THE ABILITY OF STUDENT IN SOLVING CONTEXTUAL PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY CONCEPT AT GRADE X SMA NEGERI 2 LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

THE ABILITY OF STUDENT IN SOLVING CONTEXTUAL PROBLEM
WITH PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL IN DYNAMIC
ELECTRICITY CONCEPT AT GRADE X SMA NEGERI 2
LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

By
Debora Hutasoit
ID. Number. 4123322004
Bilingual Physics Education Study Program

THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016

i

ii

BIOGRAPHY
Debora Hutasoit was born in Lintongnihuta on January14Th 1993. Father’s name
is Manihar Hutasoit and Mother’s name is Ruspita Sianturi, and she is the seventh
of eight siblings. In 1999, the author entered SD N 176354Lintongnihuta and
graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued hiseducation in SMP N 4
Lintongnihuta and graduated in 2008. In 2008, the author continued his education
to SMA N 1 Pagaran and graduated 2011. In 2012, the author was accepted in
Physical Education Studies Program in Department of Physics, Faculty of
Mathematics and Science in State University of Medan.

iii

The Ability of Student in Solving Contextual Problem with
Problem Based Learning Model in Dynamic Electricity
Concept at Grade X SMANegeri 2 Lintongnihuta
Academic Year 2015/2016
Debora Hutasoit (ID. 4123322004)

ABSTRACT

Problem Based Learning , which is a teaching approach that uses realworld problems as a context for students to learn about critical thinking and
problem solving skills, as well as to acquire the knowledge and concepts are the
essence of the subject matter. This research aimed to know and describe the
ability of student’s in solving contextual problem with problem based learning
about dynamic electricity.
This research employed a quasi experimental pretest and posttest with
control design. The populations were 60 students grade X-science in SMA N 2
Lintongnihuta academic year 2015/2016. The samples consist of two classes, one
class with 30 students as experiment class and one class as control class with 30
students, while the sampling technique used cluster random sampling. Research
instrument used essay test of solving contextualability . The data obtained in the
study were analyzed by the computer program Ms.Exel
From the research the pre-test average value of experiment class 26.66 and
controlclass 27.83, after giving the treatment the post-test with the average value
of experiment class 59.66 and control class 49.50. The result of t test tcount = 3.158
while ttable= 1.661. Because tcount>ttable(3.158>1.661) so Ho rejected. The result
showed that student’s solving contextual problem abilty in experiment class had
been treated with problem based learning model had been significantly different
from control class which had been treated with conventional learning. In addition,
the improvement of solving contextual problem skill in PBL class was greater

than in control class. This meant implementation project based learning has a
significant effect toward student’s solving contextual problem skill.
Keyword: Contextual problem, problem based learning, quasi experimental.

x

TABLES LIST
Table 2.1
Tabel 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table of the syntax of PBL model
16
The research design
32
The specification learning outcomes test (cognitive domain)
Rubric of affective assesment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s affective domain
Rubric of psychomotor assessment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s psychomotor domain
Rubric of student’s learning activity assessment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s learning activity
Calculation of Average Value, SD and Variance
Result of Normality Test in Experiment and Control Class
Homogenity Test Result of the both of Class
Calculation hypothesis test of post-test
Hypothesis Test Calculation of initial ability/pre test

35

36
37
38
39
39
40
47
48
49
49
50

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LEGITIMATION SHEET
BIOGRAPHY
ABSTARCT

PREPACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES LIST
TABLES LIST
APPENDIX

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2
Problem
1.3
Problem
1.4
Problem
1.5
Research
1.6
Research
1.7 Definition
CHAPTER II LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical
2.1.1 Learning Defenition
2.1.2 Learning Achievement
2.1.3 Learning Model
2.1.4 Contextal Teaching and Learning
2.2. Problem Based Learning Model
2.2.1. Defenition and Characteristic of PBL model
2.2.2. Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
2.2.3. Advantages and Disadventages of PBL model
2.3. Conventional Learning
2.4. Learning Material
2.4.1. Definition of Electric Current
2.4.2. Defnition of Voltage
2.4.3. Measurement of Electric Current
2.4.4 Measuring of Voltage
2.4.5 Ohm's Law and Electrical Resistance
2.4.6 Electrical Resistance of a Conductor
2.4.7 Arrangement of Electrical Resistance
2.4.7.1 Series Resistance

i
ii
iii
iv
vi
ix
x
LISTxi

1
Identification5
Limitation5
Formulation5
Objective6
Benefit6
.6
.7
7
8
9

10
13
13
16
17
18
18
18
20
20
22
24
25
25
25

vii

2.4.7.2 Parallel Resitance
2.4.8 Electrical energy

2.4.9 Electrical power
2.5. Conceptual Framework
2.6. Hypothesis

26
27
28
29
30

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1.
Research
Location
and
Research
Time31
3.1.1. Research Location31
3.1.2. Research Time
31

3.2.
Research
Population
and
Research
Sample31
3.2.1.
Research
Population31
3.2.2. Research Sample
31
3.3 Research Variables32
3.4.
Research
method
and
Research
Design32
3.4.1 Research method32
3.4.2.
Research
Design32
3.5.
Research
Procedure33
3.6.
Research
Instrument35
3.6.1. Instrument of Student’s outcomes of cogntive domain35
3.6.2. Instrument of Student’s outcomes of affective
domain36
3.6.3. Instrument of Students’s Outcomes at Psychomotor Domain
37
3.6.4.Insturment
of
Student’s
Learning
Activity39
3.6.5. Validity Test
40
3.7.
Data
Analysis
Techniques41
3.7.1.
Determine
Average
Value41
3.7.2.
Determine
The
Deviation
Standard41
3.7.3.
Normality
Test41
3.7.4. Determine The Homogenity Test43
3.7.5.
Hypothesis
Test43
3.7.5.1.
Pre-test
ability
(two
tail
test)43
3.7.5.2. Post Test Ability Test
44
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 . Result of Research
4.1.2. Student Outcomes on Experiment Class
4.1.3. Student Outcomes on Control Class
4.1.4. Data Analysis
4.1.5. Hypothesis Test Result
4.2. Discussion
4.2.1. Outcomes of Experiment Classs

46
47
48
48
49
50
50

viii

4.2.2. Outcomes of Control Class
4.2.3. Outcomes of Experiment and Control Class

51
51

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion

54
54

REFERENCE

55

ix

FIGURES LIST

Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.4.
23Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.6
25Figure 2.7.
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2

Direction of current and electrons flow
Ammeters arranged in series
Installation ofshunt resistance
Voltmeter arranged in parallel
Installation of front resistance
Arrangement of resistance in series
Arrangement of resistance are arranged in parallel
Distribution of pretest result
Distribution of post-test result

19
21
22
23
26
46
47

x

TABLES LIST
Table 2.1
Tabel 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5

Table of the syntax of PBL model
16
The research design
32
The specification learning outcomes test (cognitive domain)
Rubric of affective assesment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s affective domain
Rubric of psychomotor assessment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s psychomotor domain
Rubric of student’s learning activity assessment
Criteria Assessment of Student’s learning activity
Calculation of Average Value, SD and Variance
Result of Normality Test in Experiment and Control Class
Homogenity Test Result of the both of Class
Calculation hypothesis test of post-test
Hypothesis Test Calculation of initial ability/pre test

35
36
37
38
39
39
40
47
48
49
49
50

xi

APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
Appendix 11
Appendix 12
Appendix 13
Appendix 14
Appendix 15
Appendix 16
Appendix 17
Appendix 18

Lesson Plan 1
Lesson Plan 2
Lesson Plan 3
Students Worksheet 1
Students Worksheet 2
Students Worksheet 3
Essay Test Question
Affective Instruments Research
Psychomotor Instrument Research
Calculation of Average, Varians and Standard Deviation
Normality Test.
Homogenity Test
Hypothesis Test
Documentation
List of Critical Value for Lilliefors Test
Table of Ranging Area in Below Normal Curve 0 until Z
List of Percentil Value for F Distribution
List of Percentil value for t Distribution

58
74
88
99
104
110
114
123
127
128
131
136
139
142
146
147
148
150

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background

Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of
knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. Education holds the important role
to produce Indonesian human resources, like as individu or as society because
education can improve and develop the quality of human resources. Improving the
quality of education deserve serious attention and careful. Therefore, various
attempts have been made to improve the quality of education. One is the
developmentof research in the field of education, especially in the teachinglearning process (Sanjaya, 2006:1-2). Learning exposes one to a range of
possibilities and choices that life has to offer.The learning process is both a mirror
of one’s life in relation to others and to the wider environment, as well as a
compass to help us to map our way in our life’s journey (Ramphele,2015).
Education is expected to produce human resources highly skilled, including
critical thinking, logical, creative, and willingness to work together effective that
can be developed through education of physics.
National educationaccording tolawNo.20, 2003, serves to developthe
abilityand character developmentandcivilization ofthe nation's dignityin theminds
of the people. To that end,educationaims to developstudents' potentials tobecomea
man of faith, andfear of GodAlmighty, the noble character, healthy,
knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, and become citizens of
ademocratic and responsible

( Mulyasa, 2013:20).

Physicsas a scienceisone of the subjectsrelated to naturesodemandingin
learningthe

necessaryinvestigationsin

the

form

ofan

experiment

onsuch

knowledge. Physics as a subject is not an exception here. Physics is hard to learn
because of the need to understand the laws and know numerical facts,
manipulating them with the knowledge of mathematics and analytical thinking. It

1

2

cannot be understood just by knowing factual data (Fauziah et al, 2016). The
science and its applications are part of daily life to make our life better and
therefore the development of an individual’s understanding of science and its
applications is one of the objectives of science instruction. Learningphysicsin
schoolsis

still

dominatedby

theactivities

of

teachers.

In

the

sense

ofactiveteachersto teachand learnerspassivein learning (Hamid, 2011). Therefore,
todevelopafield

ofphysicsnecessarysupportinginfrastructuresuch

aslaboratoryequipment andinstrumentssufficientmaterialphysics experiments, the
libraryis

sufficient

todevelop

thebasicthinkingof

students,

andother

learningsupportatschool. According Brown et al., 1983; Entwistle and Ramsden,
1983 in (Selcuk, 2014) Students use basic strategies (e.g., rehearsal and
memorization) to remember facts and formulas, whereas higher level strategies
are used to understand main ideas and concepts. Therefore, not all types of
Learning

strategis

necessarily

improve

the

acquisition

of

conceptual

understanding. Research also suggests that higher level strategies are expected to
promote conceptual understanding. Various studies exist in the physics education
literature investigating the effectiveness of Learning strategi on student
learning.Untilnowmost

schoolswillhaveto

learning

students

outcomesof

cleanthat

purpose.However,

instudyingphysicshas

not

the

shownsuccess

andsatisfaction.
Learning outcomesare alsoassociated withstudent lifeperspective (Ronfeldt
et al,2015). Afact thatwhen thechildrenwere young, their worldis full ofquestions.
Invariousfacets of life, theyget the ideathat beingan adult meansleft the
worldquestioningto enter the worldknow the answer. Schoolstend to encouragethe
movementofquestiontoanswer

becausesuccessby

simplyplacingthe

correct

answerblankormarkthe correct response. Questioninschooltend to haveone correct
answerandquestions thatno responseis rare. Therefore, if wewant to knowhow
tolearnismore importantthan knowingall the answers, thenwemustrealizethata
good

questionis

moreimportant

thanthe

right

answer.

Teaching

studentstoquestionand ask questions ofqualityis more importantthan thetruth ofthe

2

3

answers theycouldprovide.According toNasution(2000: 94) in Wahyuni and
Siswanto

(2010),

The

lesson

willbeinterestingandsuccessful,

when

linkedwithexperiencesin whichthey can see, feel, give, do, try, think, and so forth.
In this case thelearning approachused in schoolsare lessprecise.
Observations

has

been

conductedbyresearcherson

studentsof

SMAN2Lintongnihuta, there aresomeproblemsthat are found inphysicslearning.
Perspectivephysicsstudents

will

beunfavorable.

frightening

specterfor

them,

filled

understand

thestudy,

there

are

Learningphysicsis

withformulas,
even

oftena

interestingbutdifficultto

someopinionrevealsthat

physics

isonlyforscientists. Furthermore, the way of teachingphysics teacherin the
classroomtends totake notes andwork on the problems. In addition, about60% of
studentsineach classXIsciencestillhas a value belowKKMstandards.
Monotonousteaching

methodsis

the

reasonwhy

thestudyof

physicsbelearninglessinterestingfor students. Moreover,whengiven aproblemmost
studentsdo not getto readaboutanddeterminewhatformulais used. Teachers do not
always adopt new instructional strategies seamlessly. According Ravitz (2003) in
(Tamim and Grant, 2013) posited that, even when teachers show enthusiasm
about the constructivist teaching approach after participating in professional
development workshops, they might not find it easy to implement it in their
classrooms. Hence developassumptionson studentsthatphysicsis suitable onlybe
learned bythosewhowant tobe a scientistora physicistmore details. At the time
ofteaching and learning activitiestake place, the activity ofstudents inworking on
the

problemsof

physicsgiven

by

the

teacheris

still

lacking,

althoughstillcapitalized,seethe notes andonly some studentswereactive. Another
casewhenthe teacherasked thestudents ifthe material presentedisunderstandable,
studentsonlysilencein other wordsno student isgiven a definite answer.
Additionally, whenatimethe teachergave a demonstration, students were alsoless
activein its implementation.It showsstudentsjustreceived the knowledgeofthe
teacherwithoutthe initiative tofindtheir own. Furthermore, fromthe results oftests
conductedbyteachers ofphysics, it is known that theresults ofstudent learningabout

3

4

the materialof static Fluidhas not reachedthe expected target. Informationabout
thephysicsstudentlearning

outcomesobtainedfrom

interviews,

the

average

valuefor3years in a rowhas not reached theminimumcompletenesscriteria. From
thisit

appears

thatstudent

Problem-based

learning

learning

model

acontextualproblemthatstimulatelearners

outcomesare

still

isaninstructional
tolearn.

low in physics.

modelthatpresents
In

classes

thatimplementproblem-based learning, studentswork in teamsto solvereal-world
problems. So, student able to solve the problem and get the knowledge and
important

concept

by

their selves ( Etherington, 2014).

Problem based learning aims improve students ability to work in a team,
showing their coordinated abilities to access information and turn it into viable
knowledge ( Eldy,2013). PBLwillhappenwithmeaningful learning. Learners
wholearn to solveaproblemthen theywillapply theknowledge possessedorsoughtto
knowthe necessary knowledge. Learning can bemoremeaningful andcan be
expandedwhenstudentsare dealingwitha situationin whichthe conceptis applied.
PBLcan improvecritical thinking skills, fosterinitiativeslearners inwork, internal
motivation tolearn, andcandevelopinterpersonalrelationshipsin theworkinggroup.
One advantage of PBL is that discussion in a small group will empower students
to be more independent in their study. Which means they will stimulate
themselves to be more responsible and directly lead them to spend more time on
their studies (Dolmans et al., 2016).In the fact showsstudents are lessableto relate
theinformationthathas been obtainedfrom theteacherwithinformation thatwill be
studiedandrelatedtoeveryday life. This relates tothe lack ofpracticeovertheory
learnedandlaboratory usearenoteffectivein schools.

Based on description above, will be conducted research with title “The Ability of
Student in Solving Contextual Problem with Problem Based Learning Model

4

5

in Dynamic Electricity Concept at Grade X SMA Negeri 2 Lintongnihuta
Academic Year 2015/2016”.
1.2. Problems Identification
Based on description of background above, problem can be identified as
follows:
1. Low ability of student in solving contextual problem in physics
2. Student learning outcomes for physics lesson is still not optimal (not reached
KKM)
3. Lack of motivation of students to physics so that students cann’t solving
contextual problem
4. Teaching and learning process in school is still teacher-centered
5. Learning model still not variated that used by teacher
6. Students are not actively in learning process
1.3. Problems Limitation
Problem that developed in this paper should be limited to provide a clear
description of the problems that will be reviewed. In accordance by problem
identification,problems limitation of this paper as follows:
1. Application of Problem Based Learning
2. Student ability in solving contextual problem in physics
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the problems limitation which describe above, hence the
problems formulation in this research are;
1. Is the students learning ability solving contextual problem by using Problem
Based Learning model better than Conventional learning?
1.5. Research Objectives

5

6

The goals of this research is:
1. To know if there are differences in student learning achievement solving
contextual problem using Problem Base Learnig model with Conventional
Learning model.
1.6. Research Benefits
The expected benefits of this research are:
1. Adding the experience of researchs in improving students learning outcomes
based Problem Base Learning model that can be used in the future.
2. Opening teacher thinking conception in developing teaching and learning
model on using Problem Base Learning.
1.7. OperationalDefinition
1. The learning model of problem-based learning is the use of various intelligence
necessary to confront the challenges of the real world, the ability to confront
everything new and existing complexity.
2. Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) is a learning strategy that emphasizes
the process of involvement of students to find the material, which means that
the learning process is oriented to the process of direct experience.
3. The learning outcomes is the ability of the students after receiving the learning
process is completed is a value that includes cognitive, affective and
psychomotor.

6

54

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION
5.1.

Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion, the conclusions of

this research are as followings as below:

1. Conventional Learning before being given treatmentaverage pretest 27.83and
after giving the treatment the average post-test 49.50
2. Problem Based Learning model before being given treatmentaverage pretest
26.66and after giving the treatment the average post-test 59.66
3. From the result of hypothesis test tcount> ttable is3.158 > 1.661, so that H0 is
rejected and Ha is accepted. It can be concluded that there is a difference of
student learning achievement using problem based learning model with
conventional, on the other word the learning achievement by using problem
based learning better than conventional learning.

5.2.

Suggestions

Based on the research results and conclusions of the above, then as a
follow-up of this research suggested some of the following:
1. Should mastered all the syntax in Problem Based Learning and arrange a time
to implement all the syntax in a timely manner and the students had no
difficulty in following all the syntax.
2. Should do a simulation before trying out this model to the students so that
students better understand and are trained in the workings of this model when
doing research, so that this problem based learning model can be completed
on time.

54

REFERENCES
Akınoğlu, Orhan and Ruhan Özkardeş Tandoğan,(2007).The Effects of Problem
Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic
Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning, Marmara Üniversitesi,
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science
& Technology Education 3:71-81
Arends, L., R, (2009), Learning to teach. New York: Mc.Graw-Hill.
Arikunto, S.,(2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta:
Rineka Cipta.
Dolmans, D. Wolfhagen, I & Vleuten, C. (2006). Why aren’t They Working?. In
P. Schwartz, S.Mennin, & G. Webb. Problem-Based Learning: Case
Studies, Experience and Practice.London & New York. Routledge.
Eldy, E.F and Fauzian,S. (2013). The Role of PBL in Improving Physics
Student’s Creative Thinking and its Imprint of Gender, International
Journal of Education and Research 1(6).
Etherington,M.B.,(2014), Investigate Primary Science: Problem Based Learning
Approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36(9).
Fauziah, S. (2016). Leadership and Cooperative Learning and its Relation
Towards Students’ Grade Achievement in Problem-Based Learning
Environment,International Journal of Education and Research 4(1).
Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan,
(2012), Buku Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi dan Proposal Penelitian
Kependidikan. Medan : FMIPA Unimed.
Istarani,(2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan:Media Persada.
Kanginan, M., (2013), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Kharida,L.A,dkk,(2009).Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk
Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Elastisitas
Bahan,Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia 5:83-89
Mulyasa, H.E.,(2013), Pengembangan dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013.
Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Manalu,E.L., (2013), The Comparison of Student Learning Achievement Using
Problem Based Learning Model and Direct Instruction model in Topic

55

Heat and Temperature at Year X SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
Academic Year 2012/2013. Skripsi. Medan : FMIPA Unimed.
Ramphele, M. (2015). Meaning and Mission. European Journal of Education
50(1).
Ronfeldt,M, Farmer, and McQueen. (2015), Teacher Collaboration in
Instructional Teams andStudent Achievement, American Educational
Research Journal 52(3): 475-514.
Rusman,(2012), Model-Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo
Persada.
Sardiman, (2011), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Rajawali
Press.
Sanjaya, W., (2011), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan. Jakarta Prenada : Media Grup.
Selcuk , S. G. (2014). A Comparison of Achievement in Problem-Based Strategic
and Traditional Learning Classes in Physics 4(1): 1309-6249.
Simanjuntak, E. K., (2014). The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model on
Student’s Learning Outcomes in Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA
Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2013/1014. Skripsi. Medan: FMIPA
Unimed.
Slameto, (2003). Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. . Jakarta:
RinekaCipta.
Sudjana, N. , (2009),Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT
RemajaRosdakarya,
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif. Jakarta:
Penerbit Kencana.
Tamim, R.S and Michael, M.G.,(2013), Defenitions and Uses: Case Study of
Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning 7(2).
Tika, I Ketut,(2008).Penerapan Problem Based Learning Berorientasi Penilaian
Kinerja Dalam Pembelajaran Fisika Untuk meningkatkan Kompetensi
Kerja Ilmiah Siswa, Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran UNDIKSHA
3:648-700

56

Trianto, (2013), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Progresif, Konsep
Landasan dan Implementasinya Pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta : Kencana Predana Media Group.
Widodo, T., (2009), Fisika Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Yasa,Putu,(2007).Strategi pembelajaran berbasis masalah untuk meningkatkan
kompetensi dasar fisika siswa kelas viii SMP N 2 Singaraja,Jurnal
Pendidikan dan Pengajaran UNDIKSHA 3:622-637