THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE LEARNING CYCLE TO INCREASE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT� ACHIEVEMENT AND COOPERATION IN THE TEACHING OF COLLOIDAL SYSTEM.
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE LEARNING
CYCLE TO INCREASE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S
ACHIEVEMENT AND COOPERATION IN THE
TEACHING OF COLLOIDAL SYSTEM
By :
Fery Surya Perdana
Reg.Number 4103332016
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iv
PREFACE
Praise and Gratitude must be prayed to Almighty God, Allah SWT, for all
the graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author so writer
can finish this thesis well.
The title of this thesis is " The Effectiveness Of Hypothetical-Deductive
Learning Cycle To Increase Senior High School Student’s Achievement And
Cooperation On The Teaching Of Colloidal System ". This research is done in
SMAN 1 Perbaungan in academic year 2013/2014 that prepared to get degree
Sarjana Pendidikan of Chemistry Education , Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences, State University of Medan.
On this occasion, the author also conveys a respect and gratitude to :
Mr. Dr. Marham Sitorus, M.Si, As a thesis supervisor who has provided
guidance and suggestions to the author since the beginning of the study until
the completion in writing this thesis.
Give Thanks also to Prof. Dr. Albinus Silalahi, M.S, Dr. Eddyanto, Ph.D and
Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si. who has provided suggestions from the plan until
the completion of this thesis.
Thanks also conveyed to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si., as the Academic Supervisor
who always guided researcher during the lecture and the entire along with Mr.
Syamsuddin and Mrs. Staff and Lecturer in chemistry department especially in
Bilingual study program of FMIPA UNIMED who have helped the author.
The awards were also presented to Mr. Drs. Suhairi, M.Pd as a school principal
of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan and Mr. Rusdi Tanjung, S.Pd as a chemistry
teacher and staff which assist in the implementation of this research.
Special gratitude no limit to best ever parents in my life, my father Sugiarno,
S.Pd and my mother Ernita, Am.Keb who always caring, raising and educating
me with love and affection. Thanks to pray, motivation and sacrifices for both
of them, so I can complete my first degree in Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd/ S-1) in
this State University of Medan.
v
My thanks also for my beloved little sister and little brother, Dinda Ayuni
Putri, Muhammad Dicky Ardani and Sri Gita Aulia who always giving love,
support, motivation and laugh until the completion of this thesis, I love u all.
Thanks so much for my special one, Windy Erlisa for always caring,
supporting and loving. Make this thesis completion be easy to do. Wish ours
can be truth. Then Sir Ishak and Ikasprata which open my mindset to be now.
For my Green-B family in this science faculty who always be my part, Risva,
Mora, Dwi (Alm), Armadani, Elfan, Rabiah, Sarah, Imel, Sarika, Bastian,
Ismail, Taufik, Vivi, Widi, Khairil, bro Saddam, bro Aswin, bro Ginda, sis
Kiky, and all of Green-B family who I can’t write their name one by one,
thanks for our friendship but felling more than family.
ABM family, Cimin, Lijek, Amuk, Kurni, Serab, Cuci, Kosel, Kojohn (C) and
Ulidai for unlimited laugh, craziness, folly and madness every day. Proud be
one of you guys. For New Kuo, big thanks for every day we meet.
This CESP’10 the most successfull class ever, full of ambition but full of fun,
Yogi, Yasir, Rudi, Andre, Fenny, Indra, Debby, and all of members especially
this girl, Ilmi. Thanks for this 4 years guys and let’s go to next ambition.
Actually the author has doing the maximal effort in the completion of this
thesis, but the author is aware there are many weakness in terms of both content
and grammar. Authors hope the suggestions and constructive criticism from
readers for completeness the thesis perfectly . At least, Authors hope this thesis
can be useful to enrich the reader in science education.
Medan,
June 2014
Author,
Fery Surya Perdana
Reg.Numb. 4103332016
iii
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE LEARNING
CYCLE TO INCREASE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S
ACHIEVEMENT AND COOPERATION IN THE TEACHING OF
COLLOIDAL SYSTEM
Fery Surya Perdana (Reg. Number: 4103332016)
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of hypothetical-deductive learning cycle to increase
senior high school students’ achievement is conducted to compare the best result
in teaching colloidal with direct instructional method. This experiment research is
know by looking students’ achievement and character in SMAN 1 Perbaungan.
The students was divided into two groups, called as experimental class in class
XI.A.U.2 and control class in class XI.A.U.1 based on purposive sample
techniques. Instrument used is validated multiple choice questions as 20 questions
and all questions is reliable. The first time, pre-test is given to both class. Then, in
experimental class was used hypothetical-deductive learning cycle and in control
class was used direct instructional. The last, post test is given for each of class.
Before hypothesis test, data is tested by normality test and homogenity test by
using SPSS-18 program for windows. Based on the result in experimental class
was obtained the average of pre-test score 30.60 with standard deviation 9.61 and
post test score 82.2 with standard deviation 6.13. In control class was obtained the
average of pre-test score 27.40 with standard deviation 8.67 and post test score
70.0 with standard deviation 7.50. . The hypothesis is tested by using SPSS-18
program for windows. The result data for hypothesis I, Sig = 0.000, so Sig <
(0.05) it means The learning outcoume as teaching model increase student’s
achievement is accepted. Then for hypothesis II, Sig = 0.000, so Sig < (0.05) It
means that the learning outcoume to increase cooperation character is accepted.
Keywords : Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle, Experimental Method,
Cooperation Character, Students’ Achievement.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Legalization Paper
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Formula
List of Appendix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background
1.2. Scope of Research
1.3. Problem Identification
1.4. Problem Limitation
1.5. Problems Research
1.6. Research Objective
1.7. Research Benefit
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. Definition of Teaching
2.1.2. The Essence of Teaching and Learning
2.1.3. Learning Outcomes
2.2. Cooperation Character
2.3. Learning Constructivism
2.4. Learning Cycle
2.4.1. Hypothetical Deductive Learning Cycle
2.5. Innovation Learning Chemistry
2.6. Colloidal Concept
2.6.1. Definition of Concept
2.6.2. Classification of Colloid
2.6.3. Properties of Colloidal System
2.6.4. Hydrocolloid
2.6.5. Interaction Between Colloid Particles
2.6.6. Preparation of Colloid
2.6.7. Stabilization of a Colloidal Dispersion (Peptization)
2.7. Conceptual Framework
2.8. Research Hypothesis
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
xi
1
1
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
20
20
21
21
23
23
vii
CHAPTER III, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Location and Time of Research
3.2. Research Object
3.3. Population and Sample
3.3.1. Population
3.3.2. Sample
3.4. Research Variable
3.5. Design of The Research
3.6. Research Procedures and Research Instrument
3.6.1. Arranging the Research Instrument
3.6.2. Teaching Treatment
3.7. Data Collection and Analysis
3.7.1. Assessing the Validity of the Hypothesis
3.7.2. The Validity of Test
3.7.3. The Realibility Test
3.7.4. The Difficulty of Level
3.7.5. Index Distinguishing Test
3.8. Data Processing Techniques
3.8.1. The Normality of The Test
3.8.2. The Homogenity of The Test
3.8.3. Hypothesis Testing
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
26
27
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
CHAPTER IV, RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Result of Research
4.1.1. Analysis of Instrument Data
4.1.2. Validity
4.1.3. Reliability
4.1.4. Difficulty Level of Instrument
4.1.5. Different Index of Instrument
4.2. Observation of Studens’ Character
4.3. Result Data of Research
4.4. Analysis of Data
4.4.1. Normality Test
4.4.2. Homogenity Test
4.4.3. Hypothesis Test
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
40
40
41
42
CHAPTER V, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
46
46
46
REFERENCES
47
ix
List of Table
Page
Table 2.1. Comparison between Solution, Colloid, and Suspension
16
Table 2.2. Dispersing and Dispersed Phase
18
Table 3.1. Design of research the implementation of hypothetical-deductive
learning cycle to increase students’ achievement in teaching of
colloid
25
Table 4.1. Valid Instrument based on Indicator
37
Table 4.2 Statistic Result
39
Table 4.3. Normality Test
41
Table 4.4. Homogenity Test
41
Table 4.5. Hypothesis I Result
42
Table 4.6. Hypothesis II Result
43
Table 4.7. The Advantage and Disadvantage of HDLC
44
viii
List of Figure
Page
Figure 2.1. The procedure of Hypothetical-deductive method
14
Figure 2.2. Solution and Colloid
21
Figure 3.1. Flow Diagram of Research
28
Figure 4.1. Graphic of Gain by HDLC and DI
40
x
List of Formula
Page
Formula 3.1. The difficulty of level
32
Formula 3.2. Index distinguishing test
32
Formula 3.3. Gain calculate
35
Formula 3.4. Gain percentage
35
xi
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Chemistry Subject Syllabus
50
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan (Control Class)
53
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan (Experiment Class)
64
Appendix 4
Cooperation Character (Validity)
73
Appendix 5
Observaton Sheet of Character
75
Appendix 6
Instrument Test of Coloidal Material
77
Appendix 7
Key Answer and Cognitive Domain
81
Appendix 8
Worksheet of Colloidal System
90
Appendix 9
Worksheet of Colloidal Preparation
94
Appendix 10 Validity Test
97
Appendix 11 Reliability Test
102
Appendix 12 Difficulty Level of Instrument
103
Appendix 13 Distinguishing Index of Instrument
107
Appendix 14 Instrument Test (Valid)
113
Appendix 15 Statistic Calculation
116
Appendix 16 Charater Scoring
126
Appendix 17 Normality Calculation
133
Appendix 18 Homogenity Calculation
138
xii
Appendix 19 Hypothesis I Calculation
140
Appendix 20 Hypothesis II Calculation
142
Appendix 21 Documentation
143
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background
The development of science and technology is developing very fast
nowadays, it would require the carrying capacity of qualified human resources in
order to produce human resource that is able to respond to these challenges and
develop technologies for the benefit of the community, state and nation as well as
the master science. It is necessary for the enhancement and improvement of the
delivery of the national education in accordance with the development of science
and knowledge.
Facing the development of the more advance societies must responsive to
science, because nowadays a lot of jobs that require various high-level skills,
requires the ability to always be able to learn in every change, reason, think
creatively, make decisions, and the ability to solve problems (Klausner, 1996).
Therefore, improving the quality control of science (chemistry) at all levels of
education should always be sought.
One of the problems facing our education is the problem of lack of
learning. In the process of learning, children are less encouraged to develop the
ability to think. The learning process in the classroom geared to the child's ability
to memorize information. The learning process is still giving teachers domination
and does not provide access for students to develop their independence through
discovery and student’s thinking process. Students simply memorize concepts and
less able to use these concepts if encountered in real life problems related to its
concept (Trianto, 2007).
The quality of education is an indicator for development rate of the
country, and therefore the development in education sector is a key for the
development of the nation. Unfortunately, the quality of education in Indonesia is
still low. It caused by learning quality is not optimal. This is shown by the low
student learning outcomes in senior high school, especially in chemistry.
The data obtained from national examination showed that average of
student’s achievement in mathematics and natural science are still below national
2
standard given by the government. For example, the average achievement of the
Senior High Schools students in Physics is 4.00, while other subjects were 5.00.
Furthermore, the average student’s achievement in Chemistry from the Indonesia
national Examination ( UN ) were obtained successively in 2005 was 6.26, in
2006 was 6.22, in 2007 was 7.13 and in 2008 was 7.34 (Puspendik, 2008). These
achievement is categorized as in medium achievement. The student’s achievement
in Chemistry are presented earlier possible caused by the in learning process faced
by the students.
Based on the experience of researcher in SMAN 1 Perbaungan, there are
many students who are not getting pass score the examination. They have score
lower than KKM that decided by school, it is about 65%, where KKM in this
school is 65. It might caused by the method of teacher and student’s activity.
Based on that percentage of average score shown that teaching of chemistry was
not maximal yet to get a good result. Therefore still needed the improvement to
minimize the percentage of students number who have score that lower that KKM
which is have been decided by the school especially chemistry is science or daily
life study.
Nowadays, our government is actively encouraging the education in
Indonesia. It is recognized that education in Indonesia is lagging far behind if we
compare with developed countries in the world. One of the goverment’s effort that
we can see is curriculum development become curriculum of 2013. This
curriculum requires active students. The curriculum is not only oriented on
knowledge or cognitive, but also on the affective and psychomotor. If the students
shows good cognitive, affective and psycomotor, it means that the education
process is success. But when student show bad conitive, affective and
psycomotor, it means that the education process has failed. It’s mean that this
curriculum will require teachers to measure student's character, things that were
ever done.
The description above reinforce the researcher to conclude learning
strategy in this model is showing low student’s learning outcome In an effort to
improve student’s learning outcome, required innovation in learning chemistry.
One step that can be done by the teacher as mentor learners is to chose the right
3
model. Clearly, the direct instructional should be change because it’s not success
to make students understand (the application in daily life), explore new
phenomena and to establish the critical thinking. Changing the focus using a
constructivist approach from teacher-centered to student-centered is one of its
alternatives.
Education experts have been trying to develop a variety of learning models
to improve the quality of chemistry teaching in particular subjects, such as
learning model that is based on the views of Piaget's constructivism. According to
this view, the learning process students learn to construct their own knowledge
and gain a lot of knowledge outside of school (Dahar, 2006). One teaching
strategy that uses a constructivist view of learning is a model of the learning cycle
(learning cycle). The cycle of learning (learning cycle) deductive hypothetical
(hypothetical-deductive), the hypothetical deductive learning cycle students learn
started with a statement of why ‖ questions? ‖. Students are required to formulate
possible answers (hypotheses) of the statement. Then students are asked to derive
logical consequences of the hypothesis and to plan and conduct experiments
(exploration). Analysis of experimental results led to several hypothesis is
rejected, while others received (the introduction of the concept). Finally, the
relevant concepts and reasoning patterns involved and discussed, applied to other
situations (application concept). Learners actively take knowledge, connect it to
previously assimilated knowledge and make it theirs by constructing their own
interpretation (Cheek, 1992).
According to Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, Hypotheticaldeductive reasoning appears in the formal operational stage. Lawson et al. (1995)
claim that there are two general developmentally-based levels of hypothesistesting skill. The first level involves skills associated with testing hypotheses
about observable causal agents; the second involves testing hypotheses about
unobservable entities. The ability to test alternative explanations involving unseen
theoretical entities is a fifth stage of intellectual development that goes beyond
Piaget’s four stages. The Hypothetical-deductive method is one of the most basic
methods common to all scientific disciplines including biology, physics, and
chemistry. Its application can be divided into five stages:
4
1. Form many hypotheses and evaluate each hypothesis
2. Select a hypothesis to be tested
3. Generate predications from the hypothesis
4. Use experiments to check whether predictions are correct
5. If the predictions are correct, then the hypothesis is confirmed. If not,
the hypothesis is disconfirmed. (Nuhogu, Hasret, 2006)
Research on the learning model of the learning cycle, conceptual change
science to know that based on the constructivist approach have been carried out by
previous researchers, including by Hulya Yilmaz, Pinar Cavas Huyuguzel (2004),
reported the results of his research that the application of the learning cycle more
successfully than students who were taught with the traditional approach. There
are also significant differences between the two groups regarding their attitudes
toward science after treatment. Science learning cycle method generates attitudes
are more positive towards science as compared to traditional methods. Then other
researcher research use quasy experiment method and instruments that are used
are science generic skill test , like scale questionnaire and observation sheet. The
research project is class XI IPA Semester 2 students from one of the public school
in Palembang City in 2008/2009 academic year and samples from two classes are
taken randomly from three classes. The study result showing improvement on
rigid body equilibrium science generic skill on students who use hypothetical
deductive learning cycle model was higher significantly compared with students
who use direct instructional learning, this results is based on science generic skill
N-gain average of experiment class 0,73 model (Taufik and Ketang, 2009).
Colloid is one subject that can engage students actively in the learning
process because it’s depend the students observe the penomenon in daily life, the
subject matter is directly related to the problems faced by students and the
community at large. It is the learning matter that should be taught with
experimental method. For that is the subject of colloid are expected to conform
when using the hypothetical-deductive Learning Cycle. It is expected that students
are more interested in studying this material and are expected to improve student
learning outcomes.
5
Laboratory experiment is key rules to improve the student’s ability and
skills in teaching of chemistry. Laboratory experiment known as a practicum, is
compulsory for many topics in chemistry as it is known that theoretical aspect has
to be proven by experimental work in the laboratory. It is known in chemistry that
a laboratory experiment could be used to improve the student’s ability and skills
in chemistry. This is the reason that practicum has to be included for many topics
in chemistry subjects for it is known that theoretical aspect has to be supported
and proven by the experimental work in the laboratory. Experimental method give
the real world to the students in teaching and learning process. Teaching colloid
with learning cycle model with experimental method believes can increase
students achievement.
The main purpose of this research is to examine effectiveness of
“Colloidal concepts” instruction based on the hypothetical-deductive learning
cycle approach and attitudes toward science as a school subject. Students’
attitudes, feelings and perceptions of science are also important for science
achievement.
This research had deal with hypothetical-deductive learning cycle model,
and its effectiveness. It tries to compare instruction based hypothetical-deductive
learning cycle model with traditional chemistry instruction (direct instructional).
Therefore this research will provide some information about the instruction based
on hypothetical-deductive learning cycle model and its application into the
classroom situation.
Based on problems above, the writer is interested to do research with the
title “The Effectiveness of Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle To
Increase Senior High School Student’s Achievement and Cooperation in The
Teaching of Colloidal System”.
1.2. Scope of Research
The scope in this research is the effectiveness of hypothetical deductive
learning cycle in increasing student achievement and cooperation in the teaching
of Colloidal. The scope of this research is to observe the effectiveness of
hypothetical deductive learning cycle which is innovate by researcher increasing
6
student achievement in teaching of Colloidal. The research will be done in SMAN
1 Perbaungan on grade XI.
1.3. Problem Identification
1. The unsuitable selections on the model or the lacks of proper learning
methods which are conducted by the teachers.
2. Teaching and learning processes are generally running by conventional way
where the processes tend to be dominated by teacher’s activity.
3. Teacher have to establish the knowledge and encourage students to work
together solving problem.
4. Learning is not just about learning achievement, but teacher should choosing
the right method in teaching to increase students’ achievement and attitude in
studying chemistry.
1.4. Problem Limitation
1. The research is conducted by applying hypothetical deductive learning cycle
2. Subject that will present is Colloidal
3. Learning outcomes analyzed are in cognitive domain C1, C2 and C3 level.
4. The curriculum is using Curriculum 2013 to measure the character of
cooperation
5. Subjects are students of class XI in SMAN 1 Perbaungan academic year
2013/2014
1.5. Problems Statement
1. Is there the effectiveness of the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle as
teaching model to increase student’s achievement in teaching of Colloidal
concepts by looking the student’s achievement on solving problem in
teamwork dealing with related chemistry subject?
2. Which is the useful method between hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
compare with direct instructional teaching method?
3. Is there the correlation between student’s achievement and student’s character
(cooperation) with the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on the teaching
of Colloidal subject?
7
1.6. Research Objective
The research objective is to investigate the best innovative teaching
method on the teaching of Colloidal subjects. Specific objectives of the study are:
1. To investigate the effectiveness of the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
as teaching model to increase student’s achievement in teaching of Colloidal
concepts by looking the student’s achievement on solving problem in
teamwork dealing with related chemistry subject.
2. Comparing the useful method between hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
with direct instructional teaching method.
3. To investigate the correlation between students’ achievement and students’
character (cooperation) with the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on the
teaching of Colloidal subject
1.7. Research Benefit
Based on the research objectives, this study is expected to be useful as:
1. Input for teachers and prospective teachers in the selection of appropriate
learning strategies to present the subject material.
2. Providing strategies that can be used as a reference for teachers to improve
student learning outcomes.
3. The results of this study will provide input to the school as the place of the
research in order to increase the quality of learning chemistry.
46
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the result of research, the conclusions are:
1.
Student learning outcomes that taught by Hyothetical-Deductive learning
cycle is significan higher in teaching of Colloidal concepts by looking the
student’s achievement.
2.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle is better than direct instruction method
on the teaching of Colloidal concepts where the average of gain in experiment
class is higher than control class.
3.
There is significant correlation between students’ achievement and students’
character (cooperation) by using the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on
the teaching of Colloidal subject.
5.2. Suggestion
1.
This thesis is still needed the development because Hypothetical-Deductive
learning cycle in this research just do in the small scope, so it should be
proven in the bigger scope.
2.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle had been proven in increasing
students’s achievement and increasing student’s character, in this research is
cooperation character, so this learning model is accepted for chemistry
lecturer especially the Colloidal concept.
3.
For other research that will doing in this research, should plan more long time
to applicate
4.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle can be applicated in chemistry lecturer
because this model is better than Direct Instruction method to increasing
students’ achievement and students’ character.
47
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsini. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Kedua. PT.
Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.
Bubpha, Suchada. (2012). Model Development for Inclusive Education
Management: Practical Guidelines for Inclusive Schools Vol 3, No.8.
Thailand.
Cheek, D W (1992). Thinking Constructively About Science, Technology and
Society Education. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press.
Dahar, Ratna Wilis. (2006). Teori-Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Penerbit
Erlangga. Jakarta.
Dimyati and Mudjiono. (2006). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. PT. Rineka Cipta.
Jakarta.
Dai, Zhongxin., (2011). On the Philosophy of Subjectivity Education in China
Vol 3, No 4. China.
Harish, Bala. (2011). Challenges of Higher Education in 21st Century Vol 2, No
6. India.
Hulya Yilmaz, Pinar Huyuguzel Cavas (2004). The Effect of The 4-E Learning
Cycle Methode on Students‘ Understanding of Electricity. University
Faculty of Education, Departement of Primary Education , BornovaIzmir Journal of Turkish Science Education, Vol 3, No.1.
Klausner, R.D. (Cahir). (1996). National Science Education Standard.
Washington DC. National Academy Press.
Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking.
Belmont, Calif. Wadsworth.
Lawson, A.E. (1989). A Theory of.Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle.To
Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills. NARST Monograph.
Arizona.
48
Johari, J.M.C. and M. Rachmawati. (2009). Chemistry 2. Esis. Jakarta.
Mahajan, Gourav. (2011). Multimedia in Teacher Education: Perceptions & Uses
Vol 3, No 1. India.
Mulyasa, E. (2005). Implementasi Kurikulum 2004. Penerbit PT Remaja
Rosdakarya. Bandung.
Nadu, Tamil. (2011). Attitude of Teachers’ of Higher Education Towards ELearning Vol 2, No 4. India.
Nuhogu, Hasret. (2006). The Effectiveness of The Learning Cycle Model To
Increase Student’s Achievement In The Physic Laboratory, Journal of
Turkish Science Education Vol: 3.
Nyenwe, Joy. (2012). Integration of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) in Teacher Education for Capacity Building Vol 3, No 10. Port
Harcourt Rivers State.
Puspendik. (2008). Data Hasil Rata-rata Ujian Nasional. Jakarta.
Sagala, S. (2005), Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Penerbit Alfabeta. Bandung.
Sardirman, A.M. (2003). Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Penerbit Raja
Grafindo Persada. Jakarta.
Situmorang, M. (2004). Inovasi Model-Model Pembelajaran Bidang Sains Untuk
Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Mahasiswa, Prosiding Konapsi V
Surabaya Tahun 2004.
Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi. PT. Rineka
Cipta. Jakarta.
Stewart, Mark and Stasinos, Stavrianeas. (2008). Adapting The Learning Cycle to
Enrich Undergraduate Neuroscience Education for All Students, The
Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education (JUNE), 6(2): A77A74.
49
Suprijono, Agus. (2010). Cooperative Learning “Teori dan Aplikasi PAIKEM”.
Pustaka Belajar. Yogyakarta.
Syah, M. (2003). Psikologi Belajar. Penerbit PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Taufiq and Ketang Wiyono. (2009). The Application Of Hypothetical Deductive
Learning Cycle Learning Model To Improve Senior High School
Students’ Science Generic Skills On Rigid Body Equilibrium,
Department of Physics Education, The Proceeding of The Third
International Seminar on Science Education. Sriwijaya University.
Palembang.
Trianto,
(2007),
Model-Model
Pembelajaran
Inovatif
Berorientasi
Konstruktivistik. Penerbit Prestasi Pustaka. Jakarta.
Whitten, Kenneth W., Raymond E. Davis, M. Larry Peck, and George G. Stanley.
(2007). Chemistry. 8th Ed. Belmont, CA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards Real Reform In
Science Education, The Science Teacher, September, 53-57.
CYCLE TO INCREASE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S
ACHIEVEMENT AND COOPERATION IN THE
TEACHING OF COLLOIDAL SYSTEM
By :
Fery Surya Perdana
Reg.Number 4103332016
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
iv
PREFACE
Praise and Gratitude must be prayed to Almighty God, Allah SWT, for all
the graces and blessings that provide health and wisdom to the author so writer
can finish this thesis well.
The title of this thesis is " The Effectiveness Of Hypothetical-Deductive
Learning Cycle To Increase Senior High School Student’s Achievement And
Cooperation On The Teaching Of Colloidal System ". This research is done in
SMAN 1 Perbaungan in academic year 2013/2014 that prepared to get degree
Sarjana Pendidikan of Chemistry Education , Faculty of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences, State University of Medan.
On this occasion, the author also conveys a respect and gratitude to :
Mr. Dr. Marham Sitorus, M.Si, As a thesis supervisor who has provided
guidance and suggestions to the author since the beginning of the study until
the completion in writing this thesis.
Give Thanks also to Prof. Dr. Albinus Silalahi, M.S, Dr. Eddyanto, Ph.D and
Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si. who has provided suggestions from the plan until
the completion of this thesis.
Thanks also conveyed to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si., as the Academic Supervisor
who always guided researcher during the lecture and the entire along with Mr.
Syamsuddin and Mrs. Staff and Lecturer in chemistry department especially in
Bilingual study program of FMIPA UNIMED who have helped the author.
The awards were also presented to Mr. Drs. Suhairi, M.Pd as a school principal
of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan and Mr. Rusdi Tanjung, S.Pd as a chemistry
teacher and staff which assist in the implementation of this research.
Special gratitude no limit to best ever parents in my life, my father Sugiarno,
S.Pd and my mother Ernita, Am.Keb who always caring, raising and educating
me with love and affection. Thanks to pray, motivation and sacrifices for both
of them, so I can complete my first degree in Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd/ S-1) in
this State University of Medan.
v
My thanks also for my beloved little sister and little brother, Dinda Ayuni
Putri, Muhammad Dicky Ardani and Sri Gita Aulia who always giving love,
support, motivation and laugh until the completion of this thesis, I love u all.
Thanks so much for my special one, Windy Erlisa for always caring,
supporting and loving. Make this thesis completion be easy to do. Wish ours
can be truth. Then Sir Ishak and Ikasprata which open my mindset to be now.
For my Green-B family in this science faculty who always be my part, Risva,
Mora, Dwi (Alm), Armadani, Elfan, Rabiah, Sarah, Imel, Sarika, Bastian,
Ismail, Taufik, Vivi, Widi, Khairil, bro Saddam, bro Aswin, bro Ginda, sis
Kiky, and all of Green-B family who I can’t write their name one by one,
thanks for our friendship but felling more than family.
ABM family, Cimin, Lijek, Amuk, Kurni, Serab, Cuci, Kosel, Kojohn (C) and
Ulidai for unlimited laugh, craziness, folly and madness every day. Proud be
one of you guys. For New Kuo, big thanks for every day we meet.
This CESP’10 the most successfull class ever, full of ambition but full of fun,
Yogi, Yasir, Rudi, Andre, Fenny, Indra, Debby, and all of members especially
this girl, Ilmi. Thanks for this 4 years guys and let’s go to next ambition.
Actually the author has doing the maximal effort in the completion of this
thesis, but the author is aware there are many weakness in terms of both content
and grammar. Authors hope the suggestions and constructive criticism from
readers for completeness the thesis perfectly . At least, Authors hope this thesis
can be useful to enrich the reader in science education.
Medan,
June 2014
Author,
Fery Surya Perdana
Reg.Numb. 4103332016
iii
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HYPOTHETICAL-DEDUCTIVE LEARNING
CYCLE TO INCREASE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S
ACHIEVEMENT AND COOPERATION IN THE TEACHING OF
COLLOIDAL SYSTEM
Fery Surya Perdana (Reg. Number: 4103332016)
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of hypothetical-deductive learning cycle to increase
senior high school students’ achievement is conducted to compare the best result
in teaching colloidal with direct instructional method. This experiment research is
know by looking students’ achievement and character in SMAN 1 Perbaungan.
The students was divided into two groups, called as experimental class in class
XI.A.U.2 and control class in class XI.A.U.1 based on purposive sample
techniques. Instrument used is validated multiple choice questions as 20 questions
and all questions is reliable. The first time, pre-test is given to both class. Then, in
experimental class was used hypothetical-deductive learning cycle and in control
class was used direct instructional. The last, post test is given for each of class.
Before hypothesis test, data is tested by normality test and homogenity test by
using SPSS-18 program for windows. Based on the result in experimental class
was obtained the average of pre-test score 30.60 with standard deviation 9.61 and
post test score 82.2 with standard deviation 6.13. In control class was obtained the
average of pre-test score 27.40 with standard deviation 8.67 and post test score
70.0 with standard deviation 7.50. . The hypothesis is tested by using SPSS-18
program for windows. The result data for hypothesis I, Sig = 0.000, so Sig <
(0.05) it means The learning outcoume as teaching model increase student’s
achievement is accepted. Then for hypothesis II, Sig = 0.000, so Sig < (0.05) It
means that the learning outcoume to increase cooperation character is accepted.
Keywords : Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle, Experimental Method,
Cooperation Character, Students’ Achievement.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Legalization Paper
Biography
Abstract
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Formula
List of Appendix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background
1.2. Scope of Research
1.3. Problem Identification
1.4. Problem Limitation
1.5. Problems Research
1.6. Research Objective
1.7. Research Benefit
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. Definition of Teaching
2.1.2. The Essence of Teaching and Learning
2.1.3. Learning Outcomes
2.2. Cooperation Character
2.3. Learning Constructivism
2.4. Learning Cycle
2.4.1. Hypothetical Deductive Learning Cycle
2.5. Innovation Learning Chemistry
2.6. Colloidal Concept
2.6.1. Definition of Concept
2.6.2. Classification of Colloid
2.6.3. Properties of Colloidal System
2.6.4. Hydrocolloid
2.6.5. Interaction Between Colloid Particles
2.6.6. Preparation of Colloid
2.6.7. Stabilization of a Colloidal Dispersion (Peptization)
2.7. Conceptual Framework
2.8. Research Hypothesis
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
viii
ix
x
xi
1
1
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
20
20
21
21
23
23
vii
CHAPTER III, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Location and Time of Research
3.2. Research Object
3.3. Population and Sample
3.3.1. Population
3.3.2. Sample
3.4. Research Variable
3.5. Design of The Research
3.6. Research Procedures and Research Instrument
3.6.1. Arranging the Research Instrument
3.6.2. Teaching Treatment
3.7. Data Collection and Analysis
3.7.1. Assessing the Validity of the Hypothesis
3.7.2. The Validity of Test
3.7.3. The Realibility Test
3.7.4. The Difficulty of Level
3.7.5. Index Distinguishing Test
3.8. Data Processing Techniques
3.8.1. The Normality of The Test
3.8.2. The Homogenity of The Test
3.8.3. Hypothesis Testing
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
26
27
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
CHAPTER IV, RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Result of Research
4.1.1. Analysis of Instrument Data
4.1.2. Validity
4.1.3. Reliability
4.1.4. Difficulty Level of Instrument
4.1.5. Different Index of Instrument
4.2. Observation of Studens’ Character
4.3. Result Data of Research
4.4. Analysis of Data
4.4.1. Normality Test
4.4.2. Homogenity Test
4.4.3. Hypothesis Test
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
40
40
41
42
CHAPTER V, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
5.2. Suggestion
46
46
46
REFERENCES
47
ix
List of Table
Page
Table 2.1. Comparison between Solution, Colloid, and Suspension
16
Table 2.2. Dispersing and Dispersed Phase
18
Table 3.1. Design of research the implementation of hypothetical-deductive
learning cycle to increase students’ achievement in teaching of
colloid
25
Table 4.1. Valid Instrument based on Indicator
37
Table 4.2 Statistic Result
39
Table 4.3. Normality Test
41
Table 4.4. Homogenity Test
41
Table 4.5. Hypothesis I Result
42
Table 4.6. Hypothesis II Result
43
Table 4.7. The Advantage and Disadvantage of HDLC
44
viii
List of Figure
Page
Figure 2.1. The procedure of Hypothetical-deductive method
14
Figure 2.2. Solution and Colloid
21
Figure 3.1. Flow Diagram of Research
28
Figure 4.1. Graphic of Gain by HDLC and DI
40
x
List of Formula
Page
Formula 3.1. The difficulty of level
32
Formula 3.2. Index distinguishing test
32
Formula 3.3. Gain calculate
35
Formula 3.4. Gain percentage
35
xi
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Chemistry Subject Syllabus
50
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan (Control Class)
53
Appendix 3
Lesson Plan (Experiment Class)
64
Appendix 4
Cooperation Character (Validity)
73
Appendix 5
Observaton Sheet of Character
75
Appendix 6
Instrument Test of Coloidal Material
77
Appendix 7
Key Answer and Cognitive Domain
81
Appendix 8
Worksheet of Colloidal System
90
Appendix 9
Worksheet of Colloidal Preparation
94
Appendix 10 Validity Test
97
Appendix 11 Reliability Test
102
Appendix 12 Difficulty Level of Instrument
103
Appendix 13 Distinguishing Index of Instrument
107
Appendix 14 Instrument Test (Valid)
113
Appendix 15 Statistic Calculation
116
Appendix 16 Charater Scoring
126
Appendix 17 Normality Calculation
133
Appendix 18 Homogenity Calculation
138
xii
Appendix 19 Hypothesis I Calculation
140
Appendix 20 Hypothesis II Calculation
142
Appendix 21 Documentation
143
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background
The development of science and technology is developing very fast
nowadays, it would require the carrying capacity of qualified human resources in
order to produce human resource that is able to respond to these challenges and
develop technologies for the benefit of the community, state and nation as well as
the master science. It is necessary for the enhancement and improvement of the
delivery of the national education in accordance with the development of science
and knowledge.
Facing the development of the more advance societies must responsive to
science, because nowadays a lot of jobs that require various high-level skills,
requires the ability to always be able to learn in every change, reason, think
creatively, make decisions, and the ability to solve problems (Klausner, 1996).
Therefore, improving the quality control of science (chemistry) at all levels of
education should always be sought.
One of the problems facing our education is the problem of lack of
learning. In the process of learning, children are less encouraged to develop the
ability to think. The learning process in the classroom geared to the child's ability
to memorize information. The learning process is still giving teachers domination
and does not provide access for students to develop their independence through
discovery and student’s thinking process. Students simply memorize concepts and
less able to use these concepts if encountered in real life problems related to its
concept (Trianto, 2007).
The quality of education is an indicator for development rate of the
country, and therefore the development in education sector is a key for the
development of the nation. Unfortunately, the quality of education in Indonesia is
still low. It caused by learning quality is not optimal. This is shown by the low
student learning outcomes in senior high school, especially in chemistry.
The data obtained from national examination showed that average of
student’s achievement in mathematics and natural science are still below national
2
standard given by the government. For example, the average achievement of the
Senior High Schools students in Physics is 4.00, while other subjects were 5.00.
Furthermore, the average student’s achievement in Chemistry from the Indonesia
national Examination ( UN ) were obtained successively in 2005 was 6.26, in
2006 was 6.22, in 2007 was 7.13 and in 2008 was 7.34 (Puspendik, 2008). These
achievement is categorized as in medium achievement. The student’s achievement
in Chemistry are presented earlier possible caused by the in learning process faced
by the students.
Based on the experience of researcher in SMAN 1 Perbaungan, there are
many students who are not getting pass score the examination. They have score
lower than KKM that decided by school, it is about 65%, where KKM in this
school is 65. It might caused by the method of teacher and student’s activity.
Based on that percentage of average score shown that teaching of chemistry was
not maximal yet to get a good result. Therefore still needed the improvement to
minimize the percentage of students number who have score that lower that KKM
which is have been decided by the school especially chemistry is science or daily
life study.
Nowadays, our government is actively encouraging the education in
Indonesia. It is recognized that education in Indonesia is lagging far behind if we
compare with developed countries in the world. One of the goverment’s effort that
we can see is curriculum development become curriculum of 2013. This
curriculum requires active students. The curriculum is not only oriented on
knowledge or cognitive, but also on the affective and psychomotor. If the students
shows good cognitive, affective and psycomotor, it means that the education
process is success. But when student show bad conitive, affective and
psycomotor, it means that the education process has failed. It’s mean that this
curriculum will require teachers to measure student's character, things that were
ever done.
The description above reinforce the researcher to conclude learning
strategy in this model is showing low student’s learning outcome In an effort to
improve student’s learning outcome, required innovation in learning chemistry.
One step that can be done by the teacher as mentor learners is to chose the right
3
model. Clearly, the direct instructional should be change because it’s not success
to make students understand (the application in daily life), explore new
phenomena and to establish the critical thinking. Changing the focus using a
constructivist approach from teacher-centered to student-centered is one of its
alternatives.
Education experts have been trying to develop a variety of learning models
to improve the quality of chemistry teaching in particular subjects, such as
learning model that is based on the views of Piaget's constructivism. According to
this view, the learning process students learn to construct their own knowledge
and gain a lot of knowledge outside of school (Dahar, 2006). One teaching
strategy that uses a constructivist view of learning is a model of the learning cycle
(learning cycle). The cycle of learning (learning cycle) deductive hypothetical
(hypothetical-deductive), the hypothetical deductive learning cycle students learn
started with a statement of why ‖ questions? ‖. Students are required to formulate
possible answers (hypotheses) of the statement. Then students are asked to derive
logical consequences of the hypothesis and to plan and conduct experiments
(exploration). Analysis of experimental results led to several hypothesis is
rejected, while others received (the introduction of the concept). Finally, the
relevant concepts and reasoning patterns involved and discussed, applied to other
situations (application concept). Learners actively take knowledge, connect it to
previously assimilated knowledge and make it theirs by constructing their own
interpretation (Cheek, 1992).
According to Piaget’s theory of intellectual development, Hypotheticaldeductive reasoning appears in the formal operational stage. Lawson et al. (1995)
claim that there are two general developmentally-based levels of hypothesistesting skill. The first level involves skills associated with testing hypotheses
about observable causal agents; the second involves testing hypotheses about
unobservable entities. The ability to test alternative explanations involving unseen
theoretical entities is a fifth stage of intellectual development that goes beyond
Piaget’s four stages. The Hypothetical-deductive method is one of the most basic
methods common to all scientific disciplines including biology, physics, and
chemistry. Its application can be divided into five stages:
4
1. Form many hypotheses and evaluate each hypothesis
2. Select a hypothesis to be tested
3. Generate predications from the hypothesis
4. Use experiments to check whether predictions are correct
5. If the predictions are correct, then the hypothesis is confirmed. If not,
the hypothesis is disconfirmed. (Nuhogu, Hasret, 2006)
Research on the learning model of the learning cycle, conceptual change
science to know that based on the constructivist approach have been carried out by
previous researchers, including by Hulya Yilmaz, Pinar Cavas Huyuguzel (2004),
reported the results of his research that the application of the learning cycle more
successfully than students who were taught with the traditional approach. There
are also significant differences between the two groups regarding their attitudes
toward science after treatment. Science learning cycle method generates attitudes
are more positive towards science as compared to traditional methods. Then other
researcher research use quasy experiment method and instruments that are used
are science generic skill test , like scale questionnaire and observation sheet. The
research project is class XI IPA Semester 2 students from one of the public school
in Palembang City in 2008/2009 academic year and samples from two classes are
taken randomly from three classes. The study result showing improvement on
rigid body equilibrium science generic skill on students who use hypothetical
deductive learning cycle model was higher significantly compared with students
who use direct instructional learning, this results is based on science generic skill
N-gain average of experiment class 0,73 model (Taufik and Ketang, 2009).
Colloid is one subject that can engage students actively in the learning
process because it’s depend the students observe the penomenon in daily life, the
subject matter is directly related to the problems faced by students and the
community at large. It is the learning matter that should be taught with
experimental method. For that is the subject of colloid are expected to conform
when using the hypothetical-deductive Learning Cycle. It is expected that students
are more interested in studying this material and are expected to improve student
learning outcomes.
5
Laboratory experiment is key rules to improve the student’s ability and
skills in teaching of chemistry. Laboratory experiment known as a practicum, is
compulsory for many topics in chemistry as it is known that theoretical aspect has
to be proven by experimental work in the laboratory. It is known in chemistry that
a laboratory experiment could be used to improve the student’s ability and skills
in chemistry. This is the reason that practicum has to be included for many topics
in chemistry subjects for it is known that theoretical aspect has to be supported
and proven by the experimental work in the laboratory. Experimental method give
the real world to the students in teaching and learning process. Teaching colloid
with learning cycle model with experimental method believes can increase
students achievement.
The main purpose of this research is to examine effectiveness of
“Colloidal concepts” instruction based on the hypothetical-deductive learning
cycle approach and attitudes toward science as a school subject. Students’
attitudes, feelings and perceptions of science are also important for science
achievement.
This research had deal with hypothetical-deductive learning cycle model,
and its effectiveness. It tries to compare instruction based hypothetical-deductive
learning cycle model with traditional chemistry instruction (direct instructional).
Therefore this research will provide some information about the instruction based
on hypothetical-deductive learning cycle model and its application into the
classroom situation.
Based on problems above, the writer is interested to do research with the
title “The Effectiveness of Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle To
Increase Senior High School Student’s Achievement and Cooperation in The
Teaching of Colloidal System”.
1.2. Scope of Research
The scope in this research is the effectiveness of hypothetical deductive
learning cycle in increasing student achievement and cooperation in the teaching
of Colloidal. The scope of this research is to observe the effectiveness of
hypothetical deductive learning cycle which is innovate by researcher increasing
6
student achievement in teaching of Colloidal. The research will be done in SMAN
1 Perbaungan on grade XI.
1.3. Problem Identification
1. The unsuitable selections on the model or the lacks of proper learning
methods which are conducted by the teachers.
2. Teaching and learning processes are generally running by conventional way
where the processes tend to be dominated by teacher’s activity.
3. Teacher have to establish the knowledge and encourage students to work
together solving problem.
4. Learning is not just about learning achievement, but teacher should choosing
the right method in teaching to increase students’ achievement and attitude in
studying chemistry.
1.4. Problem Limitation
1. The research is conducted by applying hypothetical deductive learning cycle
2. Subject that will present is Colloidal
3. Learning outcomes analyzed are in cognitive domain C1, C2 and C3 level.
4. The curriculum is using Curriculum 2013 to measure the character of
cooperation
5. Subjects are students of class XI in SMAN 1 Perbaungan academic year
2013/2014
1.5. Problems Statement
1. Is there the effectiveness of the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle as
teaching model to increase student’s achievement in teaching of Colloidal
concepts by looking the student’s achievement on solving problem in
teamwork dealing with related chemistry subject?
2. Which is the useful method between hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
compare with direct instructional teaching method?
3. Is there the correlation between student’s achievement and student’s character
(cooperation) with the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on the teaching
of Colloidal subject?
7
1.6. Research Objective
The research objective is to investigate the best innovative teaching
method on the teaching of Colloidal subjects. Specific objectives of the study are:
1. To investigate the effectiveness of the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
as teaching model to increase student’s achievement in teaching of Colloidal
concepts by looking the student’s achievement on solving problem in
teamwork dealing with related chemistry subject.
2. Comparing the useful method between hypothetical-deductive learning cycle
with direct instructional teaching method.
3. To investigate the correlation between students’ achievement and students’
character (cooperation) with the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on the
teaching of Colloidal subject
1.7. Research Benefit
Based on the research objectives, this study is expected to be useful as:
1. Input for teachers and prospective teachers in the selection of appropriate
learning strategies to present the subject material.
2. Providing strategies that can be used as a reference for teachers to improve
student learning outcomes.
3. The results of this study will provide input to the school as the place of the
research in order to increase the quality of learning chemistry.
46
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the result of research, the conclusions are:
1.
Student learning outcomes that taught by Hyothetical-Deductive learning
cycle is significan higher in teaching of Colloidal concepts by looking the
student’s achievement.
2.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle is better than direct instruction method
on the teaching of Colloidal concepts where the average of gain in experiment
class is higher than control class.
3.
There is significant correlation between students’ achievement and students’
character (cooperation) by using the hypothetical-deductive learning cycle on
the teaching of Colloidal subject.
5.2. Suggestion
1.
This thesis is still needed the development because Hypothetical-Deductive
learning cycle in this research just do in the small scope, so it should be
proven in the bigger scope.
2.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle had been proven in increasing
students’s achievement and increasing student’s character, in this research is
cooperation character, so this learning model is accepted for chemistry
lecturer especially the Colloidal concept.
3.
For other research that will doing in this research, should plan more long time
to applicate
4.
Hypothetical-Deductive learning cycle can be applicated in chemistry lecturer
because this model is better than Direct Instruction method to increasing
students’ achievement and students’ character.
47
REFERENCES
Arikunto, Suharsini. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Kedua. PT.
Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.
Bubpha, Suchada. (2012). Model Development for Inclusive Education
Management: Practical Guidelines for Inclusive Schools Vol 3, No.8.
Thailand.
Cheek, D W (1992). Thinking Constructively About Science, Technology and
Society Education. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press.
Dahar, Ratna Wilis. (2006). Teori-Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Penerbit
Erlangga. Jakarta.
Dimyati and Mudjiono. (2006). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. PT. Rineka Cipta.
Jakarta.
Dai, Zhongxin., (2011). On the Philosophy of Subjectivity Education in China
Vol 3, No 4. China.
Harish, Bala. (2011). Challenges of Higher Education in 21st Century Vol 2, No
6. India.
Hulya Yilmaz, Pinar Huyuguzel Cavas (2004). The Effect of The 4-E Learning
Cycle Methode on Students‘ Understanding of Electricity. University
Faculty of Education, Departement of Primary Education , BornovaIzmir Journal of Turkish Science Education, Vol 3, No.1.
Klausner, R.D. (Cahir). (1996). National Science Education Standard.
Washington DC. National Academy Press.
Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking.
Belmont, Calif. Wadsworth.
Lawson, A.E. (1989). A Theory of.Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle.To
Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills. NARST Monograph.
Arizona.
48
Johari, J.M.C. and M. Rachmawati. (2009). Chemistry 2. Esis. Jakarta.
Mahajan, Gourav. (2011). Multimedia in Teacher Education: Perceptions & Uses
Vol 3, No 1. India.
Mulyasa, E. (2005). Implementasi Kurikulum 2004. Penerbit PT Remaja
Rosdakarya. Bandung.
Nadu, Tamil. (2011). Attitude of Teachers’ of Higher Education Towards ELearning Vol 2, No 4. India.
Nuhogu, Hasret. (2006). The Effectiveness of The Learning Cycle Model To
Increase Student’s Achievement In The Physic Laboratory, Journal of
Turkish Science Education Vol: 3.
Nyenwe, Joy. (2012). Integration of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) in Teacher Education for Capacity Building Vol 3, No 10. Port
Harcourt Rivers State.
Puspendik. (2008). Data Hasil Rata-rata Ujian Nasional. Jakarta.
Sagala, S. (2005), Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Penerbit Alfabeta. Bandung.
Sardirman, A.M. (2003). Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Penerbit Raja
Grafindo Persada. Jakarta.
Situmorang, M. (2004). Inovasi Model-Model Pembelajaran Bidang Sains Untuk
Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Mahasiswa, Prosiding Konapsi V
Surabaya Tahun 2004.
Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi. PT. Rineka
Cipta. Jakarta.
Stewart, Mark and Stasinos, Stavrianeas. (2008). Adapting The Learning Cycle to
Enrich Undergraduate Neuroscience Education for All Students, The
Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education (JUNE), 6(2): A77A74.
49
Suprijono, Agus. (2010). Cooperative Learning “Teori dan Aplikasi PAIKEM”.
Pustaka Belajar. Yogyakarta.
Syah, M. (2003). Psikologi Belajar. Penerbit PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Taufiq and Ketang Wiyono. (2009). The Application Of Hypothetical Deductive
Learning Cycle Learning Model To Improve Senior High School
Students’ Science Generic Skills On Rigid Body Equilibrium,
Department of Physics Education, The Proceeding of The Third
International Seminar on Science Education. Sriwijaya University.
Palembang.
Trianto,
(2007),
Model-Model
Pembelajaran
Inovatif
Berorientasi
Konstruktivistik. Penerbit Prestasi Pustaka. Jakarta.
Whitten, Kenneth W., Raymond E. Davis, M. Larry Peck, and George G. Stanley.
(2007). Chemistry. 8th Ed. Belmont, CA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards Real Reform In
Science Education, The Science Teacher, September, 53-57.