THE EFFECT OF PROJECT BASED LEARNING MODEL TOWARD STUDENTS CRITICAL THINKING SKILL ABOUT DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY AT GRADE X SCIENCE IN SMA N 2 LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015.
(2)
iv PREFACE
The author says the great praise and gratitude to God Almighty, for all the graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author that this study can be completed properly in accordance with the planned time. This thesis entitled "The Effect of Project Based Learning toward Students’ Critical Thinking Skill about Dynamic Electricity at Grade-X Sciences in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta Academic Year 2014/2015". This thesis was prepared to obtain a Bachelor's degree of Physics Education (Sarjana Pendidikan Fisika), Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.
On this occasion the author likes to thank Mr Drs. Rahmatsyah, M.Si as Thesis Advisor who has provided guidance and suggestions to the author since the beginning of the study until the completion of this thesis. Thanks also to Prof. Dr. Nurdin Bukit, M.Si, Dr. Sondang R. Manurung, M.Pd., and Rita Juliani, S.Si, M.Si., who have provided many advices and suggestions in completing this thesis. Thanks also to Drs. Eidi Sihombing, M.Si., as the Academic Supervisor. Thanks also for all Mr. and Mrs. lecturers and staff employees of Physics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.State University of Medan who have encourage the writer during the studying process. Sincere appreciation was also presented to Principal of SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta, Mr. Drs. Nelson Tambunan, MM, Physics teacher Mr. Pantun M. Silaban, S.Pd and all teachers there, who had helped the author during the implementation of this research. Especially, author also would say thanks to my great lovely father Panahatan Sitorus, my great lovely mother Rusniani Gultom, my great sisters Riama, Dewi, Berliana, Natalia, Pintauli, and my great nephew Gabriel Gultom, my great aunt Tiasa Gultom, and all my family. And thanks also for my great family, students of SMA N 1 Tarutung grade 2008, SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta, and Bilingual Physics Education grade 2011, my great friends in Gg. Regar boarding house, and especially my new family, Jasmen, Dekron, Nova, Kaktar, Donny, Nancy, Togay, Ucok, Aprita, Ricky, Makyol, who have given loves, motivations and advices to the author.
(3)
v The author has endeavored as much as possible in completing this thesis, but the author is aware there are many mistakes either in terms of content or grammar, then the author welcome for any suggestions and constructive criticism from readers for this thesis perfectly. The author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge.
Medan, July 2015 Author,
(4)
iii The Effect of Project Based Learning toward Students’ Critical Thinking
Skill about Dynamic Electricity at Grade-X Sciences in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta Academic Year 2014/2015
Jonni Sitorus (ID. 4113121029) ABSTRACT
Critical thinking is general term of cognitive skills and intellectual disposition needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate argument and truth claims. Critical thinking is one gold standard of project based learning model. This research aimed to know and describe the effect of project based learning toward students’ critical thinking skill about dynamic electricity.
This research employed a quasi experimental pretest and posttest with control design. The populations were 60 students grade X-science in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta academic year 2014/2015. The samples consist of two classes, one class with 30 students as experiment class and one class as control class with 30 students, while the sampling technique used cluster random sampling. Research instrument used essay test of critical thinking ability based on Ennis’ indicator. The data obtained in the study were analyzed by the computer program SPSS 18.
The result showed that student’s critical thinking ability in experiment class which had been treated with project based learning model had been significantly different from control class which had been treated with conventional learning. In addition, the improvement of critical thinking skill in PBL class was greater than in control class. This meant implementation project based learning has a significant effect toward student’s critical thinking skill. Result of student activity also showed student in PBL class has good collaboration, responsibility, and activeness.
Keyword: Critical thinking, project based learning, quasi experimental, Ennis’ indicator, and student activity.
(5)
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LEGITIMATION SHEET i
BIOGRAPHY ii
ABSTRACT iii
PREFACE iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF APPENDIXES xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Identification 6
1.3 Problem Limitation 6
1.4 Problem Formulation 6
1.5 Research Objective 7
1.6 Research Benefit 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Definition of Learning 8
2.1.2 Definition of Teaching 9
2.1.3 Phase of Physical Learning 10
2.1.4 Project Based Learning Model (PBL) 12
2.1.4.1 Definition of Project Based Learning Mode (PBL) 12
2.1.4.2 Characteristics of PBL Model 15
2.1.3.3 Learning Theoretical Basis of PBL 17 2.1.4.4 Steps in Project Based Learning 18 2.1.4.5 The Advantage of Using Project Based Learning 22 2.1.4.6 The Weakness of Project Based Learning 22
2.1.5 Critical Thinking Skill of Student 23
2.1.5.1 Definition of Critical Thinking 23
2.1.5.2 Core Critical Thinking Skills 25
2.1.5.3 PBL and Critical Thinking 30
2.1.6 Learning Material 33
2.1.6.1 Electric Current 33
2.1.6.2 Conventional and Electron Flow 33
2.1.6.3 Voltage Source 34
2.1.6.4 DC Current and AC Current 35
2.1.6.5 Resistivity 36
(6)
vii
2.1.6.7 Kirchhoff’s Law 40
2.1.6.8 DC Voltmeters and Ammeters 40
2.1.6.9 Electric Energy and Electric Power 42
2.2 Conceptual Framework 42
2.3 Hypothesis 49
CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH
3.1 Location and Time of Research 44
3.2 Population and Sample 44
3.3 Variable 44
3.4 Operational Definition 44
3.5 Types and Design of Research 45
3.5.1 Types of Research 45
3.5.2 Design of Research 46
3.6 Procedure of Research 46
3.7 Instrument of Research 50
3.8 Regulation of Instrument 52
3.8.1 Item Difficulty Level 52
3.8.2 Item Discrimination 53
3.8.3 Validity Test 54
3.8.4 Reliability Test 55
3.9 Technique of Data Analysis 56
3.9.1 N-gain Analysis 56
3.9.2 Normality Test 57
3.9.3 Homogeneity Test 57
3.9.4 Hypothesis Test 58
3.9.4.1 Mean Equality Test of Pretest 58
3.9.4.2 Mean Difference Test between Pretest
and Posttest of Experiment 59 3.9.4.3 Mean Differences Test of Posttest 60
3.9.4.4 Mean Difference of N-gain 62
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Research 63
4.1.1 Result of Critical Thinking of Student 63
4.1.2 Student Activity in Experiment Class 67
4.1.3 Normality and Homogeneity Test Result 68
4.1.4 Hypothesis Test Result 68
4.1.4.1 Mean Equality Test of Pretest 68
4.1.4.2 Mean Difference Test between Pretest
and Posttest of Experiment 69
4.1.4.3 Mean Difference of Posttest and N-gain 69
4.2 Discussion 70
4.2.1 PBL and Critical Thinking of Student 70
(7)
viii
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Conclusion 77
5.2 Suggestion 77
(8)
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The differences between entertainment and engagement 10 Table 2.2 Indicator of Critical Thinking according to Ennis 27 Table 2.3 Cognitive Skill of Critical Thinking according
to Delphi Project 29
Table 2.4 Resistivity and temperature coefficient of some material 37
Table 3.1 Two group pretest-post-test design 46
Table 3.2 Indicator of Critical Thinking abilities on instrument test 50 Table 3.3 Category of critical thinking level of students 51 Table 3.4 Criteria of difficulty level of instrument test 52 Table 3.5 Criteria of discrimination power of instrument test 53
Table 3.6 Validity result of instrument test 55
Table 4.1 Pretest result 63
Table 4.2 Posttest result 64
Table 4.3 N-gain result 65
Table 4.4 Student activity 67
Table 4.5 Normality test result of pretest 68
Table 4.6 Homogeneity test result 68
Table 4.7 Result of mean equality test of pretest 69
Table 4.8 Result of mean difference test between posttest and pretest 69 Table 4.9 Result of mean difference test of posttest 70 Table 4.10 Result of mean difference test of N-gain 70
(9)
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Essential component of learning 9
Figure 2.2 Steps in PBL 18
Figure 2.3 Gold standard of PBL 32
Figure 2.4 Flow of charge 33
Figure 2.5 Conventional flow and electron flow 34
Figure 2.6 Analogy of current flow 35
Figure 2.7 AC and DC current 36
Figure 2.8 A uniform cylinder of length L and cross-sectional A 36
Figure 2.9 Series circuit 38
Figure 2.10 Parallel circuit 39
Figure 2.11 Kirchhoff’s Law 40
Figure 2.12 Measuring potential differences 41
Figure 2.13 Measuring current 41
Figure 3.1 Step of research 49
Figure 4.1 Distribution of pretest result 64
Figure 4.2 Distribution of posttest result 65
Figure 4.3 Percentage of critical thinking per aspect before treatment 66 Figure 4.4 Percentage of critical thinking per aspect after treatment 66
(10)
xi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan (For Experiment Class) 82
Appendix 2 Worksheet for 3rd Meeting 93
Appendix 3 Form of Project Planning 97
Appendix 4 Form of Project Assessment 98
Appendix 5 Assessment Sheet of Student Activity in Experiment Class 99 Appendix 6 Table of the Lattice of Essay Test Instrument 104
Appendix 7 Essay Test Question 105
Appendix 8 Scoring Guide for Post-test 108
Appendix 9 Item Difficulty and Discrimination 118
Appendix 10 Validity and Reliability Test of Instrument 121
Appendix 11 Content Validity 125
Appendix 12 Data Pretest 127
Appendix 13 Data Posttest 131
Appendix 14 Interval Class 135
Appendix 15 N-gain 139
Appendix 16 Normality & Homogeneity Tests of Pretest 142 Appendix 17 Normality & Homogeneity Tests of Posttest 149 Appendix 18 Normality & Homogeneity Tests of N-gain Data 155
Appendix 19 Hypothesis Test 160
Appendix 20 Percentage of Critical Thinking Skill in Each Aspect 172
(11)
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background
Education is a conscious and structural effort to create an atmosphere of learning and the learning process so that learners are actively developing the potential for them to have the spiritual strength of religious, self-control, personality, character, skill needed for themselves, society, nation and state In other words, education is an important requirement for every human being. Without education will be difficult to adjust to the environment and will not function optimally in public life. As Tirtarahardja (2005) states that in process of personal formation, education is defined as a systematic and directed activity to the formation of the learners’ personality.
Progress of a country can be measured by the progress of education in the country. Especially in this era of globalization, the progress of a country tends to be determined by the progresses of science and technology, such progress experienced by United States, Japan, China, and India. One of factors that affect progress of science and technology is the success of science learning. The success of science learning is influenced by several factors, namely: the curriculum, the four pillars of education, resources, learning environment, and evaluation of learning.
Based on the Regulation of Ministry of National Education of Indonesia No. 22 Years 2006 about the content standards for units of primary and secondary education, science learning should be taken in scientific inquiry method to foster the ability to think, work and scientific attitude and communicate it as an important aspect of life skills.
Beside it, UNESCO considers that education as a building that is supported by four pillars: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. So, good science learning should be able to apply to the four pillars, is not enough to simply referred to the course or books (learning to know), but it must be equipped with experiment tools (learning to do), and are associated with the environment (learning to live together). Thus, students will be
(12)
2
encouraged to develop the skills and scientific attitude in useful learning for continuing education and to live in their communities (learning to be).
But in fact, until to the 21st century, Learning Science has not been able to apply to each of the four pillars, especially in Indonesia. Learning Science in Indonesia still tend to only apply the "learning to know". The main orientation of learning considered only on completion of the materials to be delivered according to the allocation of appropriate curriculum time available. This statement is supported by the Balitbang Depdiknas research (Rustad et al., 2004) which showed that about 51% of junior high school science teacher and approximately 43% of high school physics teachers in Indonesia can not use the tools available in the school laboratory, consequently, the level of utilization of the tool in learning tends to be low. Thus, science is supposed to be taught through lecturing or demonstration only. When that happens, then the science of learning can not be optimal for developing students' potential.
The low of quality of science learning in Indonesia also can be seen from the decline of Indonesia position in the world rankings. Based on the results of study conducted by PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) in 2012 to 65 participating countries, in terms of students’ performance in Science, Indonesia is at position 64 with a mean score of about 382. This result is still very far below the OECD’s average score 500. And if we compare this result to the four researches before at year 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009 Indonesia still got average mean score 394, so there was a decline about 3% . In addition, an ironic thing again in term of student’s performance in Science, around 30% of Indonesian students are below level 1 from 6 levels of assessment categories (OECD Volume I, 2014). Beside it, from the study results of PISA 2012 in terms of conceptual understanding and problem solving skills, students in Indonesia are still likely to only apply the concept of "learning to know" and have not been able to know and understand the lessons well, even not able to apply it in any various problems. (OECD Volume V, 2014)
That data confirmed also by the observation results obtained by researcher while were implementing the PPLT (teaching training) program in school SMA N
(13)
3
2 Lintongnihuta as long as 3 months. For physics lesson, student’s outcome is still low. From any test and observation result, researcher gets four important information.
First, for physics lesson, student’s outcome is still low. It is caused of student tend not been able to resolve the problems, even theoretical problem or their problem solving skill is very low. Students tend to memorize formulas and equation, do not understand the concept. The students are also difficult to accept that conceptual learning by using demonstration model. Whereas, from results of questionnaire which had been given to 40 student, 80% of the students are interested in Physics subject, but they had difficulty to understand lesson because the learning system which was not engaged them.
Second, they almost never done the experiment, even though the school facilities are adequate, especially for Physics Laboratory, there are almost complete experiment instruments and tools like a kid mechanic, optics, electricity, sensors.
Third, learning process did not engage them and students were still afraid to give their opinion and to ask something, they still do not understand. Or in other word, students tend to be more passive.
And the last, researcher indicates that the students of this school have a good creativity and innovation. It can be seen from their activity in daily life, for example in every morning, students have to make a show in group or personally in English and Indonesian language such as short drama, stands up comedy, singing a song, dance, debate, and etc. In addition, they had ever made a simple house design from wood and a Christmas tree from air mineral bottle. From this information, researcher wants to improve their problem solving, creativity, innovation, and critical thinking.
One of actual and active learning model especially for physics that can improve students’ critical thinking skill is Project Based Learning (PBL). The suggested Project-based Learning is important in the learning process. It is touted to be the approach and means to achieve the 21st century skills (critical thinking,
(14)
4
collaboration, creativity, and problem solving). Moving away from rote learning and memorization, Project based learning builds on individual strengths, and allows individuals to explore their interests in the framework of a defined curriculum. Project-based Learning is holistic in nature and incorporates the principles of providing challenging and complex work, interdisciplinary and encourages cooperative learning. Project based learning also lends authenticity to learning. While in practice, practitioners plan, implement and evaluate projects in real-world situations beyond the classrooms. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2006:1)
The core idea of project based learning is that real-world problems capture students' interest and provoke serious thinking as the students acquire and apply new knowledge in a problem-solving context. The teacher plays the role of facilitator, working with students to frame worthwhile questions, structuring meaningful tasks, coaching both knowledge development and social skills, and carefully assessing what students have learned from the experience. Project-based learning helps prepare students for the thinking and collaboration skills required in the workplace. Projectbased learning creates opportunities for groups of students to investigate meaningful questions that require them to gather information and think critically. Typical projects present a problem to solve; a phenomenon to investigate; a model to design; or a decision to make. (ASCD.org)
In summary of many researchs, which had been collected by CELL (Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning) indicates that PBL: (a) has a positive effect on student content knowledge and the development of skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, and problem solving; (b) benefits students by increasing their motivation and engagement; and (c) is challenging for teachers to implement, leading to the conclusion that teachers need support in order to plan and enact PBL effectively while students need support including help setting up and directing initial inquiry, organizing their time to complete tasks, and integrating technology into projects in meaningful ways. (CELL, 2009)
(15)
5
The results of previous researchers study also revealed some advantages of this model. As the research of Thomas (2000: p. 11-12) suggests that student learning outcomes of project based learning model rose almost 26% compared to control schools and there is a significant increase in the ability to solve a problem between pretest and posttest for the experimental class of project based learning model. Result of Rais’ research (2010: p. 14-15) also showed that PBL can synergize academic skills such as understanding the theory and soft skills (problem solving, self-reliance, teamwork, self-reliance, responsibility, honesty, and the ability to communicate ideas and concepts expressed by the percentage of the project group). And from Bas research (2011: p. 11) project-based learning was found to be more effective on students’ academic achievement levels and attitudes towards the course than the activities instruction based on student textbooks.
Based on explanations above, researcher was interested to do research about: “The Effect of Project Based Learning Model toward Students’ Critical Thinking Skill about Dynamic Electricity at Grade X-Science in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta Academic Year 2014/2015.
(16)
6
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the explanation about background of problems above, the relevant problems which identified are:
1. Student’s learning achievement in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta for Physics subject was still low.
2. The low student’s learning achievement caused by poor conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and problem solving skills of students. 3. Learning process was still teacher-centered (student is not active).
4. Students tend to memorize formula (considering physics is only about mathematical operation).
5. Student was rarely to do experiment.
6. Student was almost never or afraid to give their opinion.
7. Learning process less involved creativity and innovation of students.
1.3. Problem Limitation
To give scope clearly in discussion, then researcher limited the problems as following as:
1. Research done to develop the students’ critical thinking skill about dynamic electricity.
2. Learning model should be used is Project Based Learning (PBL) model. 3. The research location in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta grade X-Science
Academic Year 2013/2014
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the problem identification above, so the problem formulations in this research are:
1. Does the implementation of PBL models in the learning process has an effect to improve critical thinking skill of students about the dynamic electricity?
2. How is the activity of the students during the learning process using the learning model of project based learning?
(17)
7
1.5. Research Objective
Based on problem formulations above, so the objectives of this research are:
1. To know effect of PBL models in the learning process toward critical thinking skills of students about the dynamic electricity?
2. To know how is the activity of the students during the learning process using the learning model of project based learning?
1.6. Research Benefit
The benefits of this research are:
1. For any educational units and teachers especially for high school level, as additional suggestion in choosing the proper learning model to increase the actual and active learning especially in teaching and learning physics. 2. For SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta, as additional information how to increase
their students’ performance either knowledge and skill or attitude.
3. For State University of Medan, as additional literature about this Project Based Learning Model
4. For researcher, to increase knowledge and experience how to make a good research, how to prepare being a good and professional teacher, and especially to increase knowledge about project based learning.
(18)
77 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion, the conclusions of this research are as followings as below:
1. Implementing of Project Based Learning (PBL) model in learning process
has a significant effect toward critical thinking skill of student about dynamic electricity, and the implementation of PBL model is effective to improve critical thinking skill of students with the mean improvement (N-gain) is 0.39, this means that the improvement of students’ critical thinking skill is 39%.
2. Implementing of PBL model can improve activity of student including of
collaboration, responsibility, and activeness, which of in learning process by implementing PBL model, students have a good criteria of collaboration, responsibility, and activeness.
5.2. Suggestions
Based on the research result, data analysis, discussion, and weakness had been faced, researcher suggest these things; (1) before implementing PBL, observe condition and quality of knowledge of student, school facilities, and time; (2) and try to use this PBL model in learning process by team teaching, because of it is hard to control all activity of student by using this model lonely.
(19)
78
REFERENCES
Arikunto S. (2009). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Arifin, Z. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ashari & Santoso, P. (2005). Analisis Statistik dengan Microsoft Excel & SPSS.Yogyakarta: Andi Offset
Bas, G. (2011). The Effect of Project-Based Learning on Student’s Academic Achievement and Attitudes toward English Lesson. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education Volume 1 Issue 4. Konya: Selçuk University.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
http://www.tojned.net/pdf/tojnedv01i04-01.pdf
Bell, S. (2010). Project Based Learning for 21st Century: Skills for Future the Future.
The Clearing House, 83: 39–43.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369-398. Buck Institut of Education (BIE). (2007). What Is Project Based Learning?
http://bie.org/index.php/site/pjbl/pjbl%20handbook. Accessed on January 22, 2015
BIE. (2014). Introduction to Project Based Learning. p. 3-10. Retrieved January 22, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=305&filename=PBL_Handbook_Intro.pdf
CELL. (2009). Summary of Research on Project-based Learning. Indiana :
University of Indianapolis. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=555&filename=Research_CELL.pdf
Cutler-Hummer University. (1999). Learning Module 2: Fundamentals of Electricity. Wisconsin U.S.A : Eaton Corp.
Delafosse. (2007). Teaching in 21st Century (online Youtube). Watched January 12,
2014 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=075aWDdZUlM
(20)
79
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills.
Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44-48. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198510_ennis.pdf
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. San Jose, CA: California Academic Press. Retrieved February 18, 2015 from
http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/What&Why2010.pdf
Fisher, A. (2009). Berpikir Kritis: Sebuah Pengantar (translation edition). Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Foster, B. (2004). Terpadu Fisika Sma untuk Kelas X. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Frisbie, A. David. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement, NCME
Instructional Module, p. 25-35. Iowa City: Spring.
Retrieved on March 08, 2015 from
http://ncme.org/linkservid/65BD2D34-1320-5CAE-6E13B6D9BD1AB46A/showMeta/0/
Global SchoolNet. (2000). Introduction to Networked Project-Based Learning.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from http://www.gsn.org/web/pbl/whatis.htm
Hewitt. (2006). Conceptual Physics 10th edition. San Francisco: Addison-Wesley. Larmer, J., Margendoller, J. (2014). Essentials for Project Based Learning: BIE.
Retrieved March 10, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=716&filename=8_Essentials_Article_v2014. pdf
Logan, F. A. (1976). Fundamentals of Learning and Motivation 2nd Edition. New Mexico: Brown Company Publisher
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2006). Project-Based Learning Handbook, Kuala Lumpur: Educational Technology Division. Retrieved January 22, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=305&filename=PBL_Handbook_Intro.pdf
Mohan, R. (2007). Innovative Science Teaching (third edition). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
Musa, F., et.al. (2012). Project-based learning (PjBL): inculcating soft skills in 21st
century workplace. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59: 565 – 573
Ngalimun. (2013). Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo.
OECD. (2014), PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving: Students’ Skills in Tackling Real-Life Problems(Volume V), PISA, OECD Publishing.
(21)
80
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing.
Prayoga, Z. (2013). Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Siswa pada Pembelajaran Materi Pengelolaan Lingkungan dengan Pendekatan Keterampilan Proses Sains (Skripsi). FMIPA. Semarang: Unnes.
Rais, M. (2010). Project-Based Learning: Inovasi Pembelajaran yang Berorientasi Soft Skills. Makalah. Disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan Fakultas Teknik Universitas Negeri Surabaya, at Surabaya Desember 11th, 2010
Richards, J., & Stebbins, L. (2013). Research Supporting the Design of WIN Math and WIN ELA: Win learning. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from
http://www.winlearning.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/WINProjectBasedL earningV2.pdf
Rice University. (2013). College Physics. Texas: OpenStax College.
Rosyada, D. (2004). Paradigma Pendidikan Demokratis Sebuah Modal Masyarakat
dalam Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Rustad, S., Munandar A., & Dwiyanto. (2004). Analisis Prasarana dan Sarana Pendidikan SD/MI, SMP/MTS, dan SMA/SMK/MA. Jakarta: Balitbangnas, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Sabar, N. (2007). Pendekatan Project Based Learning Sebagai Upaya Internalisasi
Scientific Method Bagi Mahasisa Calon Guru Fisika. Skripsi. Yokyakarta: FMIPA UNY.
Santoso, S. (2000). SPSS Mengolah Data Statitik Secara Profesional. Jakarta: Penerbit PT. Elex Media Komputiondo.
Sardiman. (2009). Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar-Mengajar. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers. Sencar, S. (2011). High School Student’s Misconception about Simple Electric
Circuit. Hacepte Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. Retrieved February 16, 2015 from
http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/200121SELEN%20SENCAR.pdf
Seifert, K. & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational Psychology (second edition). Zurich: Jacobs Foundation.
(22)
81
Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Jakarta:
Penerbit PT Rineka Cipta.
Stick, A. & Hrbek, F. (2006). Teacher as classroom coaches.
Accessed on March 15th, 2015 from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/106031/chapters/The_Nine_Steps_of _Project-Based_Learning.aspx
The George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2005). Instructional Module Project-Based Learning.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
http://www.edutopia.org/modules/PBL/whatpbl.php
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. California:
The Auto Desk Foundation. Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
Tirtarahardja., Umar & S.L. La Sulo. (2005). Pengantar Pendidikan (edisi revisi). Jakarta: Penerbit Rineka Cipta.
Veer, U. (2004). Modern Teaching of Physics. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt.
Ltd.
Wainwright, L. (2007). Toward Learning and Understanding Electricity:
Challenging Persistent Misconceptions. Forest Grove: Pacific Collage. Retrieved February 16, 2015 from
Wiyanto, A. Sopyan, Nugroho, & S.W.A. Wibowo. (2006). Potret Pembelajaran Sains di SMP dan SMA. Jurnal Pend. Fisika Indonesia, 4(2): 63-66
Yalçin, A. (2009). The Effect of Project Based Learning on Science Undergraduates’ Learning of Electricity, Attitude towards Physics and Scientific Process Skills.
International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1 (1): 81-105
http://academic.pgcc.edu/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/Designingrubricsassessingthinking.htm l (Accessed on February 18, 2015)
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Project-Based_Learning.aspx (Accessed on February 18, 2015)
http://bie.org/blog/the_power_of_the_4cs_the_foundation_for_creating_a_gold_stand ard_for_projec Accessed on February 18, 2015)
(23)
ii BIOGRAPHY
Jonni Sitorus was born in Batunadua on June 29Th 1993. Father’s name is Panahatan Sitorus and Mother’s name is Rusnani Gultom, and he is the fourth of six siblings. In 1999, the author entered SD Batunadua and graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued his education in SMP N 2 Pangaribuan and graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued his education to SMA N 1 Tarutung and graduated 2011. In 2011, the author was accepted in Physical Education Studies Program in Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science in State University of Medan.
(1)
77 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion, the conclusions of this research are as followings as below:
1. Implementing of Project Based Learning (PBL) model in learning process has a significant effect toward critical thinking skill of student about dynamic electricity, and the implementation of PBL model is effective to improve critical thinking skill of students with the mean improvement (N-gain) is 0.39, this means that the improvement of students’ critical thinking skill is 39%.
2. Implementing of PBL model can improve activity of student including of collaboration, responsibility, and activeness, which of in learning process by implementing PBL model, students have a good criteria of collaboration, responsibility, and activeness.
5.2. Suggestions
Based on the research result, data analysis, discussion, and weakness had been faced, researcher suggest these things; (1) before implementing PBL, observe condition and quality of knowledge of student, school facilities, and time; (2) and try to use this PBL model in learning process by team teaching, because of it is hard to control all activity of student by using this model lonely.
(2)
78
REFERENCES
Arikunto S. (2009). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta: Bumi
Aksara.
Arifin, Z. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ashari & Santoso, P. (2005). Analisis Statistik dengan Microsoft Excel &
SPSS.Yogyakarta: Andi Offset
Bas, G. (2011). The Effect of Project-Based Learning on Student’s Academic
Achievement and Attitudes toward English Lesson. The Online Journal of
New Horizons in Education Volume 1 Issue 4. Konya: Selçuk University.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
http://www.tojned.net/pdf/tojnedv01i04-01.pdf
Bell, S. (2010). Project Based Learning for 21st Century: Skills for Future the Future.
The Clearing House, 83: 39–43.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing,
supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369-398.
Buck Institut of Education (BIE). (2007). What Is Project Based Learning?
http://bie.org/index.php/site/pjbl/pjbl%20handbook. Accessed on January 22, 2015
BIE. (2014). Introduction to Project Based Learning. p. 3-10.
Retrieved January 22, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=305&filename=PBL_Handbook_Intro.pdf
CELL. (2009). Summary of Research on Project-based Learning. Indiana :
University of Indianapolis. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=555&filename=Research_CELL.pdf
Cutler-Hummer University. (1999). Learning Module 2: Fundamentals of Electricity.
Wisconsin U.S.A : Eaton Corp.
Delafosse. (2007). Teaching in 21st Century (online Youtube). Watched January 12,
2014 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=075aWDdZUlM
(3)
79
Ennis, R. H. (1985). A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills.
Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44-48. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198510_ennis.pdf
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. San Jose, CA:
California Academic Press. Retrieved February 18, 2015 from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/What&Why2010.pdf
Fisher, A. (2009). Berpikir Kritis: Sebuah Pengantar (translation edition). Jakarta:
Penerbit Erlangga.
Foster, B. (2004). Terpadu Fisika Sma untuk Kelas X. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Frisbie, A. David. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement, NCME
Instructional Module, p. 25-35. Iowa City: Spring.
Retrieved on March 08, 2015 from
http://ncme.org/linkservid/65BD2D34-1320-5CAE-6E13B6D9BD1AB46A/showMeta/0/
Global SchoolNet. (2000). Introduction to Networked Project-Based Learning.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from http://www.gsn.org/web/pbl/whatis.htm
Hewitt. (2006). Conceptual Physics 10th edition. San Francisco: Addison-Wesley.
Larmer, J., Margendoller, J. (2014). Essentials for Project Based Learning: BIE.
Retrieved March 10, 2015 from
http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=716&filename=8_Essentials_Article_v2014. pdf
Logan, F. A. (1976). Fundamentals of Learning and Motivation 2nd Edition. New
Mexico: Brown Company Publisher
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2006). Project-Based Learning Handbook, Kuala
Lumpur: Educational Technology Division. Retrieved January 22, 2015 from http://bie.org/?ACT=87&file_id=305&filename=PBL_Handbook_Intro.pdf
Mohan, R. (2007). Innovative Science Teaching (third edition). New Delhi:
Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
Musa, F., et.al. (2012). Project-based learning (PjBL): inculcating soft skills in 21st
century workplace. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59: 565 – 573
Ngalimun. (2013). Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo.
OECD. (2014), PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving: Students’ Skills in
(4)
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student
Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised
edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing.
Prayoga, Z. (2013). Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Siswa pada Pembelajaran Materi Pengelolaan Lingkungan dengan Pendekatan Keterampilan Proses Sains (Skripsi). FMIPA. Semarang: Unnes.
Rais, M. (2010). Project-Based Learning: Inovasi Pembelajaran yang Berorientasi Soft Skills. Makalah. Disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan Fakultas Teknik Universitas Negeri Surabaya, at
Surabaya Desember 11th, 2010
Richards, J., & Stebbins, L. (2013). Research Supporting the Design of WIN Math and WIN ELA: Win learning. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://www.winlearning.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/WINProjectBasedL earningV2.pdf
Rice University. (2013). College Physics. Texas: OpenStax College.
Rosyada, D. (2004). Paradigma Pendidikan Demokratis Sebuah Modal Masyarakat
dalam Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Rustad, S., Munandar A., & Dwiyanto. (2004). Analisis Prasarana dan Sarana
Pendidikan SD/MI, SMP/MTS, dan SMA/SMK/MA. Jakarta: Balitbangnas,
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Sabar, N. (2007). Pendekatan Project Based Learning Sebagai Upaya Internalisasi
Scientific Method Bagi Mahasisa Calon Guru Fisika. Skripsi. Yokyakarta: FMIPA UNY.
Santoso, S. (2000). SPSS Mengolah Data Statitik Secara Profesional. Jakarta: Penerbit PT. Elex Media Komputiondo.
Sardiman. (2009). Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar-Mengajar. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Sencar, S. (2011). High School Student’s Misconception about Simple Electric
Circuit. Hacepte Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi. Retrieved February 16, 2015 from
http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/200121SELEN%20SENCAR.pdf
Seifert, K. & Sutton, R. (2009). Educational Psychology (second edition). Zurich:
(5)
81
Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Jakarta:
Penerbit PT Rineka Cipta.
Stick, A. & Hrbek, F. (2006). Teacher as classroom coaches.
Accessed on March 15th, 2015 from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/106031/chapters/The_Nine_Steps_of _Project-Based_Learning.aspx
The George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2005). Instructional Module Project
-Based Learning.
Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
http://www.edutopia.org/modules/PBL/whatpbl.php
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. California:
The Auto Desk Foundation. Retrieved January 21, 2015 from
Tirtarahardja., Umar & S.L. La Sulo. (2005). Pengantar Pendidikan (edisi revisi).
Jakarta: Penerbit Rineka Cipta.
Veer, U. (2004). Modern Teaching of Physics. New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt.
Ltd.
Wainwright, L. (2007). Toward Learning and Understanding Electricity:
Challenging Persistent Misconceptions. Forest Grove: Pacific Collage. Retrieved February 16, 2015 from
Wiyanto, A. Sopyan, Nugroho, & S.W.A. Wibowo. (2006). Potret Pembelajaran
Sains di SMP dan SMA. Jurnal Pend. Fisika Indonesia, 4(2): 63-66
Yalçin, A. (2009). The Effect of Project Based Learning on Science Undergraduates’ Learning of Electricity, Attitude towards Physics and Scientific Process Skills.
International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1 (1): 81-105
http://academic.pgcc.edu/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/Designingrubricsassessingthinking.htm
l (Accessed on February 18, 2015)
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Project-Based_Learning.aspx (Accessed on February 18, 2015)
http://bie.org/blog/the_power_of_the_4cs_the_foundation_for_creating_a_gold_stand ard_for_projec Accessed on February 18, 2015)
(6)
ii
six siblings. In 1999, the author entered SD Batunadua and graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued his education in SMP N 2 Pangaribuan and graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued his education to SMA N 1 Tarutung and graduated 2011. In 2011, the author was accepted in Physical Education Studies Program in Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Science in State University of Medan.