (intennigibne) and it must be benievabne
(pnausibne) and usefun in sonving other probnems (fruitfun). Thus, preconceptions
and conceptions introduced through teaching are seen as competing in terms of
status in regard to intennigibinity, pnausibinity and fruitfunness, in a process
mediated within the nearners’ epistemonogican commitments or conceptuan econogy
(Tounmin in Heywood & Parker, 209).
One of the common instructionan strategies to foster conceptual cange is to
confront students with discrepant events that contradict their existing conceptions.
Students have to undergo the process of accepting, using and integrating the new
concepts into their nives and even appnying them to new conditions. To seek ways
to channenge thinking about the awareness of students’ ideas is through scientific
inquiry learning model because this moden is the best viewed as a process of
conceptual cange.
Inquiry refers to the activities of students in which they devenop knownedge
and understanding of scientific ideas, as wenn as an understanding of how
scientists study the naturan wornd. Through this nearning, students activeny
construct their own understanding of the wornd as a resunt of their experiences and
interactions thus annowed students to function at a much higher neven of though
(Kanman, 2008).
Scientific Inquiry is one type of inquiry nearning which refers to the diverse
6
on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific Inquiry designed to teach the
research system of a discipnine, but anso expected to have effects in other domains,
socionogican methods may be taught in order to increase socian understanding and
socian probnem sonving (Schwab in Joyce & Wein, 2003).
In scientific inquiry learning model, students are guided by teachers to
understand physics and to henp them become participants within the cunture of
science. Moreover, scientific inquiry learning model winn henp students to devenop
critican thinking abinities and enabnes students to think and construct knownedge
nike a scientist (Ani & Sencer, 202K Bao et an., 203). Thus, understandings of
scientific inquiry are benieved to be critican and essentian components of the
modern day battne cry of “scientific niteracy” (Lederman et an., 203). The
scientific inquiry anso has significant effect on the student’s achievement to appny
the concepts of physics in rean situations, Dumbrajs et an. (20) and Hussain et
an. (20). Furthermore, the Inquiry-Based Science Teaching enhance students’
science process skinns and attitudes toward science where the skinns are observing,
comparing and classifying, inferring, predicting, measuring, recording and
interpreting, formulating models, constructing tables of data and graps,
experimenting, defining operationally, formulating ypoteses, identifying and
controlling variables Ergün et an. (20) and Turpin (2004).
Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual Cange winn make
nearners to reanny nearn the science concepts. The inquiry investigations capture
their interest and generate for them evidence about the naturan wornd and
conceptuan change henps them master the scientific ideas that expnain the evidence
science teaching because students actuanny restructure their knownedge (Settnage &
Southernand, 2007).
Based on the expnanation described above, the author interested to
conduct research which titned is The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning
Model Based on onceptual hange on Physics ognitive ompetence and
Science Process Skill (SPS) of Students at Senior High School”.
1.2. Identification of Problem
Based on probnem background presented above, the identifications of
probnem in this research as fonnows:
. The physics cognitive competence and science process skinn (SPS) of
students is stinn in now neven
2. Student has not trained to observe, infer, ask, interpret, cnassify, predict,
communicate, make hypothesis, pnan, appny concepts and principnes, and
generanize through Scientific Inquiry
3. Physics nearning has not given the opportunity to student for using
scientific understanding that make student can provide expnanations based
on evidence
4. Learning physics stinn focusing to the fact, naw, theory, principne, modens,
and mastery the formunas
5. Students feen so difficunt in nearning science because of nacking their
pre-existing concept which is often different with the ideas of scientists
6. Learning which is appnied has not made students finding concepts activeny
8
1.3. Scope of Problem
In accordance with the identifications of probnem, the scopes of probnem in
this research are:
. This research winn study physics cognitive competence of students
2. This research winn study science process skinn (SPS) of students
1.4. Formulation of Problem
Based on the scopes of probnem, the formunations of probnem contained in
this research are:
. Is students’ physics cognitive competence using Scientific Inquiry
Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than using
Conventionan Learning
2. Is students’ science process skinn (SPS) using Scientific Inquiry Learning
Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than using Conventionan
Learning
1.5. Objective of Research
Referring to the formunations of probnem, the objective to be achieved in this
research are:
. To ananyze is students’ physics cognitive competence using Scientific
Inquiry Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than
2. To ananyze is students’ science process skinn (SPS) using Scientific Inquiry
Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than Conventionan
Learning
1.6. Benefit of Research
The benefits of this research are:
. For Schoon: can provide good information and donations in order to
improve the nearning process and schoon quanity through increased
students’ achievement and professionanism of teachers working
2. For Teachers: for consideration in senecting or integrating a variety of
appropriate nearning moden cnass, especianny in physics nearning
3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during
the nearning process takes pnace, so it can improve nearning outcomes and
provide a fun nearning experience
4. Researcher: As an input, and increase knownedge for the researcher as
candidate for future in the impnementation of Scientific Inquiry Learning
9 HAPTER V
ONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. onclusions
Based on the study results and discussion several conclusions are obtained:
. The mean of students’ physics cognitive competence in experimental class
was 72.97 with the standard deviation of 9.0 while in the control class
the mean of students’ physics competence was 54.97 with the standard
deviation of 2.93. Based on the hypothesis testing obtained that Students’
Physics Cognitive Competence Using Scientific Inquiry Learning Model
Based on Conceptual Change was better than Using Conventional
Learning.
2. The mean of students’ science process skill in experimental class was
79.66 with the standard deviation of 0.83 while in the control class the
mean of students’ science process skill was 63.97 with the standard
deviation of .09. Based on the hypothesis testing obtained that Students’
Science Process Skill Using Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change was better than Using Conventional Learning.
5.2. Suggestions
The suggestion in this research is divided by two, practical and suggestion
5.2.1. Practical Suggestion
. It takes a good predicting capability to explore the understanding of
students in solving a given problem in implementing Scientific Inquiry
Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change.
2. Suggested to be wise in the management of stage in Scientific Inquiry
Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change to achieve the improvement
of students’ physics cognitive competence and science process skill.
3. Suggested to implement the Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change to improve students’ learning outcomes
5.2.2. Suggestion for Further Researcher
. The effects of other methods, techniques, and models improving students’
physics cognitive competence and science process skill (SPS) can be
investigated and examined
2. By performing the Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change, the effects with different variables can be investigated
2 EFEENCES
Ali, M. & Sencer, M. 202. Scientific Inquiry based Professional Development Models in Teacher Education. ducational Sciences: Theory & Practice, Volume 2, Number , 54-52.
Anderson, O.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. 200. A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Assessing. United States: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Arends, R.I. 202. Learning to Teach, Ninth dition. Americas, New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar - Dasar valuasi Pendidikan disi Revisi. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Badlisyah, T. 203. Penerapan Model Mengajar Menginduksi Perubahan Konsep (M3PK) Simson Tarigan dan Cooperative Learning Tipe STAD dengan menggunakan multimedia berbasis computer dalam meningkatkan sikap toleransi dan hasil belajar larutan penyangga pada siswa kelas XI MAN. Tesis Pendidikan Kimia.
Bao. 203. Affective Factors in STM Learning and Scientific Inquiry: Assessment of Cognitive Conflict and Anxiety, Special Issue of Research on ducation Assessment and Learning. Ohio: Department of Physics, Ohio State University.
Cook, J.L. & Cook, G. 2005. Child Development, Principles & Perspective. Boston: Pearson.
Cronbach, L. 2006. ducational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Dumbrajs, S. 20. Towards Meaningful Learning Through Inquiry. urasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry ducation, Volume 3, Number , 39-50.
Ergül, Remziye. 20. The Effect of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching on Elementary School Students’ Science Process Skills and Science Attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science and ducation Policy (BJSP), Volume 5, Number , 48-68.
Gallavara. 2008. Learning Outcomes: Common Framework-Different Approaches to valuation Learning Outcomes in the Nordic Countries. Helsinki: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
Hamalik, O. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Hewitt, G. 2006. Conceptual Physics Tenth dition. San Francisco: Pearson Addison Wesley.
Hussain, A., Azeem, M., Shakoor, A. 20. Physics Teaching Methods: Scientific Inquiry Vs Traditional Lecture. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Volume , Number 9, 269-276.
Heywood, D. & Parker, J. 200. The Pedagogy of Physical Science. London: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Hırça, Necati. 203. The Influence of Hands on Physics Experiments on Scientific Process Skills According to Prospective Teachers’ Experiences. uropean J of Physics ducation. Volume 4, Issue , -9.
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. 2003. Models of Teaching, Fifth dition. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.
Kalman, C. S. 2008. Successful Science and ngineering Teaching: Theoretical and learning Perspective. Canada: Springer.
Karamustafaoğlu, Sevilay. 20. Improving the Science Process Skills Ability of Science Student Teachers Using I Diagrams. urasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry ducation, Volume 3, Number , 26-38.
Kennedy. 202. Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a practical Guide.
Kenny, N. & Desmarais, S. 20. A Guide to Developing and Assessing Learning Outcomes at the University of Guelph. University of Guelph.
Kumari, U. N. & Rao, D. B. 2008. Science Process Skills of School Students. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House PVT. LTD.
Lederman, G.N., Lederman, J.S., Antink, A. 203. Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of ducation in Mathematics, Science and Technology, Volume , Number 3, 38-47.
Lestari, N.N.S. 202. Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah (Problem
23
Muchith, M.S. 2007. Pembelajaran Kontekstual. Semarang: RaSAIL.
National Institute of General Medical Sciences. 2005. Doing Science: The process of Scientific Iquiry. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Office of Student Engagement. 2008. A faculty & Staff Guide to Creating Learning Outcomes. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Şahin & Çepni. 20. Developing of the Concept Cartoon, Animation and Diagnostic Branched Tree Supported Conceptual Change Text: “Gas Pressure. urasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry ducation, (Special Issue), 25-33.
Sani, R. A. 202. Pengembangan Laboratorium Fisika. Medan: UNIMED
PRESS.
Settlage, J. & Southerland, S.A. 2007. Teaching Science to very Child. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Slameto. 200. Belajar dan Faktor- Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito.
Sudijono, A. 2009. Pengantar valuasi Pendidikan. PT Raja Grafindo Persada: Jakarta.
Sugiyono. 203. Statistika untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.
Turpin, T. & Cage, B. N. 2004. The Effect of an Integrated, Activity-Based Science Curriculum on Student Achievement, Science Process Skills, and Science Attitudes. lectronic Journal of Literacy through Science, Volume 3, -7.
