EFFECTIVENESS OF 5E LEARNING CYCLE IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY KELAS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN.

(1)

By:

Carolina Nainggolan 409322001

Physics Bilingual Education Study Program

THESIS

Submitted to fulfill requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

PHYSICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

PREFACE

Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and guidance to writer. For His help in writer life, hopefully God Blessing will abundant.

This thesis which titled is “Effectiveness of 5e Learning Cycle in Dynamic Electricity for Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan. Thank you so much to Drs. Eidi Sihombing,M.S as thesis supervisor who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished this research. Thank you so much also to Prof.Dr.Sahyar,M.S.,M.M, Drs.Rahmatsyah,M.Si,and Drs.Abdul Hakim,M.Si who have gave critics and suggestions to writer. Thank you so much to Drs.Juniar Huthaean, M.Si as academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have encouraged writer.

Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Ronaulina Sibarani and Beloved father Polman Nainggolan for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special thank you for my love my brother Dindo Armando Nainggolan and Tedy Setiadi Nainggolan and all my family.

Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in Boarding House (for Kak Enny Pratiwi Munthe, Kak Indah Panjaitan, Kak Trivai Ningsih, Kak Lista Lumban Raja, Kak Christina Panjaitan, Elly Sihombing and Bang Morris) for all of your support to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot to Padus IKBKF. My memories will never die with you. You always in my heart

To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED, especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009.Astrid Pasadena Harahap, Agnesia M Damanik, Avolen B Siahaan, Debora Betty Sitanggang, Dewi Sari

Situmorang, Evi Valentina Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk,Gita Ravhani Anugrah Bangun,Hanna Monika Hutabarat,Henrico Hutabarat,Janiar S Gultom,Jefri S

(4)

v

Damanik, Ribka M Tambunan, , Rika Yulia Fitri, Riris M. Rumahorbo, Rita Situmorang and Tionar Mellisa Malau. I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge. That’s why, author hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make this thesis is useful for all of us.

Medan, July 2013

(5)

CONTENT

Page

Validation Sheet i

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Preface iv

Content vi

Figure List ix

Table List x

Appendix List xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Problem Identification 4

1.3. Limitation Problem 4

1.4. Formulation of Problem 4

1.5. Objective of Research 5

1.6. Benefit of Research 5

CHAPTER II REVIEW REFERENCESS

2.1. Theoretical Review 6

2.1.1. Learning Definition 6

2.1.2. Learning Outcomes 6

2.1.3. Effectiveness 9

2.1.4. Learning Theory of Constructivism 11

2.1.5. 5E Learning Cycle 12

(6)

vii

2.2. Learning Material 18

2.2.1. Electric Current 18

2.2.2. Measuring the Electric Current and Voltage 18

2.2.3. The Ohm’s Law and Electric Resistance 20

2.2.4. Series and Parallel Resistance Circuit 22

2.2.5. Kirchhoff First Law 24

2.3. Relevant Research 25

2.4. Framework Conceptual 26

2.5. Hypothesis 27

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Time and Place of Research 28

3.2. Population and Sample Research 28

3.2.1. Population 28

3.2.2. Sample 28

3.3. Variable of Research 28

3.3.1. Independent Variable 28

3.3.2. Dependent Variable 28

3.4. Method and Design of Research 29

3.4.1. Method of Research 29

3.4.2. Design of Research 29

3.5. Research Procedure 30

3.6. Techniques of Data Collecting 32

3.6.1. Pre-test 32

3.6.2. Post-test 32

3.7. Instrument of Research 32

3.7.1. First Instrument Cognitive Domain 32

3.7.2. Non-test Instrument 34

3.8. Technique of Data Analysis 36

3.8.1. Determine the Mean 36

(7)

3.8.3. Normality Test 37

3.8.4. Homogeneity Test 38

3.8.5. Hypothesis Test 39

3.9. Data Analysis Techniques of Effectiveness 41

3.9.1. Sensitivity Index of Instrument 41

3.9.2. Learning Mastery 41

3.9.3. Activities Observation Result 42

CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Research Result 44

4.1.1. Data of Pretest Score 44

4.1.2. Data of Postest Score 44

4.2 Data Analysis 47

4.2.1. Normality Test 47

4.2.2. Homogeneity Test 48

4.2.3. Hypothesis Testing 48

4.2.4. Affective Domain 49

4.2.5. Psychomotor Domain 50

4.3. Data Analysis of Effectiveness 51

4.3.1. Sensitivity Index of Instrument 51

4.3.2. Learning Mastery 52

4.3.3. Activities Observation Result 53

(8)

ix

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion 67

5.2 Suggestion 67

(9)

List of Table

Page

Table 2.1 Comparison of Model SCSI BSCS 5E Model 13

Table 2.2 Syntax Constructivism 5E Learning Model 14

Table 2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages Constructivist 5E Model 16

Table 2.4 Difference 5E Learning Cycle Model and Direct Instruction 17

Table 3.1 Two Pre-test–Post-Test Design 29

Table 3.2 Learning Outcomes Specification 32

Table 3.3 Categories Student’s Learning Outcomes 33

Table 3.4 Criteria of Value Percentage of Content 34

Table 3.5 Guideline of Affective Domain 34

Table 3.6 Guideline of Psychomotor Domain 35

Table 3.7 Criterion of Affective and Psychomotor Domain 36

Table 3.8 Criterion of Activity Observation Result 42

Table 4.1 Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Pretest 45

Table 4.2 Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Post Test 46

Table 4.3 Normality Test for Pretest Score 47

Table 4.4 Normality Test for Posttest Score 47

Table 4.5 Homogeneity Test in Experiment and Control Class 48

Table 4.6 Calculation of Hypothesis Test 49

Table 4.7 The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity of Student 54

Table 4.8 The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 1 57

(10)

vii

(11)

List of Appendix

Page

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 71

Appendix 3 Worksheet 109

Appendix 4 Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test 116

Appendix 5 Research Instrument Pre-Test 130

Appendix 6 Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class 138

Appendix 7 Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class 139

Appendix 8 Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class 140

Appendix 9 Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class 142

Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class 145

Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class 148

Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation 150

in Experiment Class

in Control Class

Appendix 14 Normality Test 154

Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test 158

Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test 160

Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class 164

Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class 169

Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class 172

Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class 177

Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument 182

(12)

ix

Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class 190

Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class 198

Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors 208

Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution 209

Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z 210

(13)

FIGURES LIST

Page Figure 2.1 Phase Learning Constructivist 5E Learning Cycle 13

Figure 2.2 Measuring Current with Amperemeter 18

Figure 2.3 Simple of Circuit Schema With DC Current 19

Figure 2.4 Circuit Using Amperemeter 19

Figure 2.5 Measuring The Voltages With Voltmeter 20

Figure 2.6 Measuring The Voltages 20

Figure 2.7 A Series Circuit of Three Resistors 22

Figure 2.8 Parallel Circuits of Three Resistors 23

Figure 4.1 Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment and Control 44

Figure 4.2 Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experiment and Control Class 45

Figure 4.3 Chart of Cognitive of Student in Pre-Test 46

Figure 4.4 Chart of Cognitive of Student in Post-Test 46

Figure 4.5 Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in 50 Affective Domain

Figure 4.6 Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in 51 Psychomotor Domain

Figure 4.7 Sensitivity Index of Instrument 51

Figure 4.8 Learning Mastery in Experiment and Control Class 52

Figure 4.9 Observation Result of Teacher Activity 53

Figure 4.10 Observation Result of Student Activity 54

Figure 4.11 Category Pretest, Activity and Posttest 56

Figure 4.12 The graph relation the value of pretest, activity and posttest 61

In experiment class in individual

(14)

vi

List of Appendix

Page

Appendix 3 Worksheet 109

Appendix 4 Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test 116

Appendix 5 Research Instrument Pre-Test 130

Appendix 6 Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class 138

Appendix 7 Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class 139

Appendix 8 Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class 140

Appendix 9 Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class 142

Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class 145

Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class 148

in Experiment Class

in Control Class

Appendix 14 Normality Test 154

Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test 158

Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test 160

Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class 164

Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class 169

Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class 172

Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class 177

Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument 182

(15)

Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class 190

Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class 198

Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors 208

Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution 209

Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z 210

(16)

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Physics is one of the important sciences in improving the quality of human resources, in addition physics is a branch of natural science which emphasizes the provision of direct experience to develop competencies to enable students to explore and understand the concepts of physics. Basically physics as a science is interest, in which studied natural phenomena and try to reveal all the secrets of the

universe and the laws that occur in our daily life. Still, learning physics is considered to be a difficult subject.

Interviews with Physics teacher Class X-1 SMA Negeri 3 Medan Sehat Anakampu said that the average value of student learning outcomes in the year 2012/2013 which is 60 while the minimum completeness criteria (KKM) learning outcomes will achieve is 70 . It can be concluded student’slearning outcomes less optimal. Also said that active students are lacking when the course of study. It was seen, when the results orally at the end of learning, only a small percentage of students who raised their hands to answer questions.

The low value of the average student’slearning outcomes because teachers do not use a variety of learning model. It can be concluded that during the learning process is still using lectures, notes, and work on the problems. These facts reinforce that learning is still dominated by the teacher centered, which focuses on the mastery of the learning outcomes of knowledge products aimed at students considering factual information.

One solution for this problem is to prepare student’s to become good adaptive learners. That is students should be able to apply what they learn in school to the various situation in real life. Obviously, the traditional teacher as information giver, textbook guided classroom has failed to bring about desired outcome of product thinking students. An alternative is to change the focus of the

(17)

school. From this perspective, learning outcomes do not depend on what the teacher present. Rather, they are interactive result of what information is encountered and how the student process it base on perceive notion and existing personal knowledge (Kilavuz,2005:15)

Learning cycle which is an inquiry –based teaching model is useful to teacher is designing curriculum material and instructional strategies in science. The model is derived from constructivist ideas of the nature of science, developer by Robert Karplus with the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) in

1964. The learning cycle of Karplus has three phases. These are exploration, term introduction and concept application. Over the years the learning cycle is revised and added several phases. So, 5E learning cycle is formed. It is developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). It consists of the following phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. The 5E learning cycle has been shown to be an extremely effective approach to learning (Kilavuz, 2005:15).

This is evident from several researchers who have conducted research about 5E Learning Cycle Model, including; According to Nazila Ramadhani (2011:71) in the” Influence Of Constructivism 5E on Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA Laksamana Martadinata in Academic Year 2011/2012” (Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Constructivism 5E Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa

DI SMA Laksamana Martadinata T.P 2011/2012) conducted research as quasi

experimental. Researcher’s research shows that using the 5E Learning Cycle Model can provide the improvement of student learning outcomes and activities , this can be seen from result student’s activity increase 74.4 using 5E Learning Cycle Model and with Conventional Model Learning is result student’s activity is 61.5 with active category. In addition student learning outcomes which have increased from 33.5 to 66.3 and difference effect 5E learning cycle model and conventional model of student learning outcomes is 21.26%.

(18)

3

2011/2012 ” (Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle Berbasis Peta Konsep Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Listrik Dinamis di

Kelas X Semester II SMA Swasta Parulian 1 Medan T.P 2011/2012)conducted

research as quasi experimental method by designing with pre-test and post-test and observe how the activities of student during the learning model was applied. Researcher shows that using the learning cycle model can provide the improvement of student’s learning outcomes and activity, this can be seen from student’s learning outcomes which have increased from 40.28 to 64.42 In addition student’s learningactivity higher than student less active this learning

According to Meghann A. Campbell (2012:67) in the “The Effect of The 5E Learning Cycle Model on Students’ Understanding of Force and Motion Concepts” conducted research as quasi experimental. Researcher shows that using the Learning Cycle Model can provide the improvement of student learning outcomes and activities. This can be seen from result student learning outcomes which have increased was increased as 70.3 and difference effect learning cycle model and conventional model of student learning outcomes is 14.8%.

According to Yeliz Kilavuz (2005) in the “The Effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on The Constructivist Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid–Based Concept” conducted research as quasi experiment. The results showed that there was no significant difference at the beginning of treatment between the two groups in terms of achievement of acid base concepts (t=-1.134, p>00.5) and attitudes toward chemistry as school subject (t=0.015 p>0.05) before treatment. The 5E learning cycle model based instruction caused a significantly better acquisition of scientific conception related to acid-base concept than traditionally designed chemistry instruction and The pre and post test scores of Acid –Base Concept Achievement Test shows that experiment class achievement was increased. Thus, it can be concluded that the growth in understanding of acid–base concept is statically significant.

(19)

Based on the above researcher are interested in conducting research entitled "Effectiveness of 5E Learning Cycle Model in Dynamic Electricity for

Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan".

1.2. Problem Identification

Based on the background presented above, can be identified several issues as follow:

1. Learning model that is often used direct instruction learning model 2. Lack of student involvement in teaching and learning activities 3. The low of student learning outcomes in Physics

1.3. Limitation Problem

The Limitation problems in this research are as follows:

1. The model applied in this research is 5E Learning Cycle Model 2. Learning in this research topic is Dynamic electricity

3. The research is conducted in SMA Negeri 3 Medan grade X semester 2 academic year 2012/2013.

1.4. Formulation of Problem

Limitation Based on the problem, so the problem formulation contained in this research is as follows:

1. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle model and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electric

2. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student learning outcomes in dynamic electricity?

(20)

5

1.5. Objective of Research

Referring to the problem formulation, then the objectives to be achieved in this research as follows:

1. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity

2. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct

instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student learning outcomes in dynamic electricity

3. To examine the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity

1.6. Benefits of Research

The benefit of this research as follows:

1. For School: it can provide good information and donations in order to improve the learning process through Increased quality school student's achievement and professionalism of teachers working

2. For Teacher: for consideration in selecting or integrating a variety of appropriate learning model class, especially in physics learning.

3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during the learning process takes place, so it can improve learning outcomes and provide a fun learning experience

(21)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion

Based the analysis of result of research, it was concluded:

1. There was significant effect difference of 5e learning cycle model and direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. 5 e learning cycle model was better than direct instruction learning model.

2. There was no significant effect difference of 5 e learning cycle model and direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. Both 5e learning cycle model and direct instruction learning model were included in good category.

3. The effectiveness of 5 e learning cycle model was high than direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. Furthermore, 5e learning cycle model was more effective than direct instruction learning model on student’s learning outcomes. It was obtained by fulfilling the three requirements of the learning effectiveness, namely index sensitivity of instrument, learning mastery and activities observation result.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the results and conclusions in this research, there were some suggestions, namely:

(22)

70

to each student about what he/she had done in group and constraints faced by students during discussion.

2. For further researcher is suggested to be more creative in managing the classroom and to be more efficient in time

3. For further researcher who want to find out about affective and psychomotor domains is suggested to find out the more appropriate indicators that will be used to student’s learning outcomes in order obtain the appropriate result accurately.

4. For further researcher is suggested to find out the other requirements of the effectiveness learning in order obtain more accurate result.

(23)

REFERENCES

Arends,R.2009.Learning to Teach. Mc.Graw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.

Arikunto, S.2009. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi.Penerbit Bumi Aksara: Jakarta.

Bybee, R.W.Taylor, J.A., Gardner,A.Van Scotter, P.Powell,J.C.,Webstrook,A.,& Landes, N.,2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Origin and effectiveness. http://science.education.nih.gov/housefreps.nsf/.pdf

(accessed January 25th2012).

Cronbach, L. 2006.Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.

Djamarah, B.2004.Strategi Belajar Mengajar.PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta

Ergin, I.2006. Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability Instructional Physics. Journal Physics Education Vo. 6 No.1 Page 16. Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences: Ankara http://www.lajpe.org (accessed January 25th2012).

Gredler, E. 2002. Learning and Teaching. PAUT-UT and CV.Rajawali Press : Jakarta.

Kamajaya. 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo Media Pratama: Bandung.

Kanginan,M. 2007.Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X Semester 2.Erlangga: Jakarta

Kilavuz,Y. 2005. The effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on Constructivist Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid –Base Concepts. http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accesed January 25th2012).

Kurnaz,A.M. & Calik,M.2008.Using Different Conceptual Change Methods Embedded Within The 5E Model: A Sample Teaching For Heat and Temperature. Journal Physics Teacher Education Online Vol. 5, No.1 page 4. .http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accessed January 28th 2012).

Macomber, F. 2009.Principles of Teaching in the Elementary School. American Book Company: New York.

Mayer, R.E.2003.Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W.Wilson Company.

http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating _outcome /documents/Krathwold.pdf.

(accessed March 15th2013).

(24)

72

Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statistika.PT Tarsito: Bandung.

Sunardi. 2007.Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2.Yrama Widya: Bandung.

Suryosubroto,B. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta:

Jakarta.

Soomro,Q.A., Qaisrani,N.M.,Rawat.J.A.,& Mughal,H.S.2010. Teaching Physics through Learning Cycle Model:An Experimental Study. Journal of Educational Research Vol.13 No.2 page 6. Department of Education the Islamic University of Bahawalpur: Pakistan.

Trianto. 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif- Progresif. Kencana Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.

(25)