THE EFFECT OF LABORATORY METHODS (VIRTUAL LAB AND REAL
MIA 1, XI MIA 3, as well as virtual classes XI MIA 2, and XI MIA 4. Data was collected using test and non-test techniques. Prior to use of the instrument in the study first its validity, reliability, the level of difficulty of questions and distinguishing matter was determined. The method used is a 2x2 factorial design experimental method. The study design chart can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Study Design
Learning Style (B) A1 (Virtual Lab) A2 (real lab)
B1 (visual learning style) A1B1 A2B1
B2(kinesthetic learning style) A1B2 A2B2
Description:
A1B1: a group of students with a visual learning style treated with a learning method using a virtual lab A2B1: a group of students with a visual learning style treated with learning method using a real lab A1B2: groups of students with kinesthetic learning style treated with a learning method using a virtual lab A2B2: groups of students with kinesthetic learning style treated with a learning method using real lab
Analysis technique consists of data consisting of test requirements analysis, hypothesis testing, and analysis of variations in two –way ANOVA. Test requirements analysis consisted of the normality test and homogeneity test. Normality is used to determine whether the sample is from a population that is normally distributed or not. Test for normality used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality. Homogeneity test aims to determine whether a sample derived from a homogeneous population or not. Homogeneity testing data used Fisher's test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Learning is designed with practical method of virtual lab and real lab. The draft for the real lab method is preparing worksheets for students, the tools, and materials which was communicated to senior teachers who teach in SMAN 51, while for the Virtual lab we used corel chamlab version 1.0 for acid-base titration and Vlab 1.6 iridium price estimate for pH test. To test for normality, all the data result of learning the concept of acids and bases are all normally distributed as in Table 2, looks value Amax> D table. At homogeneity, there is one variable that is not homogeneous at A1B1 / A1B2 since F count> F table, but other variables are homogeneous with a value of F count<F table. Results of the data analysis of homogeneity can be seen in Table 3.
Table 2. Result of Normality Test
N Variable a max D table ( 0,05 ) Conclusion
40 A1 0,17 0,215 Normal
40 A2 0,10 0,215 Normal
40 B1 0,12 0,215 Normal
40 B2 0,12 0,215 Normal
20 A1B1 0,15 0,294 Normal
20 A2B1 0,17 0,294 Normal
20 A1B2 0,17 0,294 Normal
20 A2B2 0,14 0,294 Normal
Table 3. Result of Homogeneity Test
N Variable F h F t ( 0,05) Conclusion
40 A2 / A1 1,46 1.775 Homogeneous
40 B2 / B1 1,51 1.775 Homogeneous
20 A1B1/A2B1 1,40 2.255 Homogeneous
20 A1B2/A2B2 1,50 2.255 Homogeneous
20 A1B1/A1B2 2,30 2.255 Not Homogeneous
20 A2B1/A2B2 1,09 2.255 Homogeneous
Comparison of Learning Results scores of both classes after being given treatment can be seen in Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Fig 1. Histogram of frequency Virtual Learning Lab Results with Visual Learning Style
Fig2. Histogram of frequency Virtual lab Learning Results with Kinesthetic Learning Style
Fig3. Histogram of frequency Real lab Learning Results with Visual Learning Style 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
62,5 65,5 68,5 71,5 74,5 77,5 81,5
F r e q u e n c y
Interval Class Interval
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43,5 48,5 53,5 58,5 63,5 68,5 73,5
F r e q u e n c y
Interval Class
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
48,5 51,5 55,5 59,5 63,5 67,5 71,5
F r e q u e n c y
Interval Class
Fig 4. Histogram of frequency Real lab Learning Results with Kinesthetic Learning Style
The first hypothesis tested results regarding learning outcomes on acid-base concept of virtual lab with real lab result. The results show that the value of F count<F table (0.90 <3.988), then H0 is accepted, and we can conclude there is no difference in the mean of acid-base learning outcomes of students between real lab and virtual lab methods. In the second hypothesis regarding student learning outcomes with kinesthetic and visual style of obtained results a value of F
<F table (3.58 <3.988), then H0 is accepted, and we can conclude that there are differences in learning outcomes mean which shows that there is significant difference in the concept of acid-base between the visual learning style and kinesthetic learning style. In the third hypothesis regarding the learning outcomes of students with visual style given a virtual learning lab and real lab test results obtained with Tukey is Qh > Qt = (17.9> 3.96), then H0 is rejected, thus, there is a significant difference in learning outcomes concept of acids and bases for students who have a visual learning style by learning methods given in virtual lab with Real lab learning methods. In the fourth hypothesis regarding student learning outcomes with kinesthetic style given virtual learning lab and real lab test results obtained with Tukey is Qh >
Qt = (11.01> 3.96), then H0 is rejected, there is a significant difference in learning outcomes on concept of Acid-base for students who have given kinesthetic learning style learning method with the virtual lab by real lab learning methods. In the fifth hypothesis about the effect of the interaction between the application of teaching methods and learning styles result that the value of F count> F table (101.65> 4.024), then H0 is rejected, and it can be concluded that there is a significant interaction effect between methods of learning with the learning styles on learning outcomes of acid-alkaline in students.
Learning outcomes concept of acids and bases using virtual learning lab (A1) is lower than students who use Real lab learning method (A2). This is because theoretically the students learn to use the method more in real lab as they get experience of working on the real thing so that students have a stronger memory than those who did not experience the real lab. It can be concluded that the use of the Real lab learning is better than using a virtual lab. Acid-base concept of learning outcomes of students who have a visual learning style (B1) is lower than students who have a kinesthetic learning style (B2). This research is also consistent with studies that have been done that show that learning styles do not affect the study results. Acid-base concept of learning outcomes of students who have learning styles Visual and given models of virtual learning lab (A1B1) B1 is higher than the acid-base concept of the learning outcomes of students who take Real lab learning model (A2B1). This is because the model Virtual learning lab is perfectly suited to the student who have a visual learning style, where students who have a visual learning style into the learning process do look more serious and diligent. Acid-base concept of learning outcomes of students who have a kinesthetic learning styles and given real lab learning methods (A2B2) are higher than the acid-base concepts of the learning outcomes of students who take virtual lab learning methods (A1B2). This is because students who have kinesthetic learning style are always oriented in physical activity, prefer to learn through practice and cannot sit still for a long time. Based on the results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) table showed that there is an interaction effect between teaching methods to the learning styles of the students' learning outcomes in chemistry in acid-base concept. Virtual learning lab methods when applied, enable students to learn independently at home through software, and can repeat the material to understand it later. While Real lab learning method is only done in the laboratory school and in a very limited time to observe the trial. The learning method Virtual lab and real lab can improve student learning outcomes can be seen from the results of tests in the cognitive domains tested on the material acid-base, but the influence of learning styles also affect student learning outcomes because not all students fit in with the teaching methods of virtual lab and real lab.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
66,5 70,5 74,5 78,5 82,5 86,5 90,5
F r e q u e n c y
Interval Class
Table 4. Summary of Results of 2-Way ANOVA
Source Variants Db JK RJK F Count F Table
Inter Column (Ak) 1 33.80 33.80 0.90 3.988
Inter Line (Ab) 1 135.20 135.20 3.58 3.988
Interactions (I) 1 3836.45 3836.45 101.5 3.988
Inter Group (A) 3 4005.45 1335.15 35.37 2.748
In the Group (D) 76 2868.50 37.74
Total Reduced (TR) 79 6873.95 87.01
Mean/Correction 1 366934.05 366934.05
Total (T) 80 373808
CONCLUSION
Based on research data analysis and hypothesis testing that has been done, it can be concluded that the Virtual lab learning model is more suitable for students who have a visual learning style, especially on the matter acid-base concept of class XI MIA. Real lab learning model is more suitable for students who have a kinesthetic learning style mainly on acid-base concept material of XI MIA. There is the effect of the interaction between learning methods with learning styles on learning outcomes, regarding the acid-base concept in applying learning methods and thus action need to be take considering the student's learning styles.
REFERENCES
DePorter., Bobbi., & Hernacki, M. (2010). Quantum Learning. Bandung: PT Mizan Pustaka.
Hawkins, P. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry?. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.
Nurhadi. (2004). Kurikulum 2004 (Pertanyaan dan Jawaban). Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia Mulyasa, E. (2007). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Munandar, U. (1999). Mengembangkan Bakat dan Kreativitas Anak Sekolah. Jakarta: Grasindo.
Nagib M. A., & Balfakih. (2006). A Study of The Effectiveness of The Contextual Lab Activity in The Teaching and Learning Engineering Statistic at the University Tun Hussein On Malaysia.
Nugraha, I. (2010). Studi Komparasi Pendekatan Pembelajaran Contextual Teaching dan Learning (CTL) Menggunakan Laboratorium Riil dan Virtual terhadap Prestasi Belajar Ditinjau dari Kreativitas Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Sistem Koloid Kelas XI Semester Genap SMA Negeri I Cilacap Tahun Ajaran 2009/2010.
Slavin, R.E. (2008). Cooperative Learning Theory Research and Practice.Terj.Nurulita Yusron. Bandung: Penerbit Nusa Media.
Zulkarnain., & Nafisah. (2008). The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates