ANALISIS KEMAMPUAN SISWA DALAM CONSTRUCTING EXPLANATIONS AND DESIGNING SOLUTIONS MATERI GERAK DAN GAYA

Tiara Obrilian Cahyanti, Sukarmin Sukarmin, Ashadi Ashadi

Abstract


ANALYSIS OF THE ABILITY IN CONSTRUCTING EXPLANATIONS AND DESIGNING SOLUTIONS OF STUDENTS ON FORCE AND MOTION

 

Abstract

This study is aimed to determine the Constructing explanations and designing solutions ability among students in Force and Motion  subject. The result was analyzed by descriptive methode to describe the Constructing explanations and designing solutions ability among junior high school student. The sample of this study included 128 students of four junior high schools; SMP N 1 Jaten, SMP N 1 Kebakkramat, SMP N 3 Surakarta, and SMP N 5 Surakarta. The results showed that the ability of students in constructing explanations and designing solutions in each aspect below 55%. The percentage of the student’s Constructing explanations and designing solutions ability in each sub-subject was on the moderate category, then there should be a treatment to improve the students' Constructing explanations and designing solutions ability.

Abstrak

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menentukan kemampuan siswa dalam Constructing explanations and designing solutions pada materi Gerak dan Gaya kelas VIII SMP. Penelitian ini menerapkan penelitian deskriptif yang bertujuan untuk menggambarkan kemampuan siswa dalam Constructing explanations and designing solutions. Subjek penelitian adalah 128 siswa SMP yang terdiri dari 4 sekolah yaitu SMP N 1 Jaten, SMP N 1 Kebakkramat, SMP N 3 Surakarta, dan SMP N 5 Surakarta. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan siswa dalam constructing explanations and designing solutions pada masing-masing aspek dibawah 55%.  Selain itu persentase kemampuan siswa dalam Constructing explanations and designing solutions pada masing-masing sub materi masuk dalam kategori sedang, sehingga perlu dilakukan tindakan untuk meningkatkan kemampuan siswa dalam Constructing explanations and designing solutions.

 


Keywords


Constructing explanations; designing solutions; gerak; gaya

Full Text:

PDF

References


Beier, M. E., Kim, M. H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., & Gilberto, J. M. (2019). The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(1), 3–23.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

Bondi, E., Neuberger, B., Iafrati, M., & Pow, J. (2014). Multidimensional comparison of project-based learning programs. ISEC 2014 - 4th IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639–669.

Brigandt, I. (2016). Why the Difference Between Explanation and Argument Matters to Science Education. Science and Education, 25(3–4), 251–275.

Bybee, R. W. (2009). Research - 5E model and 21st century skills, (January).

Cabello, V. M., Real, C., & Impedovo, M. A. (2019). Explanations in STEM Areas: an Analysis of Representations Through Language in Teacher Education. Research in Science Education.

Cellitti, J., Likely, R., Moy, M.K., Wright, C. G. (2018). A content analysis of NGSS science and engineering practices in K-5 curricula. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. United States: American Society for Engineering Education.

Delen, I., & Krajcik, J. (2015). What Do Students’ Explanations Look Like When They Use Second-Hand Data? International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1953–1973.

Erduran, S. (2018). Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1091–1099.

Framework PISA. (2017). PISA 2015 Science Framework, (March 2013), 19–48.

Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers and Education, 91, 46–59.

Krajcik, J. S., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging Students in Scientific Practices : The Science Teacher, March(March), 38–41.

Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Students Constructing and Defending Evidence-Based Scientific Explanations. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX, 1–35.

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and Language for English Language Learners in Relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with Implications for Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education : Practices , Crosscutting Concepts , and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nawani, J., von Kotzebue, L., Spangler, M., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2019). Engaging students in constructing scientific explanations in biology classrooms: a lesson-design model. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 378–389.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (Vol. 1–2).

OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. Oecd.

Pearlman, B., & Thomas, J. W. (2000). Bob Pearlman Home Project-Based Learning 21st Century Learning A REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON PROJECT-BASED LEARNING.

Qablan, A. (2018). Comparison of science and engineering concepts in next generation science standards with Jordan Science standards. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2693–2709.

Riduwan. (2010). Skala Pengukuran Variabel-variabel Penelitan. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Roseman, J. E., Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & Koppal, M. (2017). Designing for the next generation science standards: Educative curriculum materials and measures of teacher knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 111–141.

Sadler, T. D., & Brown, D. E. (2017). Call for papers: Journal of Research in Science Teaching – Special Issue: A critical examination of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 555–557.

Stiles, K. E., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2001). Professional development strategies. International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral Sciences, 65(2), 2–24.

Widoyoko, E. P. (2014). Penilaian Hasil Pembelajaran di Sekolah. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v11i2.10674 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


@ EDUSAINS.  P-ISSN:1979-7281;E-ISSN:2443-1281

This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license

 

Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter View My Stats