THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN DISCOVERY BASED LEARNING AND PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL THAT USING MACROMEDIA FLASH TO STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION IN ELECTROLYTE AND NON ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION TOPIC.
THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN DISCOVERY BASED LEARNING
AND PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL THAT USING
MACROMEDIA FLASH TO STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT
ANDMOTIVATION IN ELECTROLYTE AND
NON ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION TOPIC
By :
Lady OfinaBoangmanalu
NIM 4123332008
Bilingual Chemistry Education Program
SKRIPSI
Submitted in Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
ii
THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN DISCOVERY BASED LEARNING
AND PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL THAT USING
MACROMEDIA FLASH TO STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT
AND MOTIVATION IN ELECTROLYTE AND NON
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION
TOPIC
Lady Ofina Boangmanalu (NIM 4123332008)
ABSTRACT
The main objective in this research is to know the influence the
collaboration model between problem based learning with discovery based
learning to student’s achievement and to analyze the correlation between
student’s achievement and student’s motivation. This research was conducted in
SMAN 1 Sidikalang on the second semester. The samples are two classes student
from X grade, one class as class experiment I and one class as class ecperiment II.
The research instrument that used in thisn research consist of test instrument
(evaluation test) and non test instrument (questionaire sheet). Based on validity,
there are 22 questions are valid and rcount for reliability test is high 0,78. Pretest is
given to both class experiment to know the prior knowledge of students. From the
research result, the average posttest in experimental class I I is 79±6,747 with gain
0,655 (medium), while for the average of posttest in experimental class II is
74±9,135 with gain 0,562 (medium). The pretest and posttest data of this research
are already normally distributed and homogen. Based on the hypothesis test gotten
the tcount > ttable or 3,321 > 1,671, it means that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.
So, it can be concluded that student learning achievement that taught by
collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based learning using
macromedia flash is higher than the student’s achievement that taught by problem
based learning using macromedia flash in learning electrolyte and non electrolyte
solution. The correlation between student’s and motivation in class experiement I
rxy(count) = 0,443. It is higer than the rxy(table) for 30 sample 0,361. The coefficient
correlation is categorized as enough correlation.
Keyword: discovery model, problem based learning, macromedia flash,
motivation, student’s achievement
iv
PREFACE
First and foremost, all praise be to God, the Almighty for His blessing and
guidance for giving inspiration, health, knowledge, and the strength to see that
this skripsi becomes a reality.
This skripsi, “The Collaboration between Discovery based Learning and
Problem based Learning Model that Using Macromedia Flash to Student’s
Achievement and Motivation in Electrolyte and Non Electrolyte Solution Topic”
has been arranged to obtain the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Department of
Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (FMIPA), State
University of Medan (UNIMED).
Author would like to express gratitude to all who have helped in one way
or another in the planning, brainstorming, writing, and editing of this skripsi. In
this opportunity, the author would like to express the great appreciation to Dr. Iis
Siti Jahro, as the thesis supervisor and also as a coordinator of bilingual program,
Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si, Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si, and also Dr.Marham
Sitorus, M.Si as the thesis examiners and also to Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang,
M.Sc., Ph.D., as the author’s academic supervisor, for their valuable time spent in
giving guidances, advices, motivations, comments and suggestions during the
process of finishing this skripsi. The author also says thanks to Dr. Asrin Lubis,
M.Pd, as the dean Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State University
of Medan, then Nora Susanty, S.Si, Apt., M.Sc, as the secretary of Bilingual
Program. Thanks to Sir Syamsuddin as bilingual staff for his helping in
administrative assistance and kindness. And also to the head master of SMAN 1
Sidikalang namely Drs. Alben Sianturi for helping.
The author’s gratitude also to all of students to my mini research students
in SMAN 1 Matauli Pandan, the student in second year grade X of SMAN 1
Sidikalang who have rendered their time to be the subjects of the learning process
and observation, and support to finishing this research.
v
The deepest and special gratitude, appreciation and love to my wonderful
parents daddy S.Boangmanalu and mommy Ida Sherliani Purba for their countless
love, supports, prays, motivation and careness and also to my beloved siblings,
Febiola Boangmanalu and Rain Kihara Boangmanalu for supports.
Sincerely a sweet utterance give to my very lovable persons Esra
Sitanggang, Taruli Lumbantobing, Elisa Lumbantobing, and Febryanty Silitonga
for every time that spent, every warm hug, for everything.
Special thanks also goes to my friends Ernita, Fany, Evi, Novel, and all
CESP students Arif, Biuti, Descey, Elvi, Fridayuni, Haryati, Ivana, Lestari, Lisna,
Marianna, Meliana, Nova, Nursaadah, Rimbun, Rina, Rolina, Seruni, Suditro,
Wita, Taufik, that have accompany me during the research. Regards also sent to
my Boanerges SG, Eklesia SG, Sulung SG, UP FMIPA 2016 coordination, PPLT
Matauli Sibolga 2015, Kosopers member, and everyone who cannot be mentioned
his/her name for their support and friendship during my academic years.
Finally, the author hopes this skripsi would be useful for everyone who
like to explore more about the learning model and media to learn electrolyte and
non electrolyte solution topic notably and chemistry generally. May God bless us.
Medan, June 2016
The author,
Lady Ofina Boangmanalu
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Legalization Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Table of Contents
vi
List of Figures
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendices
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1
1.2. Problem Identification
5
1.3. Problem Limitation
5
1.4. Problem Statement
5
1.5. Research Objective
6
1.6. Research Advantage
6
1.7. Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Learning
8
2.2. Learning Model
9
2.2.1. Discovery based Learning Model
9
2.2.2. Problem based Learning Model
12
2.3. Learning Media
2.3.1. Using Media in Problem based Learning
2.4. Learning Achievement
2.4.1. Assessing The Achievements of Learning
14
15
16
16
2.5. Student Motivation
17
2.6. Chemistry Topic on Electrolyte and Non Electrolyte Solution
18
vii
2.7. Relevant Research
19
2.8. Conceptual Framework
20
2.9. Hypothesis
21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. Place and Time of Research
22
3.2. Population and Sample of Research
22
3.3. Research Variable
22
3.4. Data Collecting Techniques
23
3.5. Research Instrument
23
3.5.1. Content Validity Test
24
3.5.2. Validity of Item Test
25
3.5.3. Reliability of Test
25
3.5.4. Difficulty Index
26
3.5.5. Discrimination Index
26
3.5.6. Destructor
27
3.6. Research Design
27
3.7. Research Procedure
28
3.8. Data Analysis Technique
30
3.8.1. Normality Test
30
3.8.2. Homogeneity Test
30
3.8.3. Normalized Gain
31
3.8.4. Hypothesis Test
31
3.8.5. Linearity Test
32
3.8.6. Correlation Test
32
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Analysis of Research Instrument
34
4.1.1. Analysis of Instrument Test
35
4.1.1.1. Content Validity Test
35
4.1.1.2. Validity Test
36
viii
4.1.1.3. Reliability Test
36
4.1.1.4. Difficulty Index
36
4.1.1.5. Discriminating Index
36
4.1.1.6. Destructor
37
4.1.2. Analysis of Instrument Non Test
4.2. Research Result of Pretest
4.2.1. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Pretest
4.3. Research Result and Discussion of Student’s Achievement
4.3.1. Research Result of Student’s Achievement
37
37
39
40
40
4.3.1.1. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Posttest
41
4.3.1.2. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Gain
42
4.3.1.3. Hypothesis Test
43
4.3.2. Research Discussion of Student’s Achievement
44
4.4. Research Result of Student Motivation
45
4.5. Correlation between Student’s Achievement and Motivation
46
4.5.1. Linearity Test
46
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
48
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFERENCES
50
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 3.1. Lattice of Instrument Test based on Bloom Taxonomy
24
Table 3.2. The Design of Research
28
Table 4.1. Student’s Achievement on Pretest
38
Table 4.2. Normality Test of Pretest
39
Tabel 4.3. Homogeneity Test of Pretest
39
Table 4.4. Student’s Achievement on Posttest
40
Tabel 4.5. Normalized Gain in Class Experiment I and II
41
Table 4.6. Normality Test of Posttest
41
Tabel 4.7. Homogeneity Test of Posttest
42
Table 4.8. Normality Test of Gain
42
Table 4.9. Homogeneity Test of Gain
43
Tabel 4.10. Hypothesis Test
43
Table 4.11. Correlation Test
47
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. The Multimedia-oriented Problem based Learning
curriculum Model
15
Figure 3.1. Flow chart of reseach procedure through difeerent
Model using macromeddia flash
29
Figure 4.1. Diagram Result of Pretest
38
Figure 4.1. Diagram Result of Posttest
40
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 Syllabus
55
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan
59
Appendix 3 Instrument Test (Not Validated Yet)
72
Appendix 4 Content Validity of Instrument Test
80
Appendix 5 Instrument Test (Had been Valid)
96
Appendix 6 Angket Motivasi Siswa terhadap Pelajaran Larutan
Elektrolit dan Non Elektrolit
Appendix 7 Lembar Kerja Siswa (Macromedia Flash)
101
105
Appendix 8 Lembar Kerja Siswa (Eksperimen)
107
Appendix 9 Key Answer
110
Appendix 10 Calculation of Validity Test
113
Appendic 11 Validity of Instrument Test
115
Appendix 12 Calculation of Reliability Test
116
Appendix 13 Reliability of Instrument Test
118
Appendix 14 Calculation of Difficulty Level Test
119
Appendix 15 Difficulty Level of Instrument Test
120
Appendix 16 Calculation of Discrimination Index
121
Appendix 17 Discrimination Index of Instrument Test
122
Appendix 18 Calculation of Destructor
123
Appendix 19 Destructor of Instrument Test
124
Appendix 20 Data Tabulation of Student’s Achievement and
Motivation
125
Appendix 21 Calculation of Sandard Deviation
128
Appendix 22 Normality Test
131
xii
Appendix 23 Homogeneity Test
136
Appendix 24 Normalized Gain
139
Appendix 25 Hypothesis Test
142
Appendix 26 Linearity Test
144
Appendix 27 Correlation Test
146
2
Appendix 28 Table of Chi Squared Distribution Critical Value (X )
148
Appendix 29 Values of F Distribution
149
Appendix 30 Values of t Distribution (Table t)
152
Appendix 31 Values of R-Product Moment
153
Appendix 32 Research Documentation
154
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The learning process occurs throughout the ages. Starting from a child is
born, the learning process is always happens. The learning process done through
formal education and informal education. The informal education that we all
know, happen in the natural environment and social environment. The formal
education happen in school and the teacher get the main part. The role of teacher
is often formal and ongoing, carried out at a school or other place of formal
education. Since teachers can affect how students perceive the course materials, it
has been found that teachers who showed enthusiasm towards the course
materials and students can affect a positive learning experience towards the
course materials. On teacher/course evaluations, Daren Olson was found that
teachers who have a positive disposition towards the course content tend to
transfer their passion to receptive students. And Bob Sullo (2011) states that these
teachers do not teach by rote but attempt to find new invigoration for the course
materials on a daily basis. Teachers that exhibit enthusiasm can lead to students
who are more likely to be engaged, interested, energetic, and curious about
learning the subject matter. Recent research has found a correlation between
teacher enthusiasm and students' intrinsic motivation to learn and vitality in the
classroom (Patrick, et.al, 2000).
Currently, the concentration of this research is the high school students where
included in the group of teenagers who are experiencing puberty. Many of the
current graduates are found to be lacking in creativity, communications skills,
analytical and critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Teo and Wong, 2000;
Tan, 2000). These problems affect to the lack achievement of learning outcomes
obtained.
During implementing the Integrated Field Experience Program (PPLT) in
2015 at Senior High School District 1 Plus Matauli Pandan, researchers found a
number of problems that stand on access to learning, especially in the field of
1
2
chemistry. Among them is the lack of student interest, lack of motivation, lack of
media used by teachers to support learning, teaching model that was not relevant
to the content being taught, the tight schedule of student activities outside
chemistry learning activities.
There are two issues related to chemicals that can not be separated, i.e
chemistry as the products (chemistry knowledge in the form of facts, concepts,
principles, laws, and theories) and chemistry as the process of scientific work
(E. Mulyasa, 2006: 132-133). One of the efort that used to improve learning and
student learning outcomes is through the model and instructional media. Since
these traditional approaches “do not encourage students to question what they
have learnt or to associate with previously acquired knowledge” (Teo & Wong,
2000), problem-based learning (PBL) is seen as an innovative measure to
encourage students to “learn how to learn” via “real-life” problems (Boud &
Feletti, 1999). Boud and Felleti claim that a PBL approach produces more
motivated students with a deeper subject understanding, encourages independent
and collaborative learning, develops higher order cognitive skills as well as a range
of transferable skills including problem solving, group working, critical analysis
and communication. We would like to extend this contention further by using
multimedia technologies to create a multimedia-oriented project. By doing so, we
hope to further develop the students' ability to become creative and critical
thinkers and analysers, as well as problem-solvers, within this multimediamediated problem-based learning (PBL) environment. This learning mode is
constructivist in approach whereby the students participate actively in their own
learning process and construct their own knowledge (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson,
1999). Research approach is to use the principles of PBL to develop
problem-solving case studies. According to the reasearch of Frida, et al. (2014) that
conducted in SMA Al-Azhar 3 Bandar Lampung class X, the average value of
pretest in control class is 16.33 and the average value of pretest in experiment class
is 19.19. The result showed that problem solving learning model was effective to
improve student’s flexibility thinking skills in electrolyte and non electrolyte
subject matter. Other research stated problem solving model can trained student
3
creative thinking skill is Nurmaulana (2011). It shows that the implementation of
problem solving learning model proved effectively increase students’ creative
thinking skill in soil pollution material.
Researcher intends to collaborate two models in this study to make an
innovative learning to achieve maximum value of students learning. By using
macromedia flash as the media, researchers will know the value of student's
achievement as the result between Learning based Problem (PBL) collaborated
with Discovery-based Learning model. Bruner argues that "Practice in
discovering for oneself teaches one to acquire information in a way that makes
that information more readily viable in problem solving" (Bruner, 1961).
According to a meta-analytic review conducted by Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and
Tenenbaum (2011), a discovery learning task can range from implicit pattern
detection, to the elicitation of explanations and working through manuals to
conducting simulations. Discovery learning can occur whenever the student is not
provided with an exact answer but rather the materials in order to find the answer
themselves. Research has been conducted over years to prove the unfavorable
effects of Discovery Learning, specifically with beginning learners. "Cognitive
load theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment
may generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning"
(Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006). Beginning learners do not have the necessary
skills to integrate the new information with information they have learned in the
past. Sweller reported that a better alternative to Discovery Learning was Guided
Instruction. Guided Instruction produced more immediate recall of facts than
unguided approaches along with longer term transfer and problem-solving skills
(Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006). According to the research of Bambang
Supriyanto (2014), that conducted in SDN Tanggul Wetan Kecamatan Tanggul
Kabupaten Jember class VIB, students’ achievement raise 30,30% from cycle I to
cycle II and the result is optimal. The result showed that Discovery Learning model
was effective to improve student’s achievement. Furthermore, the research of
Putrayasa, et al. (2014), that conducted in fifth grade elementary school students
in Bontihing village, Kubutambahan District in the school year 2013/2014,
4
students’ achievement in conventional class is 70,3 while in discovery learning
class is 74,7. There was a difference science outcomes between groups of students
who follow their lesson using discovery learning with conventional learning. In
addition, found different effect in high motivated learning and low motivated
learning (Arinawati, E., et al., 2014). Arina conduct the research in SDN in all
Gugus Permadi Kutowinangun Kebumen that consists of 6 SDN. Anava result shows
that high motivated student has the marginal column average 84,56 while the low
motivated student has the marginal column 62,44. It means that high motivated
student has the higher concept comprehension level. Sadirman (2012: 84) stated
that learning activities is important to own the motivation.
The supporter for a learning is media. Media helps to increase students
curiosity. The more curoisity the more motivation they have. One study that has
examined the relationship between multimedia and student learning and attitudes
was conducted by Butler and Mautz (1996). Butler and Mautz did find an
interaction between the effects of the multimedia presentation and the student’s
preferred class representation style (i.e., whether the student was considered a
“verbal” or “imaginal” learner). Butler and Mautz concluded, based on a one
class period experiment, that students considered multimedia presentations
entertaining.
Hence the advantages of learning using these models, the researchers intend
to compare stundent's achievement whom taught by the Model Problem-based
Learning that use Macromedia Flash collaborated with Discovery-based Learning
Model to the student's achievement whom taught only by using Model
Problem-based Learning and Macromedia Flash. Moreover, the study of
electrolyte and non electrolyte solution that related with daily life through those
model and media can help student to solve and improve their learning motivation.
Student’s motivation in each experimental class will be measured to see how the
effectiveness of the models that have collaborated. Thus the title of the research is
“The Collaboration between Discovery based Learning and Problem based
Learning Model that Using Macromedia Flash to Student’s Achievement and
Motivation in Electrolye and Non Electrolyte Solution Topic”.
5
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described, problems can be identified as follows:
1. The lack of student motivation in learning chemistry.
2. The lack of applicating the instructional media to support the classroom
learning process.
3. Students assume that the chemistry is an abstrack lesson because only
taught theoretically.
4. The lack of students participation in learning process.
5. Learning models that are less varied as required by the subject matter.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the scope of problems identification above, this research will be
limited as follows:
1. Arranging the teaching materials in the form of syllaby and lesson plan
systematically.
2. Preparing the discussion material that taught by Problem based Learning,
Discovery based Learning model, and the macromedia flash.
3. Instrument test will be reviewed and validated by the lecturer from the
Department of Chemistry Education.
4. Distributing questionnaires to measure students' motivation.
1.4. Problem Statement
Problem statement can be formulated as:
1. Does the collaboration model between problem based learning and
discovery based learning with macromedia flash gives higher result to the
student’s achievement than the student’s achievement taught using
problem based learning with macromedia flash?
2. How does the correlation between student’s motivation and student’s
learning achievement in experiment class I?
6
1.5. Research Objective
Based on the problem statements above, the objectives of this research are:
1. Knowing whether the student’s achievement whom taught through the
collaboration model between problem based learning with discovery based
learning is higher than the student’s achievement whom taught through
problem based learning in learning electrolyte and non electrolyte solution.
2. To analyze the correlation between student’s motivation and student’s
learning achievement in experiment class I.
1.6. Research Advantage
The advantages of this reasearch are:
1. Provide the broad outlines of innovative learning to the science teachers,
especially in using the collaboration model between PBL with Discovery
Learning in learning process.
2. Provide the learning reference that can be used in high school on the
material electrolyte and non electrolyte solution.
3. Help students to learn through active learning to foster their interest and
motivation to learn.
4. Provide input to the next researcher to conduct the same experiment later.
1.7. Operational Definition
The operational definition in this research consist of:
1. Problem based learning
Barrows (1996) defines the Problem-Based Learning Model as student
centered learning done in small student groups, ideally 6-10 people.
Teachers guide the students rather than teach the problem forms as the
basis for the organized focus of the group, and stimulates learning. The
problem is a vehicle for the development of problem solving skills. It
stimulates the cognitive process. So new knowledge is obtained through
Self-Directed Learning (SDL).
7
2. Discovery based learning
Discovery learning is a technique of inquiry-based learning and is
considered a constructivist based approach to education. In discovery
learning, participants learn to recognize a problem, characterize what a
solution would look like, search for relevant information, develop a
solution strategy, and execute the chosen strategy (Faye Borthick and
Donald Jones, 2000)
3. Motivation
Motivation has been classified as being intrinsic, extrinsic, or achievement
driven. According to Newstead and Hoskins (1999), intrinsically motivated
students enjoy a challenge, want to master the subject, are curious and want
to learn; whilst extrinsically motivated students are concerned with the
grades they get, external rewards and whether they will gain approval from
others.
4. Learning Achievement
Student learning achievement measures the amount of academic content a
student learns in a determined amount of time. Each grade level has
learning goals or instructional standards that educators are required to
teach.
5. Media
Media education in general, is a teaching and learning tool. Multimedia
application design offers new insights into the learning process of the
designer and forces him or her to represent information and knowledge in a
new and innovative way (Agnew, Kellerman & Meyer, 1996).
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of research that obtained from the result of data
analysis. It can be stated some conclusion as follows:
1. The collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based
learning using macromedia flash gives higher result to the student’s
achievement than the student’s achievement that taught through problem
based learning using macromedia flash.
2. There is medium correlation between student’s achievement and
motivation to the student that taught through the collaboration between
discovery based learning and problem based learning using macromedia
flash.
48
49
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, there are some suggestions that have to be
stated in order to make teaching and learning process in chemistry become
effective and efficient as follows:
1. It is suggested that the chemistry teacher to develop the model
collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based
learning to increase student’s achievement.
2. It is suggested to next researcher could improve the better innovative
learning media to improve the student’s learning achievement.
3. It is suggested to the teacher to learn the develop the model and media to
improve student’s achievement and motivation.
REFERENCES
Agnew, P. W., Kellerman, A. S. & Meyer, J., (1996), Multimedia in the
Classroom, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R., (2011), Does
discovery-based instruction enhance learning?, Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
Allen, D., (1998), Bringing Problem-Based Learning to the Introductory Biology
Classroom. In A. McNeal & C. D’Avanzo (Eds.), Student Active Science.
(Ch. 15). Available:
http://www.saunderscollege.com/lifesci/studact/chapters/ch15.html
Aman Sharma. Learning: Meaning, Nature, Types and Theories of Learning
Psychology Discussion
http://www.psychologydiscussion.net/learning/learning-meaning-naturetypes-and-theories-of-learning/652 January 11, 2016 10:26
Arifin., (2003), The conditions of Learning, Third Edition,. Florida State
University: Rinehart and Winston. Inc., Canada.
Arikunto, S., (2006), Dasar – Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Arinawati, E., et al., (2014), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning
terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar, Jurnal,
PGSD FKIP Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta
Barr, R.J., dan Tagg, J., 1995, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for
Undergraduate Education: Change, hlm.13-25.
Barrows, Howard S., (1996), "Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A
brief overview". New Directions for Teaching and Learning (68):3–12.
Bicknell-Holmes, T. & Hoffman, P.S. (2000). "Elicit, Engage, Experience, and
Explore: Discovery Learning in Library Instruction." Reference Services
Review. 28(4), pp. 313-322.
Bob Sullo, 2011, Internal motivation triggers student engagement, learning. Palm
Beach Gardens
50
51
Borthick, A. F. & Jones, D. R. (2000). "The Motivation for Collaborative
Discovery Learning Online and its Application in an Information
Systems Assurance Course." Issues in Accounting Education. 15 (2), p.2.
Boud, D. & Feletti, G., (1999), The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, (2nd
Ed.), London: Kogan Page.
Bruner, J. S., (1961), "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31(1):
21–32.
Butler, J. B., and R. D. Mautz, Jr. 1996. Multimedia Presentations and Learning:
A Laboratory Experiment. Issues in Accounting Education 11(2)
259-280.
Castronova, J. (2002). "Discovery Learning for the 21st Century: What is it and
How Does it Compare to Traditional Learning in Effectiveness in the
21st Century?" Action Research Exchange 1(1).
D.C. McClelland, (1970), The Achieving Society, Free Press, New York.
D.E. Lavin, (1967), The Prediction of Academic Performance, Wiley, New York.
Daniel L. Schacter, Daniel T. Gilbert, Daniel M. Wegner (2011) [2009].
Psychology, 2nd edition. Worth Publishers. p. 264. ISBN
978-1-4292-3719-2.
Delisle, R., (1997), How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the Classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
"Discovery Learning (Bruner)." Cited on January 18th 2016 from
Learning-Theories.com: Knowledge Base and Webliography.
Website:
http://www.learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html.
Donnelly, R. and Marian Fitzmaurice, Collaborative Project-based Learning and
Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: A consideration of tutor
and student role in learner-focused strategies, Dublin Institute of
Technology, Ireland
Duch, B. (Ed.) (1995, January) What is Problem-Based Learning? In ABOUT
TEACHING: A Newsletter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, 47.
Available:http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-what.html)
E. Mulyasa, (2005), Menjadi Guru Profesional Menciptakan Pembelajaran
Kreatif dan Menyenangkan, Remaja Rosdakarya Offset: Bandung
52
Frida, et al., (2014), Efektifitas Problem Solving pada Materi Larutan
Elektrolit-Nonelektrolit dalam Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Luwes,
Jurnal, Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung
Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., (2004), "Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn?", Educational Psychology Review 16 (3): 235–266.
Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D., (1997, March), Using Multimedia to Overcome the
Problems with Problem Based Learning. Instructional Science, 25(2),
97-115.
Istiana, G. A. et al., (2015), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning
untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas dan Prestasi Belajar Pokok Bahasan
Larutan Penyangga pada Siswa Kelas XI IPA Semester II SMA Negeri
1 Ngemplak Tahun Pelajaran 2013/2014, Jurnal, FKIP Program Studi
Pendidikan Kimia, Surakarta
J.E. Brophy and T.L. Good, (1970), J. Ed. Psych., 61, 365.
J. Hartley and F. Hogarth, (1971), Br. J. Ed. Psych., 41, 171.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., and Wilson, B. G., (1999), Learning With
Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E., (2006), "Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of
constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based
teaching". Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75–86.
Lloyd-Jones, G., Margeston, D., dan Bligh, J., 1998, “Problem based Learning: A
Coat of many Colours: Medical Education, 32, hlm.492-494.
Neo, M & Neo, T. K., (2000), Multimedia Learning: Using multimedia as a
platform for instruction and learning in higher education. Paper
presented at the Multimedia University International Symposium on
Information and Communication Technologies 2000 (M2USIC’2000),
October 5-6, 2000, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Ng, K. H. & Komiya, R., (2000), Introduction of Intelligent Interface to Virtual
Learning Environment. Paper presented at the Multimedia University
International Symposium on Information and Communication
Technologies 2000 (M2USIC’2000), October 5-6, 2000, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
N.J. Entwistle and J.D. Wilson, (1977), Degrees of Excellence: The Academic
Achievement Game, Hodder & Stoughton, London.
53
N.J. Entwistle, J.B. Nisbet, D.M. Entwistle and M.D. Cowell, (1971), Br. J.
Ed.Psych., 41, 258.
Patrick, B.C., Hisley, J. and Kempler, T., (2000), “What’s Everybody so Excited about?”.
The Effects of Teacher Enthusiasm on Student Instrinsic Motivation and
Vitality”, The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.68, No.3,
pp.217-236
Putrayasa, et al., (2014), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning dan
Minat Belajar terhadap Hasil Belajar IPA Siswa, Jurnal Mimbar PGSD
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan PGSD, 2(1)
Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). "Communication in
Collaborative Discovery Learning." British Journal of Educational
Psychology. 75, pp. 604.
Sardiman. (2012). Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT Raja `
Grafindo Persada.
S. E. Newstead and S. Hoskins, (1999), A Handbook for teaching and learning in
higher education (H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S Marshall, eds.), Chapter 6,
Kogan Page.
Silitonga, P. M., (2011), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, FMIPA, Universitas
Negeri Medan, Medan.
Sudijono, Anas, 1998, Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Raja Grafindo Persada,
Jakarta
Sudjana, Nana, 2005, Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Remaja Rosda
Karya, Bandung.
Sugiyanto, (2008), Model-model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Surakarta: Panitia
Sertifikasi Guru Rayon 13
Sukardi, (2004), Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan, Kompetensi dan Prakteknya,
Jakarta, Bumi Aksara
Supriyanto, B., (2014), Penerapan Discovery Learning untuk Meningkatkan Hasil
Belajar Siswa Kelas VIB Mata Pelajaran Matematika Pokok Bahasan
Keliling dan Luas Lingkaran di SDN Tanggul Wetan 02 Kecamatan
Tanggul Kabupaten Jember, Jurnal, Pancaran, 3 (2), hal 165-174
Tan, O. S., (2000), Thinking Skills, Creativity and Problem-Based Learning,
Paper presented at the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Problem -
54
Based Learning: Education Across Disciplines, December 4-7,
2000, Singapore.
Teo, R. & Wong, A., (2000), Does Problem Based Learning Create A Better
Student: A Refelection? Paper presented at the 2nd Asia Pacific
Conference on Problem –Based Learning: Education Across
Disciplines, December 4-7, 2000, Singapore.
Vaughan, T., (1998), Multimedia: Making it Work (4th Ed.), Berkeley, CA:
Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Wang, H., (1998, August 8), Research Associate, CCMB-USC. On AERA
listserve on-line Discussion.
Yew, Elaine H. J.; Schmidt, Henk G., (2011), "What students learn in
problem-based learning: A process analysis". Instructional Science
40(2): 371–95.
AND PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL THAT USING
MACROMEDIA FLASH TO STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT
ANDMOTIVATION IN ELECTROLYTE AND
NON ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION TOPIC
By :
Lady OfinaBoangmanalu
NIM 4123332008
Bilingual Chemistry Education Program
SKRIPSI
Submitted in Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2016
i
ii
THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN DISCOVERY BASED LEARNING
AND PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL THAT USING
MACROMEDIA FLASH TO STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT
AND MOTIVATION IN ELECTROLYTE AND NON
ELECTROLYTE SOLUTION
TOPIC
Lady Ofina Boangmanalu (NIM 4123332008)
ABSTRACT
The main objective in this research is to know the influence the
collaboration model between problem based learning with discovery based
learning to student’s achievement and to analyze the correlation between
student’s achievement and student’s motivation. This research was conducted in
SMAN 1 Sidikalang on the second semester. The samples are two classes student
from X grade, one class as class experiment I and one class as class ecperiment II.
The research instrument that used in thisn research consist of test instrument
(evaluation test) and non test instrument (questionaire sheet). Based on validity,
there are 22 questions are valid and rcount for reliability test is high 0,78. Pretest is
given to both class experiment to know the prior knowledge of students. From the
research result, the average posttest in experimental class I I is 79±6,747 with gain
0,655 (medium), while for the average of posttest in experimental class II is
74±9,135 with gain 0,562 (medium). The pretest and posttest data of this research
are already normally distributed and homogen. Based on the hypothesis test gotten
the tcount > ttable or 3,321 > 1,671, it means that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.
So, it can be concluded that student learning achievement that taught by
collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based learning using
macromedia flash is higher than the student’s achievement that taught by problem
based learning using macromedia flash in learning electrolyte and non electrolyte
solution. The correlation between student’s and motivation in class experiement I
rxy(count) = 0,443. It is higer than the rxy(table) for 30 sample 0,361. The coefficient
correlation is categorized as enough correlation.
Keyword: discovery model, problem based learning, macromedia flash,
motivation, student’s achievement
iv
PREFACE
First and foremost, all praise be to God, the Almighty for His blessing and
guidance for giving inspiration, health, knowledge, and the strength to see that
this skripsi becomes a reality.
This skripsi, “The Collaboration between Discovery based Learning and
Problem based Learning Model that Using Macromedia Flash to Student’s
Achievement and Motivation in Electrolyte and Non Electrolyte Solution Topic”
has been arranged to obtain the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Department of
Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences (FMIPA), State
University of Medan (UNIMED).
Author would like to express gratitude to all who have helped in one way
or another in the planning, brainstorming, writing, and editing of this skripsi. In
this opportunity, the author would like to express the great appreciation to Dr. Iis
Siti Jahro, as the thesis supervisor and also as a coordinator of bilingual program,
Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si, Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si, and also Dr.Marham
Sitorus, M.Si as the thesis examiners and also to Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang,
M.Sc., Ph.D., as the author’s academic supervisor, for their valuable time spent in
giving guidances, advices, motivations, comments and suggestions during the
process of finishing this skripsi. The author also says thanks to Dr. Asrin Lubis,
M.Pd, as the dean Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State University
of Medan, then Nora Susanty, S.Si, Apt., M.Sc, as the secretary of Bilingual
Program. Thanks to Sir Syamsuddin as bilingual staff for his helping in
administrative assistance and kindness. And also to the head master of SMAN 1
Sidikalang namely Drs. Alben Sianturi for helping.
The author’s gratitude also to all of students to my mini research students
in SMAN 1 Matauli Pandan, the student in second year grade X of SMAN 1
Sidikalang who have rendered their time to be the subjects of the learning process
and observation, and support to finishing this research.
v
The deepest and special gratitude, appreciation and love to my wonderful
parents daddy S.Boangmanalu and mommy Ida Sherliani Purba for their countless
love, supports, prays, motivation and careness and also to my beloved siblings,
Febiola Boangmanalu and Rain Kihara Boangmanalu for supports.
Sincerely a sweet utterance give to my very lovable persons Esra
Sitanggang, Taruli Lumbantobing, Elisa Lumbantobing, and Febryanty Silitonga
for every time that spent, every warm hug, for everything.
Special thanks also goes to my friends Ernita, Fany, Evi, Novel, and all
CESP students Arif, Biuti, Descey, Elvi, Fridayuni, Haryati, Ivana, Lestari, Lisna,
Marianna, Meliana, Nova, Nursaadah, Rimbun, Rina, Rolina, Seruni, Suditro,
Wita, Taufik, that have accompany me during the research. Regards also sent to
my Boanerges SG, Eklesia SG, Sulung SG, UP FMIPA 2016 coordination, PPLT
Matauli Sibolga 2015, Kosopers member, and everyone who cannot be mentioned
his/her name for their support and friendship during my academic years.
Finally, the author hopes this skripsi would be useful for everyone who
like to explore more about the learning model and media to learn electrolyte and
non electrolyte solution topic notably and chemistry generally. May God bless us.
Medan, June 2016
The author,
Lady Ofina Boangmanalu
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Legalization Page
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Table of Contents
vi
List of Figures
ix
List of Table
x
List of Appendices
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1
1.2. Problem Identification
5
1.3. Problem Limitation
5
1.4. Problem Statement
5
1.5. Research Objective
6
1.6. Research Advantage
6
1.7. Operational Definition
6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Learning
8
2.2. Learning Model
9
2.2.1. Discovery based Learning Model
9
2.2.2. Problem based Learning Model
12
2.3. Learning Media
2.3.1. Using Media in Problem based Learning
2.4. Learning Achievement
2.4.1. Assessing The Achievements of Learning
14
15
16
16
2.5. Student Motivation
17
2.6. Chemistry Topic on Electrolyte and Non Electrolyte Solution
18
vii
2.7. Relevant Research
19
2.8. Conceptual Framework
20
2.9. Hypothesis
21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. Place and Time of Research
22
3.2. Population and Sample of Research
22
3.3. Research Variable
22
3.4. Data Collecting Techniques
23
3.5. Research Instrument
23
3.5.1. Content Validity Test
24
3.5.2. Validity of Item Test
25
3.5.3. Reliability of Test
25
3.5.4. Difficulty Index
26
3.5.5. Discrimination Index
26
3.5.6. Destructor
27
3.6. Research Design
27
3.7. Research Procedure
28
3.8. Data Analysis Technique
30
3.8.1. Normality Test
30
3.8.2. Homogeneity Test
30
3.8.3. Normalized Gain
31
3.8.4. Hypothesis Test
31
3.8.5. Linearity Test
32
3.8.6. Correlation Test
32
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Analysis of Research Instrument
34
4.1.1. Analysis of Instrument Test
35
4.1.1.1. Content Validity Test
35
4.1.1.2. Validity Test
36
viii
4.1.1.3. Reliability Test
36
4.1.1.4. Difficulty Index
36
4.1.1.5. Discriminating Index
36
4.1.1.6. Destructor
37
4.1.2. Analysis of Instrument Non Test
4.2. Research Result of Pretest
4.2.1. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Pretest
4.3. Research Result and Discussion of Student’s Achievement
4.3.1. Research Result of Student’s Achievement
37
37
39
40
40
4.3.1.1. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Posttest
41
4.3.1.2. Normality and Homogeneity Test of Gain
42
4.3.1.3. Hypothesis Test
43
4.3.2. Research Discussion of Student’s Achievement
44
4.4. Research Result of Student Motivation
45
4.5. Correlation between Student’s Achievement and Motivation
46
4.5.1. Linearity Test
46
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
48
5.2 Suggestion
49
REFERENCES
50
x
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 3.1. Lattice of Instrument Test based on Bloom Taxonomy
24
Table 3.2. The Design of Research
28
Table 4.1. Student’s Achievement on Pretest
38
Table 4.2. Normality Test of Pretest
39
Tabel 4.3. Homogeneity Test of Pretest
39
Table 4.4. Student’s Achievement on Posttest
40
Tabel 4.5. Normalized Gain in Class Experiment I and II
41
Table 4.6. Normality Test of Posttest
41
Tabel 4.7. Homogeneity Test of Posttest
42
Table 4.8. Normality Test of Gain
42
Table 4.9. Homogeneity Test of Gain
43
Tabel 4.10. Hypothesis Test
43
Table 4.11. Correlation Test
47
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. The Multimedia-oriented Problem based Learning
curriculum Model
15
Figure 3.1. Flow chart of reseach procedure through difeerent
Model using macromeddia flash
29
Figure 4.1. Diagram Result of Pretest
38
Figure 4.1. Diagram Result of Posttest
40
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 Syllabus
55
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan
59
Appendix 3 Instrument Test (Not Validated Yet)
72
Appendix 4 Content Validity of Instrument Test
80
Appendix 5 Instrument Test (Had been Valid)
96
Appendix 6 Angket Motivasi Siswa terhadap Pelajaran Larutan
Elektrolit dan Non Elektrolit
Appendix 7 Lembar Kerja Siswa (Macromedia Flash)
101
105
Appendix 8 Lembar Kerja Siswa (Eksperimen)
107
Appendix 9 Key Answer
110
Appendix 10 Calculation of Validity Test
113
Appendic 11 Validity of Instrument Test
115
Appendix 12 Calculation of Reliability Test
116
Appendix 13 Reliability of Instrument Test
118
Appendix 14 Calculation of Difficulty Level Test
119
Appendix 15 Difficulty Level of Instrument Test
120
Appendix 16 Calculation of Discrimination Index
121
Appendix 17 Discrimination Index of Instrument Test
122
Appendix 18 Calculation of Destructor
123
Appendix 19 Destructor of Instrument Test
124
Appendix 20 Data Tabulation of Student’s Achievement and
Motivation
125
Appendix 21 Calculation of Sandard Deviation
128
Appendix 22 Normality Test
131
xii
Appendix 23 Homogeneity Test
136
Appendix 24 Normalized Gain
139
Appendix 25 Hypothesis Test
142
Appendix 26 Linearity Test
144
Appendix 27 Correlation Test
146
2
Appendix 28 Table of Chi Squared Distribution Critical Value (X )
148
Appendix 29 Values of F Distribution
149
Appendix 30 Values of t Distribution (Table t)
152
Appendix 31 Values of R-Product Moment
153
Appendix 32 Research Documentation
154
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The learning process occurs throughout the ages. Starting from a child is
born, the learning process is always happens. The learning process done through
formal education and informal education. The informal education that we all
know, happen in the natural environment and social environment. The formal
education happen in school and the teacher get the main part. The role of teacher
is often formal and ongoing, carried out at a school or other place of formal
education. Since teachers can affect how students perceive the course materials, it
has been found that teachers who showed enthusiasm towards the course
materials and students can affect a positive learning experience towards the
course materials. On teacher/course evaluations, Daren Olson was found that
teachers who have a positive disposition towards the course content tend to
transfer their passion to receptive students. And Bob Sullo (2011) states that these
teachers do not teach by rote but attempt to find new invigoration for the course
materials on a daily basis. Teachers that exhibit enthusiasm can lead to students
who are more likely to be engaged, interested, energetic, and curious about
learning the subject matter. Recent research has found a correlation between
teacher enthusiasm and students' intrinsic motivation to learn and vitality in the
classroom (Patrick, et.al, 2000).
Currently, the concentration of this research is the high school students where
included in the group of teenagers who are experiencing puberty. Many of the
current graduates are found to be lacking in creativity, communications skills,
analytical and critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Teo and Wong, 2000;
Tan, 2000). These problems affect to the lack achievement of learning outcomes
obtained.
During implementing the Integrated Field Experience Program (PPLT) in
2015 at Senior High School District 1 Plus Matauli Pandan, researchers found a
number of problems that stand on access to learning, especially in the field of
1
2
chemistry. Among them is the lack of student interest, lack of motivation, lack of
media used by teachers to support learning, teaching model that was not relevant
to the content being taught, the tight schedule of student activities outside
chemistry learning activities.
There are two issues related to chemicals that can not be separated, i.e
chemistry as the products (chemistry knowledge in the form of facts, concepts,
principles, laws, and theories) and chemistry as the process of scientific work
(E. Mulyasa, 2006: 132-133). One of the efort that used to improve learning and
student learning outcomes is through the model and instructional media. Since
these traditional approaches “do not encourage students to question what they
have learnt or to associate with previously acquired knowledge” (Teo & Wong,
2000), problem-based learning (PBL) is seen as an innovative measure to
encourage students to “learn how to learn” via “real-life” problems (Boud &
Feletti, 1999). Boud and Felleti claim that a PBL approach produces more
motivated students with a deeper subject understanding, encourages independent
and collaborative learning, develops higher order cognitive skills as well as a range
of transferable skills including problem solving, group working, critical analysis
and communication. We would like to extend this contention further by using
multimedia technologies to create a multimedia-oriented project. By doing so, we
hope to further develop the students' ability to become creative and critical
thinkers and analysers, as well as problem-solvers, within this multimediamediated problem-based learning (PBL) environment. This learning mode is
constructivist in approach whereby the students participate actively in their own
learning process and construct their own knowledge (Jonassen, Peck & Wilson,
1999). Research approach is to use the principles of PBL to develop
problem-solving case studies. According to the reasearch of Frida, et al. (2014) that
conducted in SMA Al-Azhar 3 Bandar Lampung class X, the average value of
pretest in control class is 16.33 and the average value of pretest in experiment class
is 19.19. The result showed that problem solving learning model was effective to
improve student’s flexibility thinking skills in electrolyte and non electrolyte
subject matter. Other research stated problem solving model can trained student
3
creative thinking skill is Nurmaulana (2011). It shows that the implementation of
problem solving learning model proved effectively increase students’ creative
thinking skill in soil pollution material.
Researcher intends to collaborate two models in this study to make an
innovative learning to achieve maximum value of students learning. By using
macromedia flash as the media, researchers will know the value of student's
achievement as the result between Learning based Problem (PBL) collaborated
with Discovery-based Learning model. Bruner argues that "Practice in
discovering for oneself teaches one to acquire information in a way that makes
that information more readily viable in problem solving" (Bruner, 1961).
According to a meta-analytic review conducted by Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and
Tenenbaum (2011), a discovery learning task can range from implicit pattern
detection, to the elicitation of explanations and working through manuals to
conducting simulations. Discovery learning can occur whenever the student is not
provided with an exact answer but rather the materials in order to find the answer
themselves. Research has been conducted over years to prove the unfavorable
effects of Discovery Learning, specifically with beginning learners. "Cognitive
load theory suggests that the free exploration of a highly complex environment
may generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning"
(Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006). Beginning learners do not have the necessary
skills to integrate the new information with information they have learned in the
past. Sweller reported that a better alternative to Discovery Learning was Guided
Instruction. Guided Instruction produced more immediate recall of facts than
unguided approaches along with longer term transfer and problem-solving skills
(Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006). According to the research of Bambang
Supriyanto (2014), that conducted in SDN Tanggul Wetan Kecamatan Tanggul
Kabupaten Jember class VIB, students’ achievement raise 30,30% from cycle I to
cycle II and the result is optimal. The result showed that Discovery Learning model
was effective to improve student’s achievement. Furthermore, the research of
Putrayasa, et al. (2014), that conducted in fifth grade elementary school students
in Bontihing village, Kubutambahan District in the school year 2013/2014,
4
students’ achievement in conventional class is 70,3 while in discovery learning
class is 74,7. There was a difference science outcomes between groups of students
who follow their lesson using discovery learning with conventional learning. In
addition, found different effect in high motivated learning and low motivated
learning (Arinawati, E., et al., 2014). Arina conduct the research in SDN in all
Gugus Permadi Kutowinangun Kebumen that consists of 6 SDN. Anava result shows
that high motivated student has the marginal column average 84,56 while the low
motivated student has the marginal column 62,44. It means that high motivated
student has the higher concept comprehension level. Sadirman (2012: 84) stated
that learning activities is important to own the motivation.
The supporter for a learning is media. Media helps to increase students
curiosity. The more curoisity the more motivation they have. One study that has
examined the relationship between multimedia and student learning and attitudes
was conducted by Butler and Mautz (1996). Butler and Mautz did find an
interaction between the effects of the multimedia presentation and the student’s
preferred class representation style (i.e., whether the student was considered a
“verbal” or “imaginal” learner). Butler and Mautz concluded, based on a one
class period experiment, that students considered multimedia presentations
entertaining.
Hence the advantages of learning using these models, the researchers intend
to compare stundent's achievement whom taught by the Model Problem-based
Learning that use Macromedia Flash collaborated with Discovery-based Learning
Model to the student's achievement whom taught only by using Model
Problem-based Learning and Macromedia Flash. Moreover, the study of
electrolyte and non electrolyte solution that related with daily life through those
model and media can help student to solve and improve their learning motivation.
Student’s motivation in each experimental class will be measured to see how the
effectiveness of the models that have collaborated. Thus the title of the research is
“The Collaboration between Discovery based Learning and Problem based
Learning Model that Using Macromedia Flash to Student’s Achievement and
Motivation in Electrolye and Non Electrolyte Solution Topic”.
5
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described, problems can be identified as follows:
1. The lack of student motivation in learning chemistry.
2. The lack of applicating the instructional media to support the classroom
learning process.
3. Students assume that the chemistry is an abstrack lesson because only
taught theoretically.
4. The lack of students participation in learning process.
5. Learning models that are less varied as required by the subject matter.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the scope of problems identification above, this research will be
limited as follows:
1. Arranging the teaching materials in the form of syllaby and lesson plan
systematically.
2. Preparing the discussion material that taught by Problem based Learning,
Discovery based Learning model, and the macromedia flash.
3. Instrument test will be reviewed and validated by the lecturer from the
Department of Chemistry Education.
4. Distributing questionnaires to measure students' motivation.
1.4. Problem Statement
Problem statement can be formulated as:
1. Does the collaboration model between problem based learning and
discovery based learning with macromedia flash gives higher result to the
student’s achievement than the student’s achievement taught using
problem based learning with macromedia flash?
2. How does the correlation between student’s motivation and student’s
learning achievement in experiment class I?
6
1.5. Research Objective
Based on the problem statements above, the objectives of this research are:
1. Knowing whether the student’s achievement whom taught through the
collaboration model between problem based learning with discovery based
learning is higher than the student’s achievement whom taught through
problem based learning in learning electrolyte and non electrolyte solution.
2. To analyze the correlation between student’s motivation and student’s
learning achievement in experiment class I.
1.6. Research Advantage
The advantages of this reasearch are:
1. Provide the broad outlines of innovative learning to the science teachers,
especially in using the collaboration model between PBL with Discovery
Learning in learning process.
2. Provide the learning reference that can be used in high school on the
material electrolyte and non electrolyte solution.
3. Help students to learn through active learning to foster their interest and
motivation to learn.
4. Provide input to the next researcher to conduct the same experiment later.
1.7. Operational Definition
The operational definition in this research consist of:
1. Problem based learning
Barrows (1996) defines the Problem-Based Learning Model as student
centered learning done in small student groups, ideally 6-10 people.
Teachers guide the students rather than teach the problem forms as the
basis for the organized focus of the group, and stimulates learning. The
problem is a vehicle for the development of problem solving skills. It
stimulates the cognitive process. So new knowledge is obtained through
Self-Directed Learning (SDL).
7
2. Discovery based learning
Discovery learning is a technique of inquiry-based learning and is
considered a constructivist based approach to education. In discovery
learning, participants learn to recognize a problem, characterize what a
solution would look like, search for relevant information, develop a
solution strategy, and execute the chosen strategy (Faye Borthick and
Donald Jones, 2000)
3. Motivation
Motivation has been classified as being intrinsic, extrinsic, or achievement
driven. According to Newstead and Hoskins (1999), intrinsically motivated
students enjoy a challenge, want to master the subject, are curious and want
to learn; whilst extrinsically motivated students are concerned with the
grades they get, external rewards and whether they will gain approval from
others.
4. Learning Achievement
Student learning achievement measures the amount of academic content a
student learns in a determined amount of time. Each grade level has
learning goals or instructional standards that educators are required to
teach.
5. Media
Media education in general, is a teaching and learning tool. Multimedia
application design offers new insights into the learning process of the
designer and forces him or her to represent information and knowledge in a
new and innovative way (Agnew, Kellerman & Meyer, 1996).
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of research that obtained from the result of data
analysis. It can be stated some conclusion as follows:
1. The collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based
learning using macromedia flash gives higher result to the student’s
achievement than the student’s achievement that taught through problem
based learning using macromedia flash.
2. There is medium correlation between student’s achievement and
motivation to the student that taught through the collaboration between
discovery based learning and problem based learning using macromedia
flash.
48
49
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the conclusion above, there are some suggestions that have to be
stated in order to make teaching and learning process in chemistry become
effective and efficient as follows:
1. It is suggested that the chemistry teacher to develop the model
collaboration between discovery based learning and problem based
learning to increase student’s achievement.
2. It is suggested to next researcher could improve the better innovative
learning media to improve the student’s learning achievement.
3. It is suggested to the teacher to learn the develop the model and media to
improve student’s achievement and motivation.
REFERENCES
Agnew, P. W., Kellerman, A. S. & Meyer, J., (1996), Multimedia in the
Classroom, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R., (2011), Does
discovery-based instruction enhance learning?, Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
Allen, D., (1998), Bringing Problem-Based Learning to the Introductory Biology
Classroom. In A. McNeal & C. D’Avanzo (Eds.), Student Active Science.
(Ch. 15). Available:
http://www.saunderscollege.com/lifesci/studact/chapters/ch15.html
Aman Sharma. Learning: Meaning, Nature, Types and Theories of Learning
Psychology Discussion
http://www.psychologydiscussion.net/learning/learning-meaning-naturetypes-and-theories-of-learning/652 January 11, 2016 10:26
Arifin., (2003), The conditions of Learning, Third Edition,. Florida State
University: Rinehart and Winston. Inc., Canada.
Arikunto, S., (2006), Dasar – Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
Arinawati, E., et al., (2014), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning
terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar, Jurnal,
PGSD FKIP Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta
Barr, R.J., dan Tagg, J., 1995, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for
Undergraduate Education: Change, hlm.13-25.
Barrows, Howard S., (1996), "Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A
brief overview". New Directions for Teaching and Learning (68):3–12.
Bicknell-Holmes, T. & Hoffman, P.S. (2000). "Elicit, Engage, Experience, and
Explore: Discovery Learning in Library Instruction." Reference Services
Review. 28(4), pp. 313-322.
Bob Sullo, 2011, Internal motivation triggers student engagement, learning. Palm
Beach Gardens
50
51
Borthick, A. F. & Jones, D. R. (2000). "The Motivation for Collaborative
Discovery Learning Online and its Application in an Information
Systems Assurance Course." Issues in Accounting Education. 15 (2), p.2.
Boud, D. & Feletti, G., (1999), The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, (2nd
Ed.), London: Kogan Page.
Bruner, J. S., (1961), "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31(1):
21–32.
Butler, J. B., and R. D. Mautz, Jr. 1996. Multimedia Presentations and Learning:
A Laboratory Experiment. Issues in Accounting Education 11(2)
259-280.
Castronova, J. (2002). "Discovery Learning for the 21st Century: What is it and
How Does it Compare to Traditional Learning in Effectiveness in the
21st Century?" Action Research Exchange 1(1).
D.C. McClelland, (1970), The Achieving Society, Free Press, New York.
D.E. Lavin, (1967), The Prediction of Academic Performance, Wiley, New York.
Daniel L. Schacter, Daniel T. Gilbert, Daniel M. Wegner (2011) [2009].
Psychology, 2nd edition. Worth Publishers. p. 264. ISBN
978-1-4292-3719-2.
Delisle, R., (1997), How to Use Problem-Based Learning in the Classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
"Discovery Learning (Bruner)." Cited on January 18th 2016 from
Learning-Theories.com: Knowledge Base and Webliography.
Website:
http://www.learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html.
Donnelly, R. and Marian Fitzmaurice, Collaborative Project-based Learning and
Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: A consideration of tutor
and student role in learner-focused strategies, Dublin Institute of
Technology, Ireland
Duch, B. (Ed.) (1995, January) What is Problem-Based Learning? In ABOUT
TEACHING: A Newsletter of the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, 47.
Available:http://www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/jan95-what.html)
E. Mulyasa, (2005), Menjadi Guru Profesional Menciptakan Pembelajaran
Kreatif dan Menyenangkan, Remaja Rosdakarya Offset: Bandung
52
Frida, et al., (2014), Efektifitas Problem Solving pada Materi Larutan
Elektrolit-Nonelektrolit dalam Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Luwes,
Jurnal, Bandar Lampung: Universitas Lampung
Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., (2004), "Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn?", Educational Psychology Review 16 (3): 235–266.
Hoffman, B., & Ritchie, D., (1997, March), Using Multimedia to Overcome the
Problems with Problem Based Learning. Instructional Science, 25(2),
97-115.
Istiana, G. A. et al., (2015), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning
untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas dan Prestasi Belajar Pokok Bahasan
Larutan Penyangga pada Siswa Kelas XI IPA Semester II SMA Negeri
1 Ngemplak Tahun Pelajaran 2013/2014, Jurnal, FKIP Program Studi
Pendidikan Kimia, Surakarta
J.E. Brophy and T.L. Good, (1970), J. Ed. Psych., 61, 365.
J. Hartley and F. Hogarth, (1971), Br. J. Ed. Psych., 41, 171.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., and Wilson, B. G., (1999), Learning With
Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice
Hall.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E., (2006), "Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of
constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based
teaching". Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75–86.
Lloyd-Jones, G., Margeston, D., dan Bligh, J., 1998, “Problem based Learning: A
Coat of many Colours: Medical Education, 32, hlm.492-494.
Neo, M & Neo, T. K., (2000), Multimedia Learning: Using multimedia as a
platform for instruction and learning in higher education. Paper
presented at the Multimedia University International Symposium on
Information and Communication Technologies 2000 (M2USIC’2000),
October 5-6, 2000, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Ng, K. H. & Komiya, R., (2000), Introduction of Intelligent Interface to Virtual
Learning Environment. Paper presented at the Multimedia University
International Symposium on Information and Communication
Technologies 2000 (M2USIC’2000), October 5-6, 2000, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
N.J. Entwistle and J.D. Wilson, (1977), Degrees of Excellence: The Academic
Achievement Game, Hodder & Stoughton, London.
53
N.J. Entwistle, J.B. Nisbet, D.M. Entwistle and M.D. Cowell, (1971), Br. J.
Ed.Psych., 41, 258.
Patrick, B.C., Hisley, J. and Kempler, T., (2000), “What’s Everybody so Excited about?”.
The Effects of Teacher Enthusiasm on Student Instrinsic Motivation and
Vitality”, The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.68, No.3,
pp.217-236
Putrayasa, et al., (2014), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning dan
Minat Belajar terhadap Hasil Belajar IPA Siswa, Jurnal Mimbar PGSD
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan PGSD, 2(1)
Saab, N., van Joolingen, W., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). "Communication in
Collaborative Discovery Learning." British Journal of Educational
Psychology. 75, pp. 604.
Sardiman. (2012). Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT Raja `
Grafindo Persada.
S. E. Newstead and S. Hoskins, (1999), A Handbook for teaching and learning in
higher education (H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, and S Marshall, eds.), Chapter 6,
Kogan Page.
Silitonga, P. M., (2011), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, FMIPA, Universitas
Negeri Medan, Medan.
Sudijono, Anas, 1998, Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Raja Grafindo Persada,
Jakarta
Sudjana, Nana, 2005, Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Remaja Rosda
Karya, Bandung.
Sugiyanto, (2008), Model-model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Surakarta: Panitia
Sertifikasi Guru Rayon 13
Sukardi, (2004), Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan, Kompetensi dan Prakteknya,
Jakarta, Bumi Aksara
Supriyanto, B., (2014), Penerapan Discovery Learning untuk Meningkatkan Hasil
Belajar Siswa Kelas VIB Mata Pelajaran Matematika Pokok Bahasan
Keliling dan Luas Lingkaran di SDN Tanggul Wetan 02 Kecamatan
Tanggul Kabupaten Jember, Jurnal, Pancaran, 3 (2), hal 165-174
Tan, O. S., (2000), Thinking Skills, Creativity and Problem-Based Learning,
Paper presented at the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Problem -
54
Based Learning: Education Across Disciplines, December 4-7,
2000, Singapore.
Teo, R. & Wong, A., (2000), Does Problem Based Learning Create A Better
Student: A Refelection? Paper presented at the 2nd Asia Pacific
Conference on Problem –Based Learning: Education Across
Disciplines, December 4-7, 2000, Singapore.
Vaughan, T., (1998), Multimedia: Making it Work (4th Ed.), Berkeley, CA:
Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Wang, H., (1998, August 8), Research Associate, CCMB-USC. On AERA
listserve on-line Discussion.
Yew, Elaine H. J.; Schmidt, Henk G., (2011), "What students learn in
problem-based learning: A process analysis". Instructional Science
40(2): 371–95.