THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
By:
Wika Prayogi Reg. Number 4103332028
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ii
BIOGRAPHY
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to devote my greatest gratitude to Allah SWT The Almighty, He is The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful for His blessing, guidance, strength, health, and favor which have been being given to me so that I could go with this life and finally finish this thesis especially.
I would like to extend thanks to the many people, in many countries, who so generously contributed to the work presented in this thesis.
Special mention goes to my enthusiastic supervisor, Dr. Zainuddin Muchtar, M.Si. This degree has been an amazing experience and I thank Mr. Zai wholeheartedly, not only for his tremendous academic support, but also for giving me so many wonderful opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Similar, profound gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Albinus Silalahi, M.S., Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si., and Dr. Mahmud, M.Sc who have been truly dedicated examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant faith, advices, suggestions, guidance, and constructive critics in perfecting this thesis.
I am also hugely appreciative to Prof. Dr. Ramlan Silaban, M.Si., Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si., and Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si who have been truly dedicated validators for this thesis instruments. I’m so thankful to them for their times, advices, and suggestions in developing my research instruments. Huge gratitude is also delivered to the late Prof. Dr. Suharta, M.Si who had been my first academic supervisor and instrument validator. I’m so glad walking under his supervisions in achieving all prestigious achievements in university. He was gone too soon yet leaving all great dedications to this university. Al-Fatihah. Similar, great thanks are delivered as well to my second academic supervisor Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si who has given great motivations repeatedly in last minutes of my education in this university.
v
Bilingual and International Program respectively, Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si as the head of Chemistry Department, and last but not least, Mr. Sam as the assistant of Bilingual and International Program. I’m so hugely appreciative to them for their times, especially for sharing their experiences so willingly, and for being so dedicated to their roles in supporting me completing this thesis.
Special mention goes to Widiya Ningsih, S.Pd., M.Si as my observer and home teacher of my research school SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, the school at which I had graduated from as well.
Special mention goes to all my colleagues who have been involved in supporting me to complete my education and color my college life. A million thanks are delivered to Debby, Rabiah, and Yasir as my ‘Solid’, Lina, Melisa, Fenny, Rudi, Andre, Cici, Indra, Fery, and all CESP students of 2010 for all unforgettable moments. I find it so difficult to choose which one not best of our moments but one thing must be totally crazy is that not many S.Pds involve daily hangouts and weekly playing badminton during thesis deadline just to get refreshing. I also thank all seniors and juniors in FMIPA for supporting my education and my PPL colleagues in SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan for all great experiences. Great thanks are also addressed to SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan especially batch of 18, 19, and 20 for being always in my mind.
Finally, but by no means least, thanks go to my mum Tanti, my dad Ramli, my sister Widya Prayasti, my adorable nephews Alil and Arka and all my families for almost unbelievable supports. They are the most important people in my world and I dedicate this thesis to them.
Medan, July, 2014 The Writer
Wika Prayogi
iii
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
Wika Prayogi (Reg. No. 4103332028)
ABSTRACT
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
LEGALIZATION PAGE i
BIOGRAPHY ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDMENT iv
LIST OF CENTENTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FORMULAS xii
LIST OF APPENDIXES xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problems Identification 7
1.3 Scopes of Research 7
1.4 Problem Statements 8
1.5 Research Objectives 9
1.6 Research Significances 10
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 Definition of Teaching and Learning 11
2.1.1 Definition of Teaching 11
2.1.2 Definition of Learning 11
2.2 Learning Chemistry and the Outcomes 12
2.3 Students’ Achievement 14
2.4 Characters of Education 16
2.4.1 Character of Activeness 17
2.4.2 Character of Cooperation 18
vii
2.5 The 2013 Curriculum 19
2.5.1 The Wisdom of Implementation of the 2013 Curriculum 20 2.5.2 The Characteristics of the 2013 Curriculum 21 2.6 Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning Model 23
2.6.1 Discovery-Inquiry Learning 24
2.6.2 Discovery-Inquiry Learning Objectives 26 2.6.3 Pros and Cons of Discovery-Inquiry Learning 26 2.6.4 Syntax or Learning Steps of Discovery-Inquiry Learning 27 2.6.5 Types of Discovery-Inquiry Learning Model 28 2.6.6 Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson 29 2.7 Direct Instruction Learning Model 32 2.8 Solubility and Solubility Product 33
2.8.1 The Definition of Solubility 34
2.8.2 The Solubility Product (Ksp) 35
2.8.3 The Relationship of Solubility and Solubility Product (Ksp) 37 2.8.4 The Effect of a Common Ion and pH on Solubility 37 2.8.5 The Relationship of Solubility Product (Ksp) and Precipitation 40 2.9 Applicability of Learning Model to Topic 40 2.10 Mutual Research about Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson 41
2.11 Hypotheses 43
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 46
3.1 Research Location and Object 46
3.2 Population and Sample 46
3.3 Research Variables 46
3.3.1 Independent Variable 46
3.3.2 Dependent Variable 47
3.3.3 Control Variable 47
3.4 Research Instruments 48
3.4.1 Test Instrument 48
viii
3.5 Research Type and Design 49
3.5.1 Research Type 50
3.5.2 Research Design 50
3.5.3 Research Procedures 51
3.5.4 Research Design Flowchart 53
3.6 Data Collection Technique and Research Instrument Preparation 54
3.6.1 Validity Test 54
3.6.2 Difficulty Level Test 55
3.6.3 Discriminations Index Test 56
3.6.4 Distracter Index Test 56
3.6.5 Reliability Test 57
3.7 Data Analysis of Research Results 58
3.7.1 Normalized Gain 58
3.7.2 Normality Test 59
3.7.3 Homogeneity Test 59
3.7.4 Hypotheses Test 59
3.7.5 Correlation Analysis 62
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 65
4.1 Research Results 65
4.2 Research Instrument Preparation Results 65
4.2.1 Validity Test Result 66
4.2.2 Difficulty Level Test Result 66
4.2.3 Discriminations Index Test Result 66
4.2.4 Distracter Index Test Result 66
4.2.5 Reliability Test Result 67
4.3 Data of Research Results 67
4.3.1 Data of Students’ Achievement 68
4.3.2 Data of Students’ Characters Development 69 4.4 Data Analysis of Research Results 70
ix
4.4.2 Homogeneity Test Result 71
4.4.3 Hypotheses Test Result 72
4.4.4 Correlation Result of Students’ Achievement to Students’ Characters
Development 74
4.5 Discussions 76
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 78
5.1 Conclusions 78
5.2 Suggestions 80
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 2.1 The changing of paradigm and mindset on curriculum 2013 21 Table 2.2 Syntax of the direct instruction learning model 33 Table 2.3 Solubility product constants for several insoluble salts and
bases at 25oC 36
Table 2.4 Applicability of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson to
solubility and solubility product 41 Table 3.1 Independent and dependent variable based on hypothesis 48
Table 3.2 Research design 51
Table 4.1 Students’ cognitive scores 68
Table 4.2 Students’ characters scores 69 Table 4.3 Normality test of research data 71 Table 4.4 Homogeneity test of research data 71
Table 4.5 Hypotheses test result 72
Table 4.6 The correlation of students’ achievement to students’
xii
LIST OF FORMULAS
Page
Formula 3.1 Validity Test 56
Formula 3.2 Difficulty Level Test 56
Formula 3.3 Discriminations Index Test 57
Formula 3.4 Distracter Index Test 57
Formula 3.5 Reliability Test 58
Formula 3.6 Normalized Gain 59
Formula 3.7 Pearson Correlation Coefficient 63 Formula 3.8 tcount for Significance Test 63
Formula 3.9 Determinant Coefficient 63
x
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page Appendix 1 Chemistry Subject Syllabus 86 Appendix 2 Core Competence and Basic Competence For Chemistry
Subject Grade XI for Senior High School/Madrasah Aliyah
Base on the 2013 Curriculum 90
Appendix 3 Invalidated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
Product 93
Appendix 4 The Tabulation of Invalidated Questions Distribution 102 Appendix 5 Validated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
Product 103
Appendix 6 The Tabulation of Validated Questions Distribution 108 Appendix 7 Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Invalidated Multiple
Choices Questions 109
Appendix 8 Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Validated Multiple
Choices Questions 117
Appendix 9 Lesson Plan of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson 121
Appendix 10 Lesson Plan of Direct Instruction 156 Appendix 11 Laboratory Activities of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson 188
Appendix 12 Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters 200
Appendix 13 Validity Test Result 206
Appendix 14 Difficulty Level Test Result 208 Appendix 15 Discriminations Index Test Result 210 Appendix 16 Distracter Index Test Result 212 Appendix 17 Final Result of Multiple Choices Questions Selection 214 Appendix 18 Reliability Test Result 215 Appendix 19 Pretest and Posttest Scores of Experimental and Control
xiv
Appendix 20 Normalized Gain of Experimental and Control Class 218 Appendix 21 Statistical Descriptives of Pretest and Posttest in
Experimental and Control Class 220 Appendix 22 Tabulation of Students’ Characters Scores in Experimental
and Control Class 222
Appendix 23 Students’ Characters Total Scores of Experimental and
Control Class 232
Appendix 24 Statistical Descriptives of Students’ Characters Scores in Experimental and Control Class 233 Appendix 25 Normality Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and
Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class 235
Appendix 26 Homogeneity Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class 249
Appendix 27 Hypotheses Test Result 251
Appendix 28 Correlation between Students’ Achievement and Students’
Characters Development 258
Appendix 29 Documentations 259
Appendix 30 Letter of Confirmation To Be Thesis Supervisor 264 Appendix 31 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from FMIPA
Unimed 265
Appendix 32 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from Dinas Pendidikan, Pemuda, dan Olahraga Kabupaten Deli Serdang 266 Appendix 33 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
from SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan 267 Appendix 34 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
Instrument Validation from SMA Negeri 5 Binjai 268 Appendix 35 Letter of Recommendation for Students’ Characters
Observation 269
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Today's education reformations are required to be done. Reformation efforts in the field of education are basically aimed at businesses include: mastery of materials, media, and learning models used. Learning model is aimed at increasing student activity in the learning process so that the process will take place in an optimal teaching and learning activities between teachers and students. Several factors are seen as the causes of the global problems in education are: (1) instructional methods used by teachers are often monotonous. Lecturing method is a method that is consistently used by teachers in the order of explaining and then giving examples, exercises, and homework. There is no variation in learning methods/ models based on the characteristics of the material to be studied, (2) Teachers rarely give students the opportunities to interact with their friends or teachers in developing an understanding of the concepts and principles. (3) Teaching process conducted by the teacher more emphasize on mathematical manipulations; they start with the definition of the concept, and then put it mathematically. (4) Teachers do not understand the method of resolving the problems systematically. Teachers only see the final result of the assignments or tasks that the students do. (5) Teachers are more interested in the students whose the correct answer without analyzing the mistakes of the student and completion procedures. (6) Teachers generally assume that all subject matters of sciences are enough taught by lecturing or giving complete theories without considering that some also need additional activity such as laboratory and outside activity to get deeper understanding. (7) Teachers focus only on giving materials without inviting students to do some projects to discover something which absolutely can improve students’ discovery ability (Slavin, 2004).
2
learning strategies and modes that can involve all components optimally so that students can learn actively and develop all their competences.
There are so many learning models/ strategies prepared to get more interactive learning. Some models/ strategies focus on cooperative interaction among students, others focus on the stages of conducting experiment (scientific method), and many others. Due to the variation of innovative learning models/ strategies, the selection of suitable models/ strategies is very important to be main priority before teaching activities; it is considering that there are lots of kind of topics such as the topic which is full of theory, calculation, demonstration, and others. So that it must have been well-prepared in matching the models/ strategies used to the topics being taught. As the limitation of options, curriculum can be used as a reference to match model/ strategy to the topic. It will give recommendation about models/ strategies which are nowadays effective to be implemented based on the aims of today’s curriculum.
In terms of improving the quality of education in Indonesia, the government also has made several attempts, one of them is changing the curriculum. For now, the government changed the curriculum of KTSP into the 2013 curriculum based on the idea of the future challenges, public perception, development of pedagogical knowledge, future competence, and negative phenomena which arise.
Based on the 2013 curriculum that aims to prepare Indonesian people that have the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are productive, creative, innovative, and affective and able to contribute to society, nation, state, and civilization of the world, so that students are required to develop a balance between spiritual attitudes and social development, curiosity, creativity, cooperation with intellectual and psychomotor abilities (Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 69 of 2013).
3
learning based on the 2013 curriculum also focuses on the character of students that can be developed from the subject matter that teachers teach. Learning model which are suitable on content of the 2013 curriculum among others namely the model of Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery Learning, and Project-Based Learning (PJBL). According Suradijono (in Warmada), Problem Based Learning is a teaching approach that uses problems as a first step in collecting and integrating new knowledge. PBL learning model is student-centere learning and put the teacher as a motivator and facilitator. According to the Sofa (2008), Discovery Learning is learning that requires discovery mental processes, such as observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining, and making decisions. While Project-Based Learning is an innovative approach to learning that enable students to learn and work autonomously to construct their knowledge related to real life, so as to produce a product of student work.
Based on the condition stated above, it will be absolutely the best way to put learning model of PBL, Discovery Learning, or PJBL to the subject matter (especially sciences) rather than using conventional method of teaching. Discovery Learning is highly possible to give the best result in teaching and learning sciences especially chemistry.
Chemistry is one of science subjects that has a very close relationship between the concepts with their application in everyday life. This means that the learning is not enough by teaching conceptually, but enhancing the understanding of students to use the concept significantly in their daily life. According to Tanjung (2007) there are some factors that are suspectinged to be the causes of the lack of mastery of chemistry in senior high school, those include: students often learn by rote without understanding the subject matter, material that is taught often float so that students do not find the key to understand the material, and
teachers can’t give the concept to master the material being taught. One of the
4
interesting and boring because the lack of innovative strategies/ models of teaching by teachers. Considering the fact that chemistry is daily applicative subject matter, students must be mastered in not only theory but also their capability of doing experiment or discovering concepts by experiment. One of chemistry topics which need understanding in both concepts and experiments is Solubility and Solubility Product. It is expected that Discovery Learning will be effectively applied in this topic.
The topic of Solubility and Solubility Product is one of topics in senior high school chemistry of grade XI. The scope of this topic based on the 2013 curriculum includes (1) The definition of solubility, (2) Solubility product (Ksp), (3) The relationship of solubility (s) and solubility product (Ksp), (4) The effect of a common ion and pH on solubility, and (5) The relationship of solubility product (Ksp) to precipitation. Solubility and solubility product is a concept that adequately represent the abstract of chemistry lesson so that this subject is difficult to understand. So that to fulfill the competences need to be achieved, there must be conceptual understanding obtained from doing experiment or discovering the concepts through the experimental activities. Here, students are obligated to have high analysis ability of observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining, and making decisions. If the students have low quality of analysis, there will be a big possibility of getting misunderstanding about the concepts and experiments. To avoid misunderstanding, researcher choose one of the Discovery Learning type which focus on students’ analysis ability in experiment but still under the guidance of teacher as facilitator, motivator, and role model. This type of Discovery Learning is Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson.
5
guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson is Discovery Learning where the cases/ problems are given by teacher.
Students do not formulate problems. Complete clues about how to compose and record are given by the teacher. According to Amin (1979: 15-16) In general, guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson consists of: 1) Statement of problems: problems for each activity can be expressed as a question or statement plain; 2) The principle or concept being taught: principles and/ or concepts must be discovered by the students through the activities/ experiments, should be written clearly and precisely; 3) Equipment/ materials: equipments/ materials must be provided in accordance with the needs of each student to undertake activities; 4) Directives Discussion: in the form of the questions presented to students (class) to be discussed before the students do activities/ experiments; 5) Discovery-inquiry activities: activity method of discovery-inquiry by the students is in the form of experimental activity/ investigation conducted by the students to discover concepts and/ or the principles set by the teacher; 6) The thought process of students: critical thinking and the scientific process must be owned by students during the activity; 7) Open-ended question: it should be a question that leads to the development of additional investigation activities that can be undertaken by students; 8) Notes of teachers: an explanation of things or tough parts of the activity/ lessons, content/ subject matter that is relevant to the activity, variable factors which can affect the result.
6
contribution to overcome those big problems. Education can contribute in overcoming social problems because education has the function and role in improving human resources. But what does actually make the characters development in schools has not yielded the expected results yet? Many factors are indicated as the causes behind these. Factors could be from the curriculum, design, or implementation of the supporting factors of learning (Syaodih, 2009). Thus, the 2013 curriculum is expected to bring new solutions to fix those all problems by not only focusing on students’ achievement of cognitive aspects but students’ characters development as well.
As the beginning effort in implementing the learning models recommended by the 2013 curriculum, the prevention of using conventional method must be running in a row with it. Many conventional learning methods which are used by teacher are just to present a subject matter that makes the students tend to be lazy to think and just listen to the explanation without understanding what was said by the teacher, just say that one of the conventional learning method is mostly covered by Direct Instruction learning model. This model brings one direction communication where teacher dominates teaching and learning process without paying attention to what students actually needs and wants, this makes the students get bored and sleepy easily. But actually the case is that a teacher is expected to be able to present the subject matter as interesting as possible, so that the students are going to be interested in being creative and active in learning activities (Roestiyah, 2001).
This objective is very suitable on the 2013 curriculum goal as described above. So that it is absolutely effective to use this kind of learning model on the teaching and learning activities. Therefore, due to the condition described above, the researcher was interested to intently conduct the research entitled The Implementation of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning
Model in Improving Senior High School Students’ Achievement and
7
1.2 Problems Identification
Based on the background described above, problems can be identified as follows:
1. Teaching and learning processes are generally running by conventional way where the processes tend to be dominated by teacher’s activity
2. The unsuitable selections on the models or the lacks of proper learning methods conducted by teacher.
3. The lack of theoretical and practical understanding about science especially chemistry.
4. The lack of students’ characters development through teaching and learning process.
1.3 Scopes of Research
In order to keep this research more focused and directed; research was limited as follows:
1. The research was conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, Deli Serdang Regency, North Sumatera and limited to the grade XI even semester of academic year of 2013/ 2014
2. The topic was limited to the unit of chemistry of Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
3. Teaching method used in this research was limited to the learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson and Direct Instruction as a control
4. In this research, this study was limited to the investigation of students’ character of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility
5. Students’ learning outcomes to be measured in this research were students’
8
1.4 Problem Statements
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this research were formulated as follows:
1. Is there any significant difference between students’ achievement obtained by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
2. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of activeness developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
3. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
4. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
5. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson?
6. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness
to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
7. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson?
8. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
9. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson?
10.Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
9
1.5 Research Objectives
The general objective of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of implementing Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson learning model in improving senior high school students’ learning outcomes on the teaching of Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum. The specific objectives of this research were to investigate:
1. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ achievement obtained by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
2. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character of activeness developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
3. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character of cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
4. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character of responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
5. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
6. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
7. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
8. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
9. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
10.Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
10
1.6 Research Significances This research was expected to:
1. Provide guidelines for science teachers especially chemistry teachers to implement Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of chemistry topics
2. Give reference of best teaching model (Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson) which can improve the students’ achievement on the
teaching of Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum 3. Establish both basic and advanced knowledge of students about Solubility
and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
4. Give motivation to teachers to conduct similar and better research examining learning models to chemistry topics
5. Provide inputs for next reseachers to do similar research in the future
78
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The objectives of this research had been transformed to be problem statements which were then hypothesized. The supporting data were found and analyzed by Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) version 16.0 to reveal all the hypotheses. The null hypotheses had been all rejected by significant
statistical evidences and so hadn’t been alternative hypotheses which were
automatically accepted. The data analysis and the result of this study have provided a basis for the following conclusions:
1. There is significant difference between students’ achievement obtained by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson gives better result rather than Direct Instruction, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable
2. There is significant difference between students’ character of activeness developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable
3. There is significant difference between students’ character of cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable
79
5. There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery -Inquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are very highly correlated
6. There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable, but unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite correlated
7. There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery -Inquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are highly correlated
8. There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable, but unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite correlated
9. There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery -Inquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of <0.05 and tcount of > ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are highly correlated
80
5.2 Suggestions
The outcomes of this research recommend chemistry teachers to implement this kind of learning model due to its effectiveness and significances compared to direct instruction one on the teaching of solubility and solubility product based on the 2013 curriculum. The overall results of this study offer implications for future researchers who may be interested in studying the effectiveness of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of chemistry topics or other subjects. This study could be replicated among a larger population in North Sumatera, Indonesia and even across the nation.
Because this study limited the scope of research to senior high school students; selected characters of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility; and cognitive aspects of level C1-C4 only, so that future researchers could enlarge the scope of this research by examining this kind of learning model to elementary, junior high school, or even university students; analyze other characters
development such as critical thinking, creative, etc; and enhance the students’ achievement standard up to level C5 and C6 of Bloom’s taxonomy as well.
For perfection of this research, future researchers could include additional
variables which may give contribution to students’ cognitive and affective aspects
such as examining the effectiveness of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson
in improving the students’ achievement and characters development based on sex (gender), family background, etc.
