PROBLEM-SOLVING AND PROBLEM-POSING LEARNING MODEL ENRICHED WITH THE MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION IN TETRAHEDRAL CHEMISTRY TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING
Abstract
MODEL PROBLEM SOLVING DAN MODEL PROBLEM POSING DILENGKAPI MULTI REPRESENTASI TETRAHEDRAL KIMIA DALAM MENINGKATKAN PEMAHAMAN KONSEP SISWA
Abstract
A learning model has its characteristics with advantages and disadvantages. A Teacher has a particular way of delivering chemistry materials. This study aims to investigate the implementation of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS) and Problem Posing (PP) to enhance students' conceptual understanding of the topic of the mole concept. The learning model implemented was enriched with the tetrahedral chemistry representation, which included levels of the human element, macroscopic, sub-microscopic, and symbolic. This research used a quasi-experimental method with a randomized pretest-posttest comparison group research design. Data collection used paper-and-pencil tests to sixty-four grade 10 students in a public high school in Sragen, Indonesia. Data analysis employed an independent sample t-test. The research findings indicated that the PP model was able to generate a higher degree of students' conceptual understanding than the TAPPS model and have more students with sound conceptual understanding than the TAPPS model. The chemistry teaching integrated with the tetrahedral chemistry representation increased students' sub-microscopic and symbolic levels of understanding. The new approach should be embedded in every chemistry learning model for enhancing students' understanding.
Abstrak
Sebuah model pembelajaran mempunyai ciri tersendiri dengan kelebihan dan kekurangannya. Guru mempunyai cara khusus dalam menyampaikan materi kimia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki penerapan Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving (TAPPS) dan Problem Posing (PP) untuk meningkatkan tingkat pemahaman konseptual siswa dalam materi konsep mol. Model pembelajaran yang diterapkan tersebut diperkaya dengan representasi tetrahedral kimia, yang mencakup level human element, makroskopis, submikroskopis, dan simbolik. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode eksperimen semu dengan desain penelitian komparasi grup pretest-posttest yang diacak. Pengumpulan data menggunakan tes tertulis terhadap 64 siswa kelas 10 dari salah satu SMA di Sragen, Indonesia. Analisis data menggunakan independent sample t-test. Hasil penelitian ini mengindikasikan bahwa model PP mampu menghasilkan tingkat pemahaman konseptual siswa yang lebih tinggi daripada model TAPPS. Pembelajaran kimia yang terintegrasi dengan representasi tetrahedral kimia mampu meningkatkan tingkat pemahaman sub-mikroskopis dan simbolis siswa. Pendekatan baru tersebut perlu dimasukkan di setiap model pembelajaran kimia untuk meningkatkan pemahaman siswa.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
Arikan, E. E., Unal, H., & Ozdemir, A. S. (2012). Comparative analysis of problem-posing ability between the Anatolian high school students and the public high school students located in Bagcilar district of Istanbul. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 926–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.225
Arıkan, E. E., & Ünal, H. (2015). Investigation of Problem-Solving and Problem-Posing Abilities of Seventh-Grade Students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(5), 1403–1416. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.5.2678
Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353
Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2010). Chapter 10 - Thinking and problem solving. In B. J. Baars & N. M. B. T.-C. Gage Brain, and Consciousness (Second Edition) (Eds.) (pp. 344–369). London: Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375070-9.00010-3
Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.005
Bautista, R. G. (2012). The Convergence of Mastery Learning Approach and Self-regulated Learning Strategy in Teaching Biology. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(10), 25–32.
Bernacki, M., Nokes-Malach, T., Richey, J. E., & Belenky, D. M. (2016). Science diaries: a brief writing intervention to improve motivation to learn science. Educational Psychology, 36(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895293
BouJaoude, S., & Barakat, H. (2003). Students’ Problem Solving Strategies in Stoichiometry and their Relationship to Conceptual Understanding and Learning Approaches. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 1–42.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Chemistry Education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 13(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90060A
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). The Modelling Ability of Non-major Chemistry Students and their Understanding of the Sub-microscopic Level. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 8(3), 274. https://doi.org/10.1039/b6rp90035f
Furió, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2013). The Learning and Teaching of the Concepts “Amount of Substance” and “Mole”: A Review of the Literature. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 11(4), 1593–1597. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00083D
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206
Garritz, A. (2013). Teaching Chemistry -A Studybook: A Practical Guide and Textbook for Student Teachers, Teacher Trainees and Teachers. Educacion Quimica, 24(4), 423–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(13)72496-0
Georgiadou, A., & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Chemistry Teaching in Lower Secondary School with Methods Based on: a) Psychological Theories; b) the Macro, Representational, and Submicro Levels of Chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(2), 217–226.
Gulacar, O., Overton, T. L., Bowman, C. R., & Fynewever, H. (2013). A Novel Code System for Revealing Sources of Students’ Difficulties with Stoichiometry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 14(4), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00029J
Indriyanti, N. Y., & Barke, H.-D. (2014). Teaching the Mole Through Experiential Learning for a Sustainable Future. Science Education Research and Education for Sustainable Development, 12, 261–266.
Indriyanti, N. Y., & Barke, H.-D. (2017). Teaching the Mole Concept with Sub-micro Level: Do the Students Perform Better? AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995101
Işik, C., Kar, T., Yalçin, T., & Zehir, K. (2011). Prospective teachers’ skills in problem posing with regard to different problem posing models. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.127
Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of Chemistry - Logical or Psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9–15.
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to Solve Problems: An Instructional Design Guide. San Francisco: Pfeiffer A Wiley Imprint. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440909
Kapıcı, H. Ö., & Savaşcı-Açıkalın, F. (2015). Examination of Visuals about the Particulate Nature of Matter in Turkish Middle School Science Textbooks. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 16(3), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00032G
Khang, G. N., & Sai, C. L. (1987). Secondary School Students’ Difficulties in Learning the ‘Mole Concept’ — A Preliminary Study in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Education, 8(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188798708547617
Kisa, M. T., & Stein, M. K. (2015). Learning to See Teaching in New Ways: A Foundation for Maintaining Cognitive Demand. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549452
Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ Errors in Solving Numerical Chemical-Equilibrium Problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 3(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1039/b0rp90030c
Land, T. J. (2017). Teacher attention to number choice in problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.001
Lee, K.-W. L., Tang, W.-U., Goh, N.-K., & Chia, L.-S. (2001). The Predicting Role of Cognitive Variables in Problem Solving in Mole Concept. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1039/b1rp90029c
Lee, L. K. W. (1998). Thinking Aloud about Pair Problem Solving in Chemistry. Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 89–95.
Libao, N. J. P., Sagun, J. J. B., Tamangan, E. A., Pattalitan, A. P., Dupa, M. E. D., & Bautista, R. G. (2016). Science learning motivation as correlate of students’ academic performances. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(3), 209. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.231
Mahaffy, P. (2004). The Future Shape of Chemistry Education. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1039/B4RP90026J
Mahaffy, P. (2006). Moving Chemistry Education into 3D: A Tetrahedral Metaphor for Understanding Chemistry. Union Carbide Award for Chemical Education. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p49
Noh, T., Jeon, K., & Huffman, D. (2005). The Effects of Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving on High School Students’ Chemistry Problem-Solving Performance and Verbal Interactions. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(10), 1558. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1558
Pekdag, B., & Azizoglu, N. (2013). Semantic Mistakes and Didactic Difficulties in Teaching the “‘Amount of Substance’” Concept: a Useful Model. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 14(14), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp20132a
Pelczer, I., Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). Cognitive Framing: A Case in Problem Posing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.278
Rahhou, A., Kaddari, F., Elachqar, A., & Oudrhiri, M. (2015). Infinity Small Concepts in the Learning of Chemistry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1337–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.494
Rau, M. A., Bowman, H. E., & Moore, J. W. (2017). An Adaptive Collaboration Script for Learning with Multiple Visual Representations in Chemistry. Computers and Education, 109, 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.006
Schmidt, H.-J., & Jigneus, C. (2003). Students´ Strategies in Solving Algorithmic Stoichiometri Problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 4(3), 305–317.
Şengül, S., & Katranci, Y. (2012). Problem Solving and Problem Posing Skills of Prospective Mathematics Teachers about the ‘Sets’ Subject. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(262), 1650–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.111
Shehu, G. (2015). The Effect of Problem-Solving Instructional Strategies on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Senior Secondary School Chemistry. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 5(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05111014
Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Science teaching and students’ attitudes and aspirations: The importance of conveying the applications and relevance of science. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.002
Short, E. J., Evans, S. W., Friebert, S. E., & Schatschneider, C. W. (1991). Thinking aloud during problem solving: Facilitation effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 3(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(91)90011-O
Silver, E. (1994). On Mathematical Problem Posing.pdf. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
Silver, E., & Cai, J. (1996). An Analysis of Arithmetic Problem Posing by Middle School Students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(5), 521. https://doi.org/10.2307/749846
Swarat, S., Ortony, A., & Revelle, W. (2012). Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21010
Thompson, G. H., & Bennett, J. (2013). Science Teaching and Learning Activities and Students’ Engagement in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.608093
Uzuntiryaki, E., & Boz, Y. (2007). Turkish Pre-Service Teachers ’ Beliefs about the Importance of Teaching Chemistry. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2007v32n4.6
Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1986). Problem Solving & Comprehension. Fourth Edition. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zarotiadou, E., & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Teaching Lower-Secondary Chemistry With a Piagetian Constructivist and an Ausbelian Meaningful-Receptive Method: a Longitudinal Comparison. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 1(January 2000), 37. https://doi.org/10.1039/a9rp90005e
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/es.v12i1.13282 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Nurma Yunita Indriyanti, Sulistyo Saputro, Rizki Lukman Sungkar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).
EDUSAINS. P-ISSN:1979-7281;E-ISSN:2443-1281
Â
Â