The influence of constructivism approach in direct learning toward students’ learning outcomes

Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014, Yogyakarta State University, 18-20 May 2014 CE-67 those who are given behaviorism approach in direct learning and the hypothesis test, it can be concluded that there is no influence of constructivism approach in direct learning toward students’ metacognitive awareness. Students’ metacognitive awareness at each class increases, but it’s not significant, which means that the approach is different. In addition the result doesn’t change significantly and the statistical test shows there is no influence. Based on the factors that can increase metacognitive awareness, not all students can increase their metacognitive awareness. Contructivism approach is not able to make students think systematically in solving the problem and making conclusion. Moreover, students’ initial knowledge is low causing students feel difficult to relate the previous subject with topic of solubility and solubility to find new concept. Besides that, not all students make a question or answer the question from teacher. Another factor is that some of the students judge well themselves without keeping attention and understanding the process during learning which consequently causes their answers are less precise compared to the expected answers. These results are supported by Arifin 2012 which suggested that there is no significant difference in students’ metacognitive awareness between PBI group and TPS group. This research is also accordance to Danial 2010 research’s result that there is no influence on learning strategy towards students’ metacognitive awareness. The same opinion by Susana 2011 on her research’s result, shows that metacognitive learning model is not influence to metacognitive awareness. However, the different opinion by Warouw 2009 in Thahir 2012, said that using learning strategy will influence students’ metacognitive awareness. The result on Miranda research also support the theory of Blake, Spence, dan Sheila 1990 in Miranda 2010, said that metacognitive ability can be improved if the students is allowed manage themselves in learning strategy. Constructivism approach in direct learning is considered can be built students’ metacognitive awareness compare with behaviorism approach in direct learning. This approach give an opportunity of students to found and apply their own idea, so needed metacognitive awareness. Constructivism approach provide learning experience, it is make relation between the previous subject with the subject being studied, so that learning is a process of knowledge formation. Each students have a different task, so that they have to apply their own strategy. Besides that, students participate emotionally then interesting in study. Students suggested to make the right conclusion, consideration, and decision. Therefore, it needed learning strategy and the accuracy of students in monitoring and managing cognitive process Maulana, 2008. Constructivism approach in direct learning shows learning process that related with metacognitive situation compare with behaviorism approach in direct learning. Behaviorism approach doesn’t give opportunity to students on improve strategy, idea or thinking process. It is accordance to Anonym 2012 said that behaviorism approach means students expected have the same comprehension. It means what teacher know should be known by students Based on that statement, it shows that measuring students’ metacognitive awareness using MAI questionnaire is not able to record students’ metacognitive awareness well. The students tend to hide their weaknesses but also they don’t show their abilities, so their answers are less accurate, then there is no significant difference in students’ metacognitive awareness between constructivism approach and behaviorism approach in direct learning.

b. The influence of constructivism approach in direct learning toward students’ learning outcomes

Based on the result of the descriptive statistical analysis, there is no significant difference on THB pretest score before learning process between experimental class and control class. The Muharram, et.al. Learning Towards … ISBN. 978-979-99314-8-1 CE-68 difference result shows after learning process. Constructivism approach in direct learning on experimental class is better than behaviorism approach in direct learning on control class. The increase of the average students’ learning outcomes on experimental class is higher than control class. Standard deviation of posttest on experimental class is lower than control class, the ability of students at experimental class are not really different. It’s caused learning at experimental class using constructivism approach that require students to found or build their own knowledge by themselves, so the students can remember longer than the students who get knowledge from the teacher. The result of inferential analysis using SPSS for Windows of Covariance Analysis, significance value p = 0,000 α = 0,050 shows that Ho is rejected, it means there is difference in students’ learning outcomes between constructivism approach and behaviorism approach in direct learning on solubility and solubility product subject in Grade XI Science MAN 1 Watansoppeng. This result also supported by Elvinawati 2011 who concluded that the application of constuctivism and maps model concept can improve students’ activity and learning outcomes on chemistry separation subject. The difference in students’ learning outcomes between constructivism approach and behaviorism approach in direct learning is caused emphasize on build comprehensive by themselves in constructivism approach in direct learning. Mulyana 2011 also said that during learning process, students build their knowledge by themselves and a center of activity is not a teacher but it is a student. Teachers will not be able give all their knowledge to students. Students should construct their knowledge. Therefore, students have to apply their own learning strategies so that they become independent students. When students have a different task, they can solve the problem by their own ways. The involvement of students in learning process to found knowledge by themselves and become an independent student can increase students’ leaning outcomes. The difference of learning outcomes shows by students with behaviorism approach, the percentage of completeness and the average of learning outcomes still lower than learning outcomes with constructivism approach. Behaviorism approach doesn’t give an opportunity to students on found knowledge by themselves because the subject is inform by teacher directly step by step. Based on the difference of students’ learning outcomes in constructivism approach with behaviorism approach in direct learning and hypothesis test, can be concluded that there is influence constructivism approach in direct learning toward learning outcomes. The number of students in each class at XI Science MAN 1 Watansoppeng only consist of 20 students, it makes teacher easier to explore their knowledge and manage students to found their own knowledge. The knowledge on students with constructivism approach is retained longer than students with behaviorism approach. Solubility and solubility product subject is a subject that requires comprehension concept not only memorize the formula or material. The comprehension can be achieved if students thinking creative with their strategy to found knowledge or solve the problem. Comprehension concept will make students easy on solving the exercise then increase learning outcomes. It is accordance to Larasati 2007 for two cycles of learning, the result of her research said that learning pythagoras theorem is effective by constructivism approach. This research also analyzes the relation between metacognitive awareness and learning outcomes. The relation between metacognitive awareness and learning outcomes can be determined by regression test. The result of data analysis shows that there is correlation between metacognitive awareness and learning outcomes at experimental class p = 0,001 α = 0,05. The correlation coefficient between metacognitive and learning outcomes is 0,526. The percentage contribution of metacognitive awareness toward learning outcomes is 27,6 or R square 0,276 while the remaining 72,4 is influenced by other variable which not include on this model. The difference result is showed by control class, i.e. there is no relation between metacognitive awareness and learning outcomes p = 0,141 α = 0,05. Low correlation Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014, Yogyakarta State University, 18-20 May 2014 CE-69 coefficient between metacognitive awareness and learning outcomes is 0,237. The percentage contribution of metacognitive awareness toward learning outcomes is 5,6 or R square 0,056. Conclusion and Suggestion Based on the research results and the discussion, it can be concluded that: 1 there is no influence of the approach in direct learning toward students’ metacognitive awareness, 2 there is influence of the approach in direct learning toward students’ learning outcome Based on the research results, it is suggested that: 1 teacher can consider the use of constructivism approach as one of the alternatives in learning since the approach can increase students’ activeness and make students independent implying that their learning outcomes improve 2 further research of the approach is necessary to conduct in aiming of obtaining valuable information of implementing constructivism approach effectively and efficiently. 3 the measurement of metacognitive awareness using MAI shall be supposed to be revised without changing its meaning which consequently be able to memorize the personal behavior of students. REFERENCES Arifin. 2012. Perbandingan Kesadaran Metakognitif Dan Hasil Belajar Kognitif Biologi Siswa SMA Yang Diajarkan Menggunakan Model Problem Basedintruduction PBI Dengan Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair Share TPS Studi Pada Siswa Kelas X SMA Negeri 1 Sungguminasa. Tesis. UNM Danial, M. 2010. Menumbuhkembangkan Kesadaran dan Keterampilan Metakognisi Mahasiswa Jurusan Biologi Melalui Penerapan Strategi PBL dan Kooperatif GI. Disertasi tidak diterbitkan. Universitas Negeri Malang. Malang. Elvinawati, 2011. Optimalisasi Pembelajaran Kimia Pemisahan Melalui Penerapan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme dan Model Peta Konsep. Jurnal Exacta, . online.Vol.IX.No.1. http:repository.unib.ac.id503104.20Elvinawati20 Hal.2023-28.pdf , diakses 23 Mei 2013. Haling. 2007. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Badan Penerbit UNM: Makassar. Lasati. 2007 Penerapan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme pada Pembelajaran Teorema Pythagoras di Kelas 8 SMP. Jurnal Pendidikan Inovatif, online, Vol.23, Nomor 1. http:jurnaljpi.files.wordpress.com200909vol-3-no-1-dwi-lasati.pdf , diakses 23 Mei 2013. Livingstone,J. . 2003. . Metakognitive . An . Overview. . http:gse.buffal.cdugwellfilescoursesfolder documentslivingstonemetakognition.pdf . diakses 23 Mei 2013 Maulana. 2008. Pendekatan Metakognitif Sebagai Alternatif Pembelajaran Matematika Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Mahasiswa PGSD. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, online. Nomor 10 http:file.upi.eduDirektoriJURNALPENDIDIKAN_DASARNomor_10Oktober_20 08Pendekatan_Metakognitif_Sebagai_Alternatif_Pembelajaran_Matematika_Untuk_M eningkatkan_Kemampuan_Berpikir_Kritis_Mahasiswa_PGSD.pdf , diakses 24 Desember 2012 Muharram, et.al. Learning Towards … ISBN. 978-979-99314-8-1 CE-70 Miranda. 2010. Dampak Pembelajaran Metakognitif dengan Strategi Kooperatif terhadap Kemampuan Metakognitif Siswa dalam Pelajaran Biologi di SMA Negeri Palangkaraya. Jurnal Penelitian Kependidikan. online TH.20, NO. 2, Oktober 2010 http:www.scribd.comdoc9551510596 , diakses 24 Desember 2012. Mulyana. 2011. Laporan PTK: Kontribusi Penerapan Model Pembelajaran “Card Sort” Berbasis Pendekatan CTL Terhadap Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa VII. . SMPN . 1 . Cadasari, . online, . http:4shared.comdocumentBnvA57H1Laporan_P TK_Kelas-7.html , diakses 24 Desember 2012 Sanjaya, W. 2008. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta : Prenada Media Group. Siroj, R.A. 2004. Pemerolehan Pengetahuan Menurut Pandangan Konstruktivistik. http:www.depdiknas.go.idJurnal43rusdy-a-siroj.htm , diakses pada tanggal 2 Februari 2013. Susana. 2011. Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Metakognitif terhadap Kesadaran Metakognitif, Keterampilan Metakognitif, dan Hasil Belajar Kogntif Siswa SMN 1 Palopo. Tesis. Program Pascasarjana UNM. Srini Lina. 2011. Peningkatan Kualitas Pendekatan Pembelajaran Kimia Kma 523 Menggunakan Tugas Strategi Konstruktivis Dan Blended Learning . Makalah disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional Penelitian, Pendidikan dan Penerapan MIPA, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2 Juni 2012. Thahir. 2012. Pengaruh Metode Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review Terhadap Kemampuan Metakognitif Dan Hasil Belajar Materi Ekosistem Siswa SMA. Tesis. UNM. Trianto. 2008. Mendesain Pembelajaran Kontekstual Contxtual Teaching and Learning di Kelas. Jakarta: Cerdas Pustaka Publisher Trianto, 2009. Model-Model Pembelajaran Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka Anonim,. . 2012. . Teori . Belajar . Behavioristik. . http:id.wikipedia.orgwikiTeori_Belajar_Behavi oristik , diakses 14 Juli 2013. Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014, Yogyakarta State University, 18-20 May 2014 CE-71 CE-9 THE USE OF WEB-BASED ASSISTANCE IN MULTIMODAL CHEMISTRY LEARNING AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION Nuke Ajeng Prabawati 1 and Jaslin Ikhsan 2 The Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Science Yogyakarta State University, Karangmalang, Yogyakarta 55281 INDONESIA 1 nuke.ajeng.pgmail.com, 2 jaslinikhsangmail.com Abstract The development of information and communication technology ICT affects significantly education sector. Nowadays, students are very familiar with ICT, such as computer and Internet which has the advantage to use as media in chemistry learning. The use of student-friendly application of a web based learning management system LMS that completed by chemistry multimedia can be benefit for chemistry learning because the multimedia in the web can be accessed anywhere at any time as potential assistance for students. Learning was managed through various learning strategies in the combination of web-based assistance and face-to-face learning in cooperative model of student team achievement division STAD which called multimodal learning. This research investigated the effects of multimodal learning on chemistry towards students’ motivation. This research was an experimental research to measure the improvement of students motivation due to multimodal learning. The samples of this research were 2 groups of students, which are experimental group consisting of 30 students and the control group having 31 students. Samples were from grade X of SMA N 7 Purworejo. The difference of chemistry learning between students from the experimental group and control group was learning with and without multimodal learning, respectively. The students motivation was collected using a questionnaire, observation, and analyzed statistically. Students’ motivation from one group was compared to the another group using independent sample t-test, and the improvement of students’ motivation was analyzed using paired-sample t-test. The result of this research showed that students’ motivation of group with multimodal learning was higher significantly than that without multimodal learning. Key words: Multimodal Learning; Cooperative Learning; Web-Based Learning; Learning Management System. INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of globalization presents education systems around the world with both challenges and opportunities Kagan and Stewart, 2005. Students nowdays are native ICT persons. They are familiar with ICT such as gadget, computer, and their application. This condition should be considered as opportunities to improve methods of learning that can strengthen the motivation of students. This is the challenge for teachers to provide more application or media of learning and help student to solve the difficulties encountered by students, including chemistry. Nuke Ajeng Prabawati, et.al. The Use Of Web … ISBN. 978-979-99314-8-1 CE-72 Chemistry is the academic discipline concerning on the study of the composition, structure, properties, and speed of change of matter George Philander, 2008. Chemistry is intangible and considered as a difficult matter by learners. This is a challenge for teachers to create exciting learning model that can help students to comprehend the chemistry matter. One of alternatives to solve such problems is made by using a multimodal learning in the chemistry learning process. Multimodal learning is a classroom strategy that supports students acquisition of new knowledge by pairing digital tools with requisite other strategies Casey Heather, 2012. Integration various teaching was a teaching–learning is known as multimodal learning Dominic, 2012. In the implementation of multimodal learning, teacher can use some related media that suitable with chemistry matter or even use one of learning management system LMS like edmodo. Teacher can also combine the learning system with cooperative learning model. Cooperative learning is a strategy in which small groups of students with different levels of ability engage in a variety of activities to improve their understanding of the topic Eugene, 2009. There are certain types of cooperative learning. One of them is student team achievement division. It is a collaborative learning strategy in which small groups of learners with different levels of ability work together to achieve a shared learning goal Tiantong, 2013. This research investigates the use of various strategies of learning accomplished by the media run in the methods of cooperative STAD and its effect on the students’ motivation. There are 4 purposes in this research. The first is to find out whether there are differences in the initial motivation and motivation of students who apply late STAD cooperative learning multimodal web-based on material reduction and oxidation. The second purpose is there a difference in motivation of learners who implement cooperative learning multimodal web-based group investigation compared to implement STAD cooperative learning on the web without material reduction and oxidation. For the third purpose is there any difference in increased motivation of learners who implement cooperative learning multimodal web-based group investigation compared to implement STAD cooperative learning on the web without material reduction and oxidation. And the last whether there is a significant increase on the motivation of learners who implement cooperative learning multimodal web-based group investigation. RESEARCH METHOD This research is an experimental research which has one factor, two samples, and one covariable. The factor is the implementation of cooperative multimodal learning of group student team achievement division STAD, based on web. Two samples are students from class experiment and control. The class experiment I was class that used cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD based on web and class control is class that implement cooperative of student team achievement division STAD without web. The covariable is students’ chemistry prior knowledge taken from the school documentation. There are three variables in this research. They are independents variable, controlled variable, and dependent variable. The independent variable is the implementation of cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD based on web. The controlled variable is the students’ chemistry prior knowledge, and the dependent variable is the students’ motivation on chemistry learning. Chemistry learning motivation was measured by using a questionnaire, and the collection was done before and after the experiment. Population of this experiment was grade tenth students of science class at SMAN 7 Purworejo in 20132014 academic year consisting of 156 students. The sample was chosen by purposive sampling method which was then divided into class experiment and control. The instruments of this research consist of lesson plan, questionnaire and observation check list. The lesson plan was prepared for five meetings for each class. The lesson plan for class experiment is the lesson plan that implement cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD based on web and the lesson plan for class control is the Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014, Yogyakarta State University, 18-20 May 2014 CE-73 lesson plan that implement cooperative of student team achievement division STAD type without web. The instrument should be valid and reliable. The questionnaire for motivation was validated by construct validation method. The design of this experiment can be observed in the diagram 1. Diagram.1 : Flow Chart of Research The media that used in this experiment class are power point, prezi, and e-book. This media has been validated by the validate chemistry teachers and peers. There are some relevant notes from validatory about the look and lay out of writing such as writing a reaction, phase, or other type errors. While the content of the media was good. Notes from validatory were then used to revise and corrected the errors. Data analysis included normality and homogeneity tests, before the paired sample t- test and the independent sample t-test. Normality was to find out that the data are in normal distribution. Homogeneity test was the test to check the homogeneity of the population. Paired sample t-test is to analyze the improvement of students’ motivation before and after treatment, and independent sample t-test was to determine the difference of students’ motivation from the experimental group compared to that from the controled group. When the improvement of students’ motivation was significant, therefore, average normalized gain test was conducted.Meltzer in Wiyono, 2013. X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 Data of Students’ initial knowledg Election of Class Experiment Class Experiment I Class Experiment II Motivation Questionare I Motivation Questionare I Multimodal Learning Based on Web Cooperative learning type students’ achievement division STAD Motivation Questionare II Data Analyzes Nuke Ajeng Prabawati, et.al. The Use Of Web … ISBN. 978-979-99314-8-1 CE-74 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 1. Design of the cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD type based on web Cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD based on the web was conducted for five meetings. i.e. Four times of meetings was for teaching learning and once for the final test. Teaching and learning were always delivered with a group setting. Teacher divided students into six equal heterogen groups with different levels of students competencies. According to Slavin 2010, Student Team Achievement division STAD, learners are grouped into several groups with diverse members of ability, gender, race and ethnicity. Students were not permitted to pick their own teams. Educators delivered learning materials in a face to face meeting and then the students were given a task that must be completed in a group to ensure that all members of the group have completed the lesson well. In this group, the smart student must help the other students who got difficulties in understanding learning matters. At the end of meeting, all learners acquired individual quiz on teaching materials and at the time the individual should not help each other because it was about team achievement division to which a reward was given to a good team. Each group received instruction consisting of the list of work procedures, learning materials in the format of multimedia e-book, Prezi and Power Point in Edmodo, so the group can start to investigate, analyze, and synthesise the topic. Learning of Chemistry in this research was designed by using the mixture of face to face mode and other modes with the use of some multimedia. This study of learning was called multimodal learning. In this experiment, there were four of learning strategies has been implemented. They were demonstration, experiment, discussion, and games. In the first meeting, learning was on the topic of reduction and oxidation reactions in daily life by demonstration approach. With this approach, students’ interest toward chemistry could be built and their motivation increased. At the second meeting, experimental strategy of learning was applied. In this meeting, students understood the learning matter well. At the third meeting, discussion strategy was utilized. At the last meeting, learning in games was chosen to study the compound nomenclature. In each meeting, students from all groups can ask the teacher about the tasks. The results of their taskassignment were presented in front of the class and uploaded to edmodo, so the other group was able to download and do cross check about their answers. Each group finally presented group discussion result, and the other groups raised questions. When the presentation and question time was over, each group answered questions listed on the work sheet. The best performance group will be given more stars or points that were accumulated in the final meeting. Teacher gave a reward to the best team. Teacher also had to confirm and emphasized the answers in the discussion group. So, this went to minimize the misconception that may occur. Teacher and students took the conclusion from learning process. The design of multimodal learning in the class of experiment was presented in the diagram 2. Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014, Yogyakarta State University, 18-20 May 2014 CE-75 Diagram.2 : Description of the Class Experimental Based on the results, teaching learning in the class of experiment was more active than that in the class of control. Students were enthusiastic and they understood the topic well. So, the implementation of cooperative multimodal learning of student team achievement division STAD based on web was able to provide good learning environment generating students’ joy of learning so that students learned independently, active, and high motivation.

2. Normality and Homogenity of Data