The Profile Of Learning Environment And Cognitive Ability Of Students In Learning Environmental Pollution By Discussion At Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur.
THE PROFILE OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND COGNITIVE ABILITY OF STUDENTS IN LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY DISCUSSION AT SEKOLAH INDONESIA KUALA LUMPUR
RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted as Requirement to Obtain Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education (IPSE)
Arranged by: Hanifah Mulyani
1100342
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE EDUCATION FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA 2015
(2)
THE PROFILE OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND COGNITIVE ABILITY OF STUDENTS IN LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY DISCUSSION AT SEKOLAH INDONESIA KUALA LUMPUR
Oleh Hanifah Mulyani
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan di Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan
Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam
© Hanifah Mulyani 2015 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Agustus 2015
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis
(3)
SHEET OF LEGITIMATION
THE PROFILE OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND COGNITIVE ABILITY OF STUDENTS IN LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY DISCUSSION AT SEKOLAH INDONESIA KUALA LUMPUR
By : Hanifah Mulyani
1100342
Approved and Authorized by, Supervisor I,
Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed. NIP. 196709191991032001
Supervisor II,
Rika Rafikah Agustin, M.Pd. NIP.198308032011211001
Perceive,
Head of International Program on Science Education Study Program
Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed. NIP. 196709191991032001
(4)
THE PROFILE OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND COGNITIVE ABILITY OF STUDENTS IN LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION BY DISCUSSION AT SEKOLAH INDONESIA KUALA LUMPUR
Hanifah Mulyani
International Program on Science Education
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to analyze learning environment and cognitive ability of students who experience discussion in learning environmental pollution at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur (SIKL). Furthermore, this research is purposed to analyze the factors influencing students’ discussion process at SIKL. This research using descriptive method to describe the current condition of discussion followed by 24 students in 7 grade as the sample. The data in this research is gained through pre-test and post-test score, questionnaire based on CLES, and students’ interview. According to result of this research, learning environment created through discussion activities affects to cognitive ability of students at SIKL. Learning activities are affected by factors such as students’ prior knowledge, learning style of students, conformity, gender differences, students’ personal intelligence and students’ interests. Moreover, this research suggest teacher who apply discussion method to consider above factors. Teacher has to be eager to pack discussion become more interesting and valuable to make students feel a joyful athmosphere in learning.
Keywords: learning method, discussion, learning environment, cognitive ability of students, prior knowledge, learning style, conformity, gender differences, students’ personal intelligence, students’ interest.
(5)
PROFIL LINGKUNGAN PEMBELAJARAN DAN KEMAMPUAN KOGNITIF SISWA DALAM MEMPELAJARI POLUSI
LINGKUNGAN DENGAN METODE DISKUSI DI SEKOLAH INDONESIA KUALA LUMPUR
Hanifah Mulyani
International Program on Science Education
ABSTRAK
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis lingkungan pembelajaran dan kemampuan kognitif siswa yang meggunakan metode diskusi dalam mempelajari polusi lingkungan di Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur (SIKL). Selain itu, penelitian ini pun bertujuan untuk menganalisis faktor-fator yang mempengaruhi proses diskusi siswa di SIKL. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif untuk menggambarkan kondisi riil ketika diskusi dilaksanakan oleh 24 siswa dari kelas 7 yang dipilih sebagai sampel. Data dalam penelitian ini didapat dari skor pre-test dan post-test, kuisioner berdasar pada CLES, dan wawancara siswa. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, lingkungan pembelajaran melalui diskusi mempengaruhi kemampuan kognitif siswa. Aktivitas-aktivitas pembelajaran dipengaruhi oleh beberapa fator seperti prior knowledge siswa, gaya belajar siswa, kenyamanan, perbedaan gender, intelegensi siswa, dan minat siswa. Selebihnya, penelitian ini menyarankan guru yang mengaplikasikan metode diskusi untuk mempertimbangkan faktor-faktor tersebut. Guru haruslah berkeinginan untuk menciptakan diskusi yag lebih menarik dan berarti untu membuat mereka merasakan atmosfer belajar yang lebih menyenangkan.
Kata kunci: metode pembelajaran, diskusi, lingkungan pembelajaran, kemampuan kognitif, prior knowledge, gaya belajar, kenyamanan, perbedaan gender, intelegensi siswa, minat siswa.
(6)
CONTENT
Page
SHEET OF LEGITIMATION ... i
DECLARATION ... ii
ABSTRACT ... iii
PREFACE ... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... v
CONTENTS ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... x
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background ... 1
B. Research Problem ... 4
C. Research Question ... 4
D. Limitation of Problem ... 4
E. Research Objective ... 5
F. Research Benefit ... 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Constructivism in Learning ... 7
B. Learning Strategy ... 8
C. Learning Method ... 8
D. Implementation of Discussion in Learning ... 9
1. Discussion as A Teaching Method in Learning ... 9
2. An Effective Discussion in Learning ... 10
3. The Factors Influencing Discussion ... 11
E. Learning Environment ... 14
(7)
2. Assessing Learning Environment ... 14
3. Learning Environment Based on Constructivism Learning Environment Survey ... 15
F. Cognitive Ability of Students ... 17
G. Topic of Environmental Pollution ... 18
1. Environmental Pollution Chapter on National Curriculum of 2013 ... 18
2. Causes of Environmental Pollution ... 19
3. Effects of Environmental Pollution ... 22
4. Solutions of Environmental Pollution ... 24
H. Relevant Research ... 26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method and Research Design ... 27
1. Research Method ... 27
2. Research Design ... 27
B. Population and Sample ... 27
C. Operational Definition ... 28
D. Research Instrument ... 29
1. Questionnaire ... 29
2. Cognitive Paper Test ... 29
3. Interview Sheet ... 31
E. Instrument Analysis ... 32
1. Validity ... 32
2. Reliability ... 33
3. Level of Difficulty ... 34
4. Discriminating Power ... 34
5. Distractor ... 35
F. Data Collecting ... 37
G. Data Analysis Technique ... 37
H. Research Procedure ... 38
(8)
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Result ... 42
1. Learning Environment ... 42
2. Cognitive Ability of Students ... 50
B. Discussion ... 53
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion ... 68
B. Recommendation ... 69
REFERENCE ... 71
APPENDICES ... 75
(9)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 The Classification of Agreement Level Average Score ... 16
Table 3.1 Blue Print of Questionnaire Based on CLES ... 29
Table 3.2 Blue Print of Cognitive Paper Test Question ... 30
Table 3.3 Blue Print of Objective Test after Passing Instrument Analysis ... 31
Table 3.4 Blue Print of Interview Sheet ... 32
Table 3.5 Validity Interpretation ... 33
Table 3.6 Reliability Interpretation ... 34
Table 3.7 Difficulty Index Interpretation ... 34
Table 3.8 Discriminant Index Interpretation ... 35
Table 3.9 Blue Print of Limited Test Analysis Result by ANATES ... 36
Table 3.10 The Blue Print of Collecting Data ... 37
Table 3.11 Scoring for Positive Statement and Negative Statement on CLES Questionnaire ... 38
Table 3.12 The Classification of Agreement Level Average Score ... 38
Table 3.13 Data Taking Timeline of Discussion Implementation ... 40
Table 4.1 The Distribution of Students’ Personal Relevance Agreement Level ... 42
Table 4.2 The Distribution of Students’ Uncertainty Agreement Level ... 44
Table 4.3 The Distribution of Students’ Critical Voice Agreement Level ... 46
Table 4.4 The Distribution of Students’ Shared Control Agreement Level ... 47 Table 4.5 The Distribution of Students Negotiation
(10)
Agreement Level ... 49
Table 4.6 The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Pre-test Score ... 51
Table 4.7 The Frequency Distribution of Students’ Post-test Score ... 51
Table 4.8 The Distribution of Gain Score of Students ... 52
(11)
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 The Concentration of Greenhouse Gases until 2005 ... 22
Figure 3.1 Research Scheme ... 41
Figure 4.1 Percentage of Students’ Personal Relevance Agreement Level ... 43
Figure 4.2 Percentage of Students’ Uncertainty Agreement Level ... 45
Figure 4.3 Percentage of Students’ Critical Voice Agreement Level ... 46
Figure 4.4 Percentage of Students’ Shared Control Agreement Level ... 48
Figure 4.5 Percentage of Students’ Negotiation Agreement Level ... 50
(12)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page A. INSTRUCTIONAL TOOL
Appendix A.1 Lesson Plan... 75 Appendix A.2 Environmental Pollution Video Screenshoot ... 84
B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
Appendix B.1 Screenshoot of Instrument Judgement ... 88 Appendix B.2 Instrument of Cognitive Paper-Test
before Validation Test ... 89 Appendix B.3 Instrument of Cognitive Paper-Test
after Validation ... 101 Appendix B.4 Instrument of Constructvism Learning
Environment Survey (CLES) ... 109 Appendix B.5 Instrument of Students’ Interview ... 113 C. RESULTS OF RESEARCH DATA
Appendix C.1 Data Processing of Cognitive Ability of Students ... 114 Appendix C.2 Data Processing of Classroom Learning
Environment Survey (CLES) ... 121 Appendix C.3 Data of Students’ Interview Results ... 124
D. DOCUMENTATION
(13)
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Constructivism in learning concerns on facilitating students to be more active in classroom to gain the knowledge (Jacobsen, Eggen, and Kauchak, 2009). Constructivism in learning provides students an active learning where they are involved in solving problem, working in small group, participating on collaborative learning, taking investigative work, and having experiental learning. It is significantly different comparing activities in constructivism learning with passive learning activities. Passive learning activities only enacting students as information receiver and evolving them as a very loyal listener to the teacher. That is why nowadays, constructivism in learning is being focused by teachers to improve the quality of learning activities in classroom. Therefore, students will not be passive learner anymore but they are triggered to have more interactions. Teachers try to stimulate students in gaining knowledge by themselves through such activities they create in the classroom.
Regarding to the implementation of constructivism in learning, different learning environment might be created as teacher creatively willing to construct the best learning activity which suit student needs and learning objectives. Based on Fraser (1986), valuable goal of school intrinsically begun at having constructivism learning environments. Having a positive classroom environment is an educationally desirable end in its own right. Nature of learning environment has a potent influence on how well students achieve a range of desired educational outcomes. Cognitive ability of students is one of educational outcomes that should be achieved by teacher. As the final consideration, learning environment is desirably noted as a potent influence towards cognitive ability of student itself.
Teachers can have constructivism in learning through some learning strategies which can be applied in instruction. Teachers can increasingly draw
(14)
2
on an expanding body of strategies and methods that will enable them to create more positive and supportive learning environment (Jones and Jones, 1994). An effective teacher using different learning strategies to help students reach the goals which previously composed in instruction planning (Jacobsen, Eggen, and Kauchak, 2009). Teachers apply student-centered learning strategy to facilitate them constructing their own knowledge. Students are given more responsibility to seek what they need to know when they gaining their knowledge (Jacobsen, Eggen, and Kauchak, 2009). This teachers’ effort have been relevant with constructivism in learning theory. After that, teachers need to apply teaching method which support student-centered learning strategy. According to Rahman et al. (2011), teaching method could be occured simultanously or in a sequence in the proper ways. Teachers have to consider a teaching method which suit both the concepts and the students in order to achieve the goal of learning.
One of method that has emerged constructivism in learning is discussion method. It is also usually conducted in the classroom. Sometimes, teachers want to have an independent learning activity for students which can increase their cognitive ability. Then, instructing students to have a discussion with their peers is decided. Bennett et al. (2004) stated that discussion has been strongly advocated as an important teaching approach for a number of years, partly arising from a more general movement towards student-centered learning. It is seen as a very important method to provide students an opportunity to articulate and reflect on their own ideas about scientific phenomena. Discussion method has great potential for classroom teaching because it implies open and active participation of students (Gall and Gillet, 2001). Even, teacher can vary its use to achieve several different instructional purposes.
Students in Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur (SIKL) come from various cities in Indonesia. They are very different in attitude and cultures. Most of them coming from high-economic level families with high education. That is why they are mostly more critical and active in arguing something. They
(15)
3
currently have their own perspective and have their own way to strengthen it.
In learning activities, students’ characteristics are shown, especially when discussion is applied by teacher. In this school, discussion is a method which used to be implemented by teacher.
Discussion is a process whereby two or more people express, clarify and pool their knowledge, experiences, opinions, and feelings (Rahman et al., 2011). Discussion is neither interview nor talking with persons, yet it is an activity in which students collect the data and information sistematically to achieve their current purposes (Irwanto, 2006). In every day conversation, the term discussion could be a talk about anything, but actually discussion is considered to be a serious and systematic talk about a specific topic. Discussion is task-oriented that’s why it is held to achieve a common purpose or a goal of a group.
Looking at those experts’ statement, it is clarified that discussion will provide students such activities in learning. Students are allowed to express their opinions, argue some statements, ask questions, and negotiate other responses. Moreover, students might have conflict with others when they discuss some problems. Nevertheless, they are expected to respect other opinions, be calm and be patient when someone pose some arguments which contradict with theirs. Students have to obey all of rules in discussion, unless they distract discussion itself. Therefore, in discussion, good interaction among members will lead to the achievement of current purposes.
Discussion which is held by teacher will create its learning environment in the classroom. Students who used to have discussion in learning activities might have such an effect of this activity, for example cognitive ability. As some experts claims that learning environment will influence desired educational outcomes, then paying much attention to learning environment and cognitive ability of students is urgently needed. Therefore, a research which present a current profile of learning environment and cognitive ability of students by using discussion method at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur is conducted.
(16)
4
B. Research Problem
The research problem of this study is “How is The Profile of Learning Environment and Cognitive Ability of Students in Learning Environmental Pollution by Discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur?”
C. Research Question
Elaborating the research problem, the research attempts to explore these following questions:
1. How is the profile of learning environment when students learn environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur?
2. How is the profile of cognitive ability of students in learning environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur?
3. What are factors that influence students’ discussion process when they learn environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur?
D. Limitation of Problem
In order to make the research become more focused, the problem is limited as follow:
1. Learning activity that is done in this reseach is discussion.
2. Cognitive ability of students that is described in this research is starting from C1 (remembering) until C5 (evaluating), based on Anderson et al. (2001).
3. Learning environment that is described in this research is based on Constructivism Learning Environment Survey developed by Taylor, Fraser, & White (1994). It consists of five aspects such as personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, and student negotiation.
(17)
5
E. Research Objectives
This research has objectives as follow;
1. To analyze the profile of learning environment when students learn environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur.
2. To analyze the profile of cognitive ability of students in learning environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur.
3. To analyze aspects that influence students’ discussion process in learning environmental pollution by discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur.
F. Research Benefits
The results of this research are expected to provide benefits as follow: 1. For teachers, this research will provide them the descriptions of learning
environment which are created when teacher implements discussion in the classroom. Other than that, the result of this research will give another informations how discussion implementation might affect to cognitive ability of students at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur. Thus, teachers’ perspective on discussion implementation in learning would be explored reasonably based on results of this research.
2. For students, this research will provide them such an independent learning activity called discussion. Through this activity, students will try to actively build their own knowledge toward environmental pollution issues and discuss those issues with their member of group in discussion. These activities are expected not only to give students different athmosphere in learning but also to avoid such a boredom in the classroom where students is just being passive learner who always listen teacher explanations. Discussion might let students to have conflict among their friends as they have to argue to each other but in the other
(18)
6
hand, discussion might let students to have a good teamwork to accomplish their own goal.
3. For another researcher, this research will be references to develop another kind of research which involve discussion as the focus of research. The informations which are appeared through this research could be evaluated as the way to have more better ideas for the future impactful research. Hopefully, in the future, more researches that are conducted by other reseachers will give valuable influences for better educational improvement.
(19)
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Method and Research Design 1. Research Method
The research has a purpose to describe the current condition of learning environment and cognitive ability of students when discussion is implemented in teaching learning activities. According to this, then descriptive method is used to fulfill the aim of research itself. In the descriptive, the main objective is to give a very accurate portrayal of characteristics of persons, situations, or groups (Polit & Hungler, 2004). Thus, in this research, the object of research is not given any treatment and natural condition is set without any manipulation. It will provide reasonable answer why something is occured (Arikunto, 2010).
2. Research Design
Non-experimental with natural descriptive design is used in this research. All of students come from two classes of seventh grade are given pre-test and post-test. Those score are captured as the data of cogitive ability of students. After that, Classroom Learning Environment Survey (CLES) is a questionnaire given to the students after the instruction is done. The result of this questionnaire is also taken as the data of learning environment. The last, interview is conducted to clarify all of results which are gained in this research. Based on those results, the profile of learning environment and cognitive ability of students could be identified.
B. Population and Sample
The location of this research is Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur (SIKL) Malaysia which uses National Curriculum of 2013. The instruction in classes
(20)
29
The population of this research is all students in SIKL. The sample are 7-1 class which consist of 7-17-1 students and 7-2 class which consist of 7-13 students. So, the number of all students is 24 students. All of students in both classes experience discussion in learning environmental pollution as it is the main focus of this research. The subject of this research is defined under purposed of class which used to implement discussion in teaching learning activities.
C. Operational Definition
In order to avoid misconception, some operational definitions are explained in this research. Those terminologies are explained as follow: a. Learning activity in both classes is discussion which refers to statement
of Discussion is a process whereby two or more people express, clarify and pool their knowledge, experiences, opinions, and feelings to achieve their current purposes (Rahman et al., 2011). In this research, students gather with three until four friends and they try to solve problem about environmental pollution given by the teacher. Discussion is intended as the way to look cognitive ability of students. Therefore, post-test is done in the end of discussion to evaluate this aspect.
b. Cognitive ability of students in this research includes level of remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analyzing (C4), and evaluating (C5) based on Anderson et al. (2001). Data of cognitive ability itself are gained by giving cognitive paper test to students in the form of multiple choice questions.
c. Classroom learning environment in this research refers to Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) which has been developed by Taylor and Fraser (1991). CLES consists of five aspects such as personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, and student negotiation. In this research, classroom learning environment is obtained
(21)
30
by quistionnaire. Data obtained through questionnaire is adjusted with CLES aspects.
D. Research Instrument
In this research, instrument is necessary to be used for gaining data. There are three types instruments that are used in this research. Those instruments are described below:
a. Questionnaire
Questionnaire is an instrument which is distributed to the students to investigate and describe the classroom learning environment after teacher conducting instruction. Questionnaire used is based on Classroom Learning Environment Survey format which was developed by Taylor and Fraser (1991). This questionnaire results the students’ perception about how the teaching learning process going on and finally give the description about classroom learning environment. There are five indicators which is measured in this questionnaire. Questionnaire consists of 30 statements, 28 are positive statements while 2 are negative statements. The blueprint of questionnaire based on CLES is shown below on Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Blue Print of Questionnaire Based on CLES
Indicators Question’ number
Personal Relevance 1,2,3,4,5,6
Uncertainty 7,8,9,10,11,12
Critical Voice 13,14,15,16,17,18 Shared Control 19,20,21,22,23,24 Student Negotiation 25,26,27,28,29,30
b. Cognitive Paper Test
Cognitive paper test is conducted to describe cognitive ability of students in mastering the concept. Cognitive paper test consists of two sections such as pre-test and post-test. Pre-test is given to students before teacher conduct the instruction in classroom while post-test is given to
(22)
31
the students after teacher conducting instruction in classroom. Pre-test is intended to know students’ prior knowledge about the concept of environmental pollution. Post-test is conducted in the end of teaching learning process. It is intended to know whether the improvement of
students’ cognitive is gained after teacher conducting instruction or not.
This cognitive paper test is given in the form of multiple choice question. Multiple choice question consists cognitive domain from C1 until C5 which is about knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, and evaluation (Anderson et al., 2001). Cognitive paper test firstly consists of 30 questions after passing judgement by expert. It is used to look students’ cognitive starting from C1 until C5. Then, it is distributed to students in grade 8 as a limited test. The blueprint of instrument before passing instrument analysis step is described in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2 Blue Print of Cognitive Paper Test Question
Concept Cognitive Level Total
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Interaction between biotic and abiotic factor
3 5 2 3 1 14
Factors that can destruct environment
2 1 - 2 5
Effects that can be resulted by
environmental pollution
1 - 3 - 3 7
Solutions that can be done by human to maintain the environment.
- 2 - 1 1 4
(23)
32
The next step after conducting limited test to 8 grade students is analyzing this objective test using ANATES. Based on this analysis, 10 questions are used directly and there are 10 questions which are revised. The new blueprint of objective test is shown below on Table 3.2.
Table 3.3 Blue Print of Objective Test after Passing Instrument Analysis
Concept Cognitive Level Total
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Interaction between biotic and abiotic factor
1 3 2 1 1 8
Factors that can destruct environment
- 1 - 3 - 4
Effects that can be resulted by environmental pollution
- 1 1 1 1 4
Solutions that can be done by human to maintain the environment.
- 2 - 1 1 4
Total 1 7 3 6 3 20
c. Interview Sheet
Interview sheet is an instrument which is used to collect student statement about learning activities that have been conducted in classroom. This interview is given to students after they finish whole activites starting from pre-test until post-test as the end of learning activites. Interview sheet consists of students statement how their feeling was during learning activities. Students are asked about learning style they like the most, the opinion about discussion, their conformity during discussion such as influence of different gender and personal
(24)
33
intelligence, and their interest towards science subject. The blueprint of interview sheet are shown below on Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Blue Print of Interview Sheet
No Question Answer
1 What is your best learning style? State your reason
2 Do you like discussion method? State your reason
3 Which one do you like. Doing discussion with similar gender or doing discussion with different gender? State your reason 4 Which one do you like. Doing
discussion with smarter friends or doing discussion with person whose achievement is not too high and not too low? State your reason
5 What is the thing you do not like when doing discussion?
6 Do you like science subject? State your reason
7 Do you like environmental pollution chapter? State your reason
8 Is your spirit in learning a subject defined first by your interest toward that subject? State your reason
E. Instrument Analysis
Instrument analysis is done by judgement expert and ANATES V4. Cognitive paper test which is used in limited test firstly is judged by expert. Then, limited test could be conducted. The results of limited test is analyzed by ANATES. Aspects which are analyzed such as validation, reliability, level of difficulty, discriminating power, and distractor which should fulfill the criteria.
(25)
34
Based on Arikunto (2013), evaluation of instrument must be valid in order to get a valid result of the activities conducted. Anderson in Arikunto (2013) said that a test is valid if it measures what it purpose to measure. The validity which is used is content validity. Content validity measures a particular purpose which is still relevant with the material/concept given to the students. The formula to investigate the number of validity is product moment correlation, shown as follow
rxy : correlation coefficient between X variable and Y variable
The validity interpretation is represented below on Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Validity Interpretation
Correlation Coefficient Validity Criteria 0,00 < r 0,20 Very Low
0,20 < r 0,40 Low
0,40 < r 0,60 Satisfactory 0,60 < r 0,80 High 0,80 < r 1,00 Very high
(Arikunto, 2013)
2. Reliability
Reliability is related with trust. A test which has a high level of trust then usually can give a consistent result in repeated trials. It means that the reliability of a test will be very related with the consistency of test results itself (Arikunto, 2013).
The formula which is used to define the reliability of objective test which is multiple question is alpha formula.
22 11 1 1 i i n n r
2 2
2
2
Y Y N X X N Y X XY N rxy
(26)
35
r11 : Instrument reliability
n : Amount of question
i2: Amount of variant score in each item2 i
: Varian total
The reliability interpretation is represented below on Table 3.6. Table 3.6 Reliability Interpretation
Reliability Coefficient Reliability Criteria 0,00 < r 0,20 Very Low
0,20 < r 0,40 Low
0,40 < r 0,60 Satisfactory 0,60 < r 0,80 High 0,80 < r 1,00 Very high
(Arikunto, 2013)
3. Level of Difficulty
According to Arikunto (2013), level of difficulty is a term which show the level of question, whether it is easy to solve or hard to solve. Difficulty index is usually used as the number to show the difficulty level of question. The range of level of difficulty is from 0,00 to 1,00. The lower the index, then the more difficult the question and vice versa.
The formula that is used to measure the level of difficulty ( difficulty index), shown as follow.
P : Difficulty index
B : Number of students who answer the question correctly JS : Number of all students who join the test
The difficulty index interpretation is represented below on Table 3.7. Table 3.7. Difficulty Index Interpretation
Reliability Coefficient Validity Criteria 0,00 < P < 0,30 Difficult 0,30 < P < 0,70 Middle JS
B P
(27)
36
0,70 < P < 1,00 Easy
(Arikunto, 2013)
4. Discriminating Power
Discriminating power is an ability of question to discriminate between high-achiever students and low-achiever students (Arikunto, 2013). Number that shows discriminating power is called as discriminant index (D). Discriminant index range is about 0,00 to 1,00. Good questions will have discriminant index between 0,4 and 0,7 (Arikunto, 2013).
The formula of discriminant index is
D : Discriminating Power (Discriminant Index)
A
B : Number of high-achiever students which answer the question correctly
B
B : Number of low-achiever students which answer the question correctly
A
J : Total of students in upper group
B
J : Total of students in lower group
A
P : Proportion of upper group who answer question correctly
B
P : Proportion of lower group who answer question correctly P is level difficulty
The discriminant index interpretation is represented below on Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Discriminant Index Interpretation Discriminant Index
Coefficient
Discriminant Index Criteria
0,00 < D 0,20 Poor
0,20 < D 0,40 Satisfactory
0,40 < D 0,70 Good
0,60 < D 1,00 Excellent D = negative Question is deleted
B A B B A
A P P
J B J B
(28)
37
(Arikunto, 2013)
5. Distractor
A good distractor can be defined when an option is chosen by almost of students. Students think that the option is the best answer while it is actually the wrong answer. Distractor which even is not chosen by students is actually bad, because it can not attract student’ mind to consider the option as the best answer (Arikunto, 2013).
Due to the result of limited test, the reliability of test is 0,81. The average score is 22,41. The number of question which is used directly in research is 10 and the number of question which is revised based on analysis of ANATES is 10. The blue print of limited test analysis result by ANATES is shown below on Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Blue Print of Limited Test Analysis Result by ANATES Number of Questions Discri minating Power Level of Difficulty
Validity Correlation Significant
Note
1 Poor Very easy Satisfactory Very significant
Used 2 Satisfactory Very easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Used
3 Satisfactory Medium Low - Revised
4 Excellent Medium Satisfactory Very significant
Used
5 Poor Very easy Very Low - Revised
6 Good Medium Satisfactory Very
significant
Used 7 Good Very easy Satisfactory Significant Used 8 Poor Very easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Used
9 Good Difficult Low Significant Used
10 Poor Very easy Low - Revised
11 Satisfactory Medium Low Significant Used
12 Poor Easy Low - Revised
13 Satisfactory Medium Low - Revised
14 Satisfactory Very easy Low - Dropped
15 Poor Very easy Very Low - Revised
(29)
38 Number of Questions Discri minating Power Level of Difficulty
Validity Correlation Significant
Note
17 Poor Medium Very Low - Dropped
18 Poor Very easy Very Low - Dropped
19 Good Medium Satisfactory Very
significant
Used
20 Good Easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Dropped
21 Poor Very easy Very Low - Revised
22 Poor Very easy Not Valid - Dropped
23 Satisfactory Medium Very Low - Dropped 24 Poor Very easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Used 25 Satisfactory Very easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Dropped
26 Good Easy Satisfactory Very
significant
Dropped
27 Satisfactory Easy Low - Dropped
28 Excellent Medium Satisfactory Very significant
Used
29 Poor Very easy Very Low - Revised
30 Poor Easy Very Low - Dropped
F. Data Collecting
Data collecting is done by giving students objective test (pre-test and post-test) and questionnaire based on CLES. The instrument which is used in written test is multiple choice question while the instrument which is used to get the profile of classroom learning environment is based on Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). The blueprint of data collecting is shown below on Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 The Blue Print of Collecting Data Dependent
Variable Data Source
Method of Data
Collecting Instrument Cognitive ability
of students in learning environmental pollution Students who experience discussion in instruction Cognitive Paper Test Multiple choice questions Learning environment Students who
experience Questionnaire
CLES questionnaire
(30)
39
discussion in
instruction Students’
Interview
G. Data Analysis Technique
Data analysis is done by calculating the score of pre-test and post-test of students. The average of pre-test and post-test score is also calculated. Another aspects that would be described on analysis pre-test and post-test such as the highest and the lowest score, percentage of students who pass the average score and cognitive level achievement that is achieved by students.
Furthermore, questionnaire based on CLES’ results is analyzed by using
summated rating, which is well-known as Likert Scale. Scoring on each aspect on CLES is based on positive statement and negative statement stated. Scoring for positive statement and negative statement is shown below on Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Scoring for Positive Statement and Negative Statement on CLES questionnaire
Scale Scoring
Positive statement Negative statement
Almost never 1 5
Seldom 2 4
Sometimes 3 3
Often 4 2
Almost always 5 1
(Sugiono, 2011)
Score of each aspect is gained based on the scoring above and it is analyzed based on the average score of agreement level. The average score of agreement level of each student defines the agreement level of each aspect as a whole in this research. The average of agreement level is based on this scale on Table 3.12 below.
Table 3.12 The Classification of Agreement Level Average Score Range of
Agreement Level Average
(31)
40
0-1 Almost Never
1,01-2 Seldom
2,01-3 Sometimes
3,01-4 Often
4,01-5 Almost Always
(Taylor and Fraser, 1991)
H. Research Procedure
In order to have a good sequence sistematically in this research, the research procedure is arranged in three stages that should be done. Those three stages are preparation stage, implementation stage, and completion stage.
1. Preparation Stage
Preparation stage of this research includes,
a. Conducting study on characteristic of school, students, teacher, and teaching method which will be the part of the research later. This is a very initial step to look for the problem and gain the idea which will be taken for the research.
b. Conducting literature study. It could be taken from various resources such as book, journals, artcles, and etc.
c. Defining and analyzing a topic for research including variable. d. Defining population and sample which will be used in the research. e. Contacting the school and science teacher to ask the permission
letter for taking data and doing research at that school. f. Constructing the instruments.
g. Judging all instruments such as objective test, questionnaire, and interview sheet to the expert.
h. Revising the instruments based on expert’ suggestions.
i. Conducting limited test to 8 grade students. j. Analyzing the results of limited test by ANATES.
k. Revising the instruments become a valid instrument which will be used in the data taking process.
(32)
41
2. Implementation Stage
Implementation stage of this research includes,
a. Conducting research by giving pre-test and post-test after conducting instruction using discussion method.
b. Recording current situation of classroom as learning environment in the sample class.
c. Distributing questionnaire of classroom learning environment to the students.
d. Having interview to students who joined discussion about the process of discussion itself.
e. Research data is finally taken.
Data taking timeline which show how the research is implemented is shown below on Table 3.13.
Table 3.13 Data Taking Timeline of Discussion Implementation
Activity 1st meeting 2nd meeting
Pre-test 30’
Giving a video about
environmental pollution 5’ Students learn kinds of
environmental pollution which are occured nowadays by listening
teacher explanation
10’ Students have a
discussion, including make a group poster
45’ Presenting poster group
as students’ discussion result
45’
Post Test 30’
Distributing
questionnaire 15’
Having interview about
(33)
42
3. Completion Stage
Completion stage of this research includes,
a. Analyzing research results such as objective test and questionnaire result.
b. Discussing the research results based on related theoritical foundation.
c. Consulting the research result with the lecture regarding to the finishing of this research paper.
d. Drawing conclusion of research based on the research result, discussion, and analysis.
e. Research paper is finally constructed.
4. Research Scheme
Preparation Stage Analysis of 2013
Curriculum
Analysis all variable related
Questionnaire Objective
Test
Limited Test and Validation
Valid Invalid
Instrument Construction
(34)
43
Figure 3.1 Research Scheme Revised
Research Implementation: Conducting discussion in 7-1 and 7-2 class
Implementation Stage Collecting research data
Data Analysis
Conclusion
(35)
71
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusion
The conclusion of learning environment and cognitive ability of students experiencing discussion in learning environmental pollution at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur is shown below.
1. The profile of learning environment of discussion which is described by Constructivism Learning Environment Survey (CLES) at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur reached 50% until 74,2% of the percentage for every aspect. From scale 0 to 5 of agreement level average, personal relevance got 3,71 and it is around 74,2 %. Uncertanty got 3,16 and it is around 63,2%. Critical voice got 2,87 and it is around 57,4%. Shared control got 2,5 and it is exactly 50%. The last is students’ negotiation which got 3,68 and it is around 73,6%. Based on those average number of agreement level, it can be indicated that discussion itself did not involve all students completely in learning. Not all of students confessed that they almost always share their ideas to others. Some students stated that they sometimes relate their knowledge and daily phenomenon, teach their friends, and ask what they have to do in learning. Even, they seldom build their knowledge independently through discussion activities. These
students’ responses signify clearly that learning enviroment which is built through discussion did not involve all SIKL students in learning.
2. The profile of cognitive ability of students experiencing discussion at Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur is that the average score of post-test increased become 66,87. In the pre-test, the average score was 61,86. There was increment on average score as much as 5,01. Moreover, all cognitive level got the increment on post-test around 2,38% until 5,56%. The cognitive ability of students who experience discussion in SIKL reach around 57,64% until 70,83% in each cognitive level from C1 until C5 in the post-test. It indicates that cognitive ability of students in
(36)
72
mastering the concept of environmental pollution is just approximately 50%-70%.
3. Based on analysis towards interview result of students, there are factors influencing discussion process of students at SIKL. Those factors include
students’ prior knowledge, learning style of students, conformity, gender
differences, students’ personal intelligence, and students’ interests. Some students who got decrement on post-test score confessed that those factors disrupt discussion process and affects their enjoyment and comfort during discussion. Indirectly, it influences the way they get knowledge through discussion and finnaly affect to their cognitive ability in post-test.
B. Recommendation
Considering that this research need to be developed further, then this research give such recommendations not only for the future researcher but also the teacher who may implement discussion method.
1. For future researchers, firstly, conducting descriptive method not only need some instruments to strengthen the reason why something is occured, but also the advantages of video recorder can be very helpful. Therefore, the description toward something will be clearly explained. Moreover, when research is conducted in such groups, more video recorder should be available. Every single minutes of discussion will be recorded in every group and it will ease every researcher to analyze what is actually being happened on discussion. Thus, the result in profiling some variables could be precisely taken. Secondly, another researcher may have either descriptive research or experimental research in more numbers of sample and variable. The more numbers of samples, the more accurate results. In addition, variable which is investigated can be more various. It can either describe or measure how effective discussion is toward learning process, students cognitive, students attitude, students behaviour, and students motivation.
(37)
73
2. For teachers, it is better for them to have more ideas to pack discussion become more valuable in order to have an effective discussion. Considering the factors that influence discussion process, such as gender dfferences, students intelligents, and students interest, teacher should be more creative in constructing the way how discussion running in the classroom to make students totally involve in discussion.
(38)
(39)
REFERENCE
Adler, R. B., Elmhorst, J., and Lucas, K. (2013). Communicating at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Arikunto, S. (2013). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi 2. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Benneth, J., Lubben, F, Hogarth, S., and Campbell, B. (2004). A Systematic Review of The Use of Small-Group Discussions in Science Teaching with Students Aged 11-18, and Their Effects on Students’ Understanding in Science or Attitude to Science. New York: EPPI Centre.
Cakmak, E.K. (2010). Learning Strategies and Motivational Factors Predicting Information Literacy Self-Efficacy of E-Learner. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(2), 192-208. Retrieved from www. ascilite.org. [Accessed on July 25, 2015].
Campbell, N.A. and Reece, J. B. (2009). Biology. [online]. Retrieved from www.pearsonhighered.com . [Accessed on June 9, 2011].
Cashin, W. E. (2011). Effective Classroom Discussion. IDEA Paper. New York: The IDEA Centre
Fraser, B.J. (1986). Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm.
Gall, M.D. and Gillet, M. (2001). “The Discussion Method in Classroom
Teaching”. Theory Into Practice Journal. 19(2), 98-103.
Hanafiah, N and Suhana, C. (2009). Konsep Strategi Pembelajaran. Bandung: Refika Aditama
Hanrahan, M. (1998). The Effect of Learning Environment Factors on Students’ Motivation and Learning. International Journal of Science Education. 20 (6). 737-753. [online]. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ 1352/1/hanrahan_ijse.pdf. [Accessed on October 5, 2014].
Irwanto. (2006). Focused group Discussion (FGD): Sebuah Pengantar Praktis. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia
(40)
Jacobsen, D.A., Eggen, P, and Kauchak, D. (2009). Methods for Teaching: Promoting Student Learning in K-12 Classrooms. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Janawi. (2013). Metodologi dan Pendekatan Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak
Jones, M.G. and Araje, L.B. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Languange, Discourse, and Meaning. American Communication Journal. 5(3), 1-10. [online]. Retrieved from www. ac-journal.org. [Accessed on July 25, 2015].
Jones, V.F. and Jones, L.S. (1994). Comprehensive Classroom Management: Creating Positive Learning Environments for All Students. United States of America: Allyn and Bacon
Katu, N. (2006). Belajar Paling Efektif Jika Menyenangkan. Polyglot Jurnal Ilmiah FKIP Univ Pelita Harapan. –
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Dokumen Kompetensi Dasar Kurikulum 2013 Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP)/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTS). Jakarta: --
Kratwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom Taxonomy’s: An Overview. Theory
Into Practice. 41 (4), 212-218. [online]. Retrieved from http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf. [Accessed on October 29, 2014].
Kukuru, J.D. (2012). Encouraging Representation and Involvement of Learners on
Discussion Method’s Features towards Ensuring Effective Teaching. Prime
Research on Education. 2(2), 180-190. [online]. Retrieved from www.primejournal.org/PRE. [Accessed on June 9, 2011].
Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D.A .(2007). Pollution. Pennysylvania: Greenhaven Press
Nasution, S. (1982). Berbagai Pendekatan dalam Proses Belajar dan Mengajar. Bandung: Bumi Aksara
Olukayode, O.J. (2012). Inquiry Method, Teacher Guided Discussion and
Students’ Attitude and Performance in Social Studies. Global Journal of
(41)
Polit, D and Hungler, B.(2004. “Nursing Research, Principles, and Method”. Philadelphia: Lippincourt
Putro, D.R. (2011). Studi Komparasi Penggunaan Metode Ceramah dan Diskusi terhadap Minat dan Prestasi Belajar Siswa dalam Pembelajaran PKN di SMPN 3 Prambanan Sleman. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta Rahman, F., Khalil, J.K., Jumani, N.B., Ajmal, M., Malik, S., Sharif, M. (2011).
Impact of Discussion Method on Students Performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2 (7), 84-96.
Sadiyah, H. (2010). “Efektivitas Metode Diskusi dalam Pembelajaran Pendidikan Agama Islam”. Undergraduate Thesis. Jurusan Pendidikan Agama Islam. UIN Syarif Hidayatulloh, Jakarta.
Sanjaya, W. (2006). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana.
Sugiono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: IKAPI
Sastrawijaya, A. (2009). Pencemaran Lingkungan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Tawalbeh, A and Al-zoud, K. M. (2013). The Effects of Students’ Prior Knowledge of English on Their Writing of Researches. International Journal of Linguisthic. 5 (3). [online]. Retrieved from http://www.macrothink.org. [Accessed on August 20, 2015].
Taylor, P.C and Fraser, B.J. (1991). ‘CLES: An Instrument for Assessing
Constructivist Learning Environments’. [online]. The Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). April 1991.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., and White, L.R. (1994). ‘An Instrument for Monitoring
The Development of Constructivism Learning Environment’. [online]. The
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 1994.
Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist Oriented Lesson. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Winarsih, Nugroho, A., Sulityoso, Zajuri, M., Supliyadi, and Suyanto, S. (2008). IPA TERPADU. Semarang: Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Yuksel, I. (2013). Impact of Activity-Based Mathematics Instruction on Students with Different Prior Knowledge and Reading Abilities. International
(42)
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 12 (6), 1445-1468. [online]. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com. [Accessed on August 20, 2015]
(1)
73
Hanifah Mulyani, 2015
The Profile Of Learning Environment And Cognitive Ability Of Students In Learning Environmental Pollution By Discussion At Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2. For teachers, it is better for them to have more ideas to pack discussion become more valuable in order to have an effective discussion. Considering the factors that influence discussion process, such as gender dfferences, students intelligents, and students interest, teacher should be more creative in constructing the way how discussion running in the classroom to make students totally involve in discussion.
(2)
(3)
Hanifah Mulyani, 2015
The Profile Of Learning Environment And Cognitive Ability Of Students In Learning Environmental Pollution By Discussion At Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu REFERENCE
Adler, R. B., Elmhorst, J., and Lucas, K. (2013). Communicating at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching,
and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
New York, NY: Longman.
Arikunto, S. (2013). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi 2. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Benneth, J., Lubben, F, Hogarth, S., and Campbell, B. (2004). A Systematic Review of The Use of Small-Group Discussions in Science Teaching with Students Aged 11-18, and Their Effects on Students’ Understanding in Science or Attitude to Science. New York: EPPI Centre.
Cakmak, E.K. (2010). Learning Strategies and Motivational Factors Predicting Information Literacy Self-Efficacy of E-Learner. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(2), 192-208. Retrieved from www. ascilite.org. [Accessed on July 25, 2015].
Campbell, N.A. and Reece, J. B. (2009). Biology. [online]. Retrieved from www.pearsonhighered.com . [Accessed on June 9, 2011].
Cashin, W. E. (2011). Effective Classroom Discussion. IDEA Paper. New York: The IDEA Centre
Fraser, B.J. (1986). Classroom Environment. London: Croom Helm.
Gall, M.D. and Gillet, M. (2001). “The Discussion Method in Classroom
Teaching”. Theory Into Practice Journal. 19(2), 98-103.
Hanafiah, N and Suhana, C. (2009). Konsep Strategi Pembelajaran. Bandung: Refika Aditama
Hanrahan, M. (1998). The Effect of Learning Environment Factors on Students’ Motivation and Learning. International Journal of Science Education. 20 (6). 737-753. [online]. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ 1352/1/hanrahan_ijse.pdf. [Accessed on October 5, 2014].
Irwanto. (2006). Focused group Discussion (FGD): Sebuah Pengantar Praktis. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia
(4)
Jacobsen, D.A., Eggen, P, and Kauchak, D. (2009). Methods for Teaching:
Promoting Student Learning in K-12 Classrooms. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Janawi. (2013). Metodologi dan Pendekatan Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak
Jones, M.G. and Araje, L.B. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Languange, Discourse, and Meaning. American Communication Journal. 5(3), 1-10. [online]. Retrieved from www. ac-journal.org. [Accessed on July 25, 2015].
Jones, V.F. and Jones, L.S. (1994). Comprehensive Classroom Management:
Creating Positive Learning Environments for All Students. United States of
America: Allyn and Bacon
Katu, N. (2006). Belajar Paling Efektif Jika Menyenangkan. Polyglot Jurnal
Ilmiah FKIP Univ Pelita Harapan. –
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Dokumen Kompetensi Dasar
Kurikulum 2013 Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP)/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTS). Jakarta: --
Kratwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom Taxonomy’s: An Overview. Theory
Into Practice. 41 (4), 212-218. [online]. Retrieved from http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf. [Accessed on October 29, 2014].
Kukuru, J.D. (2012). Encouraging Representation and Involvement of Learners on
Discussion Method’s Features towards Ensuring Effective Teaching. Prime
Research on Education. 2(2), 180-190. [online]. Retrieved from
www.primejournal.org/PRE. [Accessed on June 9, 2011].
Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D.A .(2007). Pollution. Pennysylvania: Greenhaven Press
Nasution, S. (1982). Berbagai Pendekatan dalam Proses Belajar dan Mengajar. Bandung: Bumi Aksara
Olukayode, O.J. (2012). Inquiry Method, Teacher Guided Discussion and
Students’ Attitude and Performance in Social Studies. Global Journal of
(5)
Hanifah Mulyani, 2015
The Profile Of Learning Environment And Cognitive Ability Of Students In Learning Environmental Pollution By Discussion At Sekolah Indonesia Kuala Lumpur
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Polit, D and Hungler, B.(2004. “Nursing Research, Principles, and Method”. Philadelphia: Lippincourt
Putro, D.R. (2011). Studi Komparasi Penggunaan Metode Ceramah dan Diskusi
terhadap Minat dan Prestasi Belajar Siswa dalam Pembelajaran PKN di SMPN 3 Prambanan Sleman. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta
Rahman, F., Khalil, J.K., Jumani, N.B., Ajmal, M., Malik, S., Sharif, M. (2011). Impact of Discussion Method on Students Performance. International
Journal of Business and Social Science. 2 (7), 84-96.
Sadiyah, H. (2010). “Efektivitas Metode Diskusi dalam Pembelajaran Pendidikan Agama Islam”. Undergraduate Thesis. Jurusan Pendidikan Agama Islam. UIN Syarif Hidayatulloh, Jakarta.
Sanjaya, W. (2006). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana.
Sugiono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: IKAPI
Sastrawijaya, A. (2009). Pencemaran Lingkungan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Tawalbeh, A and Al-zoud, K. M. (2013). The Effects of Students’ Prior Knowledge of English on Their Writing of Researches. International Journal
of Linguisthic. 5 (3). [online]. Retrieved from http://www.macrothink.org.
[Accessed on August 20, 2015].
Taylor, P.C and Fraser, B.J. (1991). ‘CLES: An Instrument for Assessing
Constructivist Learning Environments’. [online]. The Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). April 1991.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., and White, L.R. (1994). ‘An Instrument for Monitoring
The Development of Constructivism Learning Environment’. [online]. The
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 1994.
Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist Oriented Lesson. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Winarsih, Nugroho, A., Sulityoso, Zajuri, M., Supliyadi, and Suyanto, S. (2008).
IPA TERPADU. Semarang: Pusat Perbukuan Departemen Pendidikan
Nasional.
Yuksel, I. (2013). Impact of Activity-Based Mathematics Instruction on Students with Different Prior Knowledge and Reading Abilities. International
(6)
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 12 (6), 1445-1468. [online].
Retrieved from http://download.springer.com. [Accessed on August 20, 2015]