M01942
Inner-Outer Circle Teaching Method VS Demonstration Method:
A Comparative Study of Classroom Assessment in PGSD-UKSW Teaching
Donald Samuel
State University of Semarang
Donald Samuel, S.Pd, Department of Social Studies Education, Post Graduate
Program, State University of Semarang
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald Samuel,
Department of Social Studies Education, Post Graduate Program, State University
of Semarang, Bendan Ngisor Semarang Campus, Semarang, Indonesia. E-mail:
[email protected] Telp/SMS: +62 85 727 189 094
2
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Abstract
This paper explores comparison result of experiment research conducted Innerouter circle method and Demonstration Method. Purpose of the research is
comparing its two methods in University teaching. This is a mix method of
research that used the sequential explanatory strategy. Research finding shown
that Inner-outer circle method better than Demonstration in terms of study skill
and critical thinking, meanwhile, to improve creativity, innovation, selfconfidence, and motivation, demonstration method better than inner-outer circle.
Keywodrs: Inner-outer circle, Demonstration
3
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Inner-Outer Circle Teaching Method VS Demonstration Method:
A Comparative Study of Classroom Assessment in PGSD-UKSW Teaching
Education does not only include scores, GPA, graduation, and other
symbols of achievement. Education has a deeper meaning of those things. There
are various definitions of education that focus on the purpose of education.
Langeveld in Gulo (2005) stated "Education is efforts to reach moral
maturity". The notion suggests that the final product of education is human
decency of an adult. On the other hand, Vadeboncoeur in Richardson (1997)
stated that there are two perspectives educational purposes. The first objective is
"to educate the individual child in a manner that supports the child's interests and
needs". The purpose of education is consistent with the educational objectives
according to Piagetian flow. While the second goal is "social transformation and
the reconstruction of society aligned with democratic ideals." This goal is
consistent with the educational objectives according to Vygotskian flow.
Education objectives are broad and can be narrowed down into more
specific educational goals. One of the goals of education, particularly in relation
to the concept of a link to the world of work are programmed by UNESCO, is the
mastery of competencies (Arguelles et al., 2000:7). Due to their competence,
students are expected to be ready to face the working experience.
In fact, students should possess competencies which are formulated in the
curriculum and which are not optimal in producing graduates who are ready to
work. There are two main competencies that students should have: hard skills and
soft skills (Ramesh et al., 2010:2). Soft skills as the complement of hard skills can
be like; attitude, communication skills, and ethics. Basic skills and soft skills are
perfect combination that graduates should have to be able to compete in working
environment.
Therefore, it is suggested that to achieve mastery of competencies (which
tend to be hard skills), must be followed by mastering another aspect, that is soft
skills. Consequently, innovative and non-conventional teaching methods
apparently support this matter.
4
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Literature Review
Innovative learning methods are often identified with non-lecture teaching
methods. If teaching is associated with the concept proposed by Ramsden
(1992:111-118), he divided 3 concepts of teaching as: teaching as telling or
transmission, teaching students as organizing activity, and teaching as making
learning possible. Then learning on innovative teaching method is about teaching
students as organizing activity, and teaching as making learning possible.
There are various forms of innovative learning method that can be
selected. The particular methods should be adjusted to at least 6 terms as proposed
by Babanthdge (Ю
К
чБ
, 1927 to 1987) in Wang
(2012:415). The first is that the choosing of method should conform to teaching
principles; the second is to be in accordance with teaching purpose and tasks; the
third is to be in line with teaching content; the forth is to come up to student's
possibility, his preparation and the peculiarities of the class; the fifth is to fit in
with the current situation and specific time; the last one is to be corresponded with
teacher's possibility, in terms of his experience and knowledge, the actual training
level, the capability to apply various methods and personality. Based on these
considerations, the study will focus on testing the comparison between inner-outer
circle method and the method of student demonstrations.
Inner-outer circle is a form of Socratic Method or method of Elenchus.
This method is one of the oldest teaching methods that focus on critical thinking.
Although this method was implemented few decades ago, this method is still
innovative and possible to be modified in various ways.
In the inner-outer circle method, technically a student in a class will be
divided into two groups of the same number, and each group will sit in a circle.
Circle forms the first group then the second group, thus forming two circles,
where one circle is inside (inner circle), and another circle is outside (outer circle).
Canady (1996:32) states "Those students seated in the inner circle are of
participants while those on the outer circle are observers who have a task to
complete". From these quotations it appears that each group had their respective
duties. Furthermore, Hidalgo (2013:15) states "inner circle will use the same
5
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
template (Socratic Method Template for Group Discussion or Inner Circle) and
follow the same steps of the small group." While "the Outer Circle is allowed to
enter the discussion and ask questions".
In this study, the inner-outer circle method is tested in grade RS-11-I
PGSD SWCU in the Assessment of Teaching course. Methods used to teach the
material on evaluation models. The class consists of 42 students that are divided
into two groups (21 people each), which is the inner circle of the group, and the
other group is the outer circle.
After sitting around in pairs between the inner circle and outer circle, each
student in the outer circle asks one question to her partner in the inner circle. The
pair subsequently answered, and answers are recorded for later assessed by the
questioner. After the questions, the student who sits in the outer circle then rotates
clockwise as far as 1 person to change their partner. To a new partner, outer circle
do the same thing with what to do with his old partner. After 10 times with
multiple partners, and ask 10 questions, the outer circle group then swap roles
with the inner circle group. The same activity is repeated up to 10 times of
changing partners.
Demonstration of the method used in the classroom and the same course
with the method of inner-outer circle, but on a different topic, the topic of
evaluation according to the Education Ministerial Regulation (Permendiknas) no.
20 of 2003 on Evaluation Standards. Petrina (2007:14) states "A demonstration is
a teaching method for modeling knowledge and skills related to effective use of
applications, experiments, tools, machines, instruments, and processes."
Demonstration method used in this study is the demonstration conducted by
students in explaining the given material. Demonstrations can be drama, debates,
talk shows, and other forms of creative others. In this lesson, students were
divided into 7 groups, where each group presents a chapter in the Permendiknas.
The research was mix method that combines quantitative and qualitative
research methods. The strategy used is the sequential explanatory strategy.
According to Creswell (2010:316), sequential explanatory strategy in the study
used a mixture of stages starting with the collection of quantitative data; analysis
6
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
of quantitative data; qualitative data collection; qualitative data analysis, and
interpretation of the overall analysis.
Quantitative data collection in this study is performed with instruments
such as post test, and questionnaires. Post-test is used to assess the ability of
students associated with the end of the lecture material after the learning cycle is
done. While the questionnaire used to obtain feedback from students regarding the
teaching methods used. Prior to it, the validity of the two instruments have been
tested (the method corrected item-total correlation), and its reliability (Cronbach's
alpha method) in another class, the RS 11 J. Both instruments will produce
quantitative data that will be measured in interval scale. Quantitative data that
have collected will be analyzed before inferential (classic assumption of
normality) using Kolmogorov Smirnov technique. Once the data is complete, the
t-test is used for comparing the effectiveness between inner-outer circle indicator
and demonstration method on mastery of the material (post-test), and motivation
(questionnaire). Error rate (level of error) is set at 0.05. All calculations, both
descriptive statistical calculations, classical parametric test assumptions, and
inferential calculations will be carried out with the help of statistical program
PASW Statistics Data Editor 18.
Qualitative data collection in this study was done through observation, and
interviews. Both techniques are performed to obtain data on activities in the
classroom, creativity, and interest in learning, then to obtain valid data, used
triangulation of sources, especially on interviewing techniques. Data were
collected and analyzed by an interactive data analysis technique of Miles and
Hubberman (Hubberman, 1994:10).
Finding
Quantitative data that are obtained consist of 4 data, from the post-test, and
questionnaire, either after the inner-outer circle method, as well as methods of
demonstration. The fourth data is then compared to the method with inner-outer
circle and demonstration method. The results of descriptive statistical calculations
for data post test results are shown in Table 1.
7
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Post Test
Iner_outer
Demo
Valid
42
42
Missing
0
0
Mean
74.7619
65.2381
Median
75.0000
66.0000
N
a
65.00
a
Mode
75.00
Std. Deviation
6.61782
6.61782
Minimum
55.00
50.00
Maximum
92.00
83.00
Sum
3140.00
2740.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
From the results of these calculations it appears that the average score of students
after learning the inner-outer circle method of 74.7619. This value is higher than
the average value after the method of demonstration that only 65.2381. However,
the average difference is still to be tested with inferential analysis. However,
previously, the data should be distributed in a normal curve. Calculation results
for the value of post test normality after inner-outer circle method are shown in
Table 2, while the calculation of the value of post test for normality after the
demonstration method are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test For Inner-Outer
Method’s Post-test
Iner_outer
N
Normal Parameters
42
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
74.7619
Std. Deviation
6.61782
Absolute
.145
Positive
.143
Negative
-.145
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.937
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.343
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
8
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 3. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test For
Demonstration Method’s Post-test
Demo
N
42
Normal Parameters
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
65.2381
Std. Deviation
6.61782
Absolute
.118
Positive
.118
Negative
-.116
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.766
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.600
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
From both tables, it appears that both the average post-test data (after the method
of inner-outer circle and demonstration) distributed in a normal curve. Therefore,
it is worth analyzing the data inferential techniques t-test. Table 4 below is the
calculation of the second t-test data.
Table 4. Paired Samples Test of Score
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 Inner_outer
Std.
Std.
Interval of the
Deviatio
Error
Difference
n
Mean
Lower
Upper
Sig. (2t
df
9.52381 2.29780 .35456 8.80776 10.23986 26.861 41
tailed)
.000
- Demo
Table 4 shows that the value of t as 26.861 that was significant at an error rate of
0.000. This indicates that the value of t is also significant at a higher error rate,
0.05, which means there is different of significant value of the post test methods
between inner-outer circle and demonstration method, where the average score on
the post test inner-outer circle method is higher than the methods of
demonstration.
9
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 5. Paired Samples Correlations Inner-outer Circle Post-test
and Demonstration Post-test
Pair 1
Iner_outer & Demo
N
Correlation
Sig.
42
.940
.000
Furthermore, Table 5 shows that the correlation between the two methods was
0.940 which is significant at 0.000. This means there is a significant correlation
between the post-test of inner-outer circle and demonstration method. Students
who scored high on the inner-outer circle method also get high marks on the
method of demonstration. Similarly for students who receive low grades.
Data on student motivation were collected through a questionnaire divided
into two groups of data, which follow the students' motivation during learning
with a method of inner-outer circle and demonstration methods. Data has been
collected the motivation described in the descriptive statistics in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Motivation
Inner_outer
Demo
Valid
42
42
Missing
0
0
Mean
29.3810
33.7381
Median
29.0000
34.0000
Mode
28.00
34.00
Std. Deviation
4.13759
4.32835
Minimum
20.00
23.00
Maximum
38.00
40.00
Sum
1234.00
1417.00
N
a
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
From the table it appears that the motivation of the students participating in
learning with demonstration method (33.7381) is higher than the methods of
inner-outer circle (29.3810). However, these data need to be tested in inferential
Statistics, but first tested the normality of the distribution in Table 7 below.
10
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 7. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of Motivation
Inner_outer
Demo
42
42
Mean
29.3810
33.7381
Std. Deviation
4.13759
4.32835
Absolute
.107
.123
Positive
.083
.088
Negative
-.107
-.123
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.696
.796
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.718
.551
N
Normal Parameters
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
From that table, it appears that the data in the two methods tend to be normally
distributed. Therefore, the data deserves to be tested in trials using inferential
statistical parametric t-test technique as set forth in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Paired Samples Test of Motivation
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair
Inner_outer -
1
Demo
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Dev
Mean
Lower
Upper
.94249
-6.26055
-2.45374
-4.35714 6.10806
Sig. (2t
df
tailed)
-4.623 41
.000
It appears that the t value of -4623 significant at the 0.000 level also means
significant at the 0.05 level. This indicates a significant difference in the selfmotivation of students when learning to follow the inner-outer circle method and
demonstration method, in which the motivation of students in the following study
with demonstration method is higher than the motivation of students to follow the
learning with inner-outer circle method.
To support the existence of the quantitative data, qualitative researchers
collect data, and then interpreted as a whole with the sequential explanatory
techniques. Qualitative data derived from observations in the form of a note in
11
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
class path that includes active learning, and creativity of students. While the data
derived from the interview contains data on interest, impressions, and a message
from the students. Collected data is then reduced as Miles and Hubberman
interactive analysis. The following is the data display.
In the inner-outer circle method, which acts as an outer group students
often are not satisfied with the answers and explanations of the inner group,
especially when paired with inner-capable students who are less academic.
Therefore, learning is less effective, because the sources of students are often not
competent to answer and explain. Other outer group students were satisfied when
paired with students from inner group who are competent in terms of the material
being discussed. In addition, the outer students often have difficulty in judging
their partners, their ignorance about the validity of an answer from the couple.
Therefore, the assessment is based on only pair stability in answering. On the
other hand, inner students feel anxious when meeting with the requester (outer
group) which is considered to be competent. Fear is when students are given
questions that cannot answered, it is feared the outer group will give a poor
assessment. To deal with such matters, the students had prepared as well as
possible in terms of mastery of the material before the lecture. Similarly, in the
lecture, the students feel they have a challenge to learn (especially when given a
question). Books and reference sources are brought from home to be a reference
in answering the question. After answering, students could understand the topic
better and the knowledge can be easily embedded in long term memory.
In the method of demonstration, students were divided into 7 groups show
different show. Noted there are demonstration models, namely drama (2 groups),
talk shows (1 group), talk shows and movies (1 group), an explanation using
wayang kulit (1 group), debate (1 group), eg the selection of miss education (1
group). In this method, students can channel their talents (especially in art) in
order to convey the material. Students perform a variety of well prepared for
presentational purposes such as costumes, props, video, music, and other
supporting facilities. Regularly scheduled demonstrations, in which each meeting,
there is a demonstration of the elements of the group. Thus, this demonstration
12
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
activity takes 7 times the meeting, with a maximum 50-minute demonstration (1
credit). Students recognize that this method can increase creativity, selfconfidence, and innovation in them. The ideas and the ideas channeled in the
presentation of innovative concepts. When not performing, the students also felt
comforted by the appearance of another group of mostly high-value innovation.
Motivation in following the course also increased in the presence of this
demonstration (evident from the high student attendance at meetings that there is
an element of the demonstration). However, when watching the demonstration,
students tend to pay attention to the elements of art and innovation, rather than the
substance of the material. Thus, student mastery of the material seems very low. It
shows that the discussion session tends to contain criticism and comments about
appearance, instead of the substance.
Conclusion and Future Study
The implementation of inner-outer circle method and demonstration
method has advantages and disadvantages. Inner-outer circle method is better than
the demonstration method in terms of study skill and critical thinking, meanwhile,
to improve creativity, innovation, self-confidence, and motivation, demonstration
method better than inner-outer circle. Therefore, the selection of correct teaching
method needs to be adapted to the purpose of learning itself. Aspects that will be
developed within students need to be identified prior to the interests of teaching
method. Nevertheless, it would be better if feedback research is conducted to
develop teaching methods support hard skills and soft skills at the same time.
13
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
References
Arguelles Antonio, Gonczi Andrew. (2000). Competency Based Education and
Training. A World Perspective. Belderas, Mexico: Editorial Limusa, S.A
de C.V. pp 7.
Canady L. Robert, Rettig D. Michael. (1996). Teaching in the Block. Strategies
for Engaging Active Learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. pp 32.
Gulo W. (2005). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta, Indonesia: Grasindo. pp 4041.
Hidalgo Alan. (2013). Between Two Worlds. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. pp 15.
Lee W. Steven. (2005). Encyclopedia of School Psychology. Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage Publisher. pp 134.
Miles B. Matthew, Hubberman Michael. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publisher. pp 10.
Petrina Stephen. (2007). Advanced Teaching Methods for The Technology
Classroom. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. pp 14.
Richardson Virginia. (1997). Constructivist Teacher of Education. Building a
World of New Understanding. London, UK: Falmer Press. pp 15.
Ramesh Gopalaswamy, Ramesh Mahadevan. (2010). The Ace of Soft Skills.
Attitude, Communication, and Etiquette for Success. Noida, India: Dorling
Kindersley. pp 2.
Ramsden Paul. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London, England:
Routledge. pp 111-118.
Shipley G. Kenneth, McAfee G. Julie. (2009). Assessment in Speech Language
Pathology. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning. pp 9.
Wang Yuanzhi. (2011). Education and Educational Technology. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. pp 415.
14
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Biography
Donald Samuel is a student of Social Science, Post-Graduate Program of State
University of Semarang. As bachelor graduate SWCU FKIP Economics
Education she had a variety of experiences in research and scientific publications.
Some articles that have been written, among others:
The Behavior Using Theory to Increase Students GPA (International
Seminar, University Student's Health, Chung Yuan Christian University,
Taiwan);
Scenario Economic Education Curriculum Development FKIP SWCU
(Seminar on Social and Cultural Globalization in perspective Economics
Education’s Curriculum Development, SWCU);
Progressive Teacher vs Perennials Teacher, in answering the needs of
future teachers (Indonesian Educationist Association, Muhammadiyah
Solo University);
Students’ Learning in Semester Credit System (National Seminar, Post
Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University);
Monitoring and Evaluation Program of Compulsory Education in Salatiga,
2012 (Academica Journal).
A Comparative Study of Classroom Assessment in PGSD-UKSW Teaching
Donald Samuel
State University of Semarang
Donald Samuel, S.Pd, Department of Social Studies Education, Post Graduate
Program, State University of Semarang
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald Samuel,
Department of Social Studies Education, Post Graduate Program, State University
of Semarang, Bendan Ngisor Semarang Campus, Semarang, Indonesia. E-mail:
[email protected] Telp/SMS: +62 85 727 189 094
2
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Abstract
This paper explores comparison result of experiment research conducted Innerouter circle method and Demonstration Method. Purpose of the research is
comparing its two methods in University teaching. This is a mix method of
research that used the sequential explanatory strategy. Research finding shown
that Inner-outer circle method better than Demonstration in terms of study skill
and critical thinking, meanwhile, to improve creativity, innovation, selfconfidence, and motivation, demonstration method better than inner-outer circle.
Keywodrs: Inner-outer circle, Demonstration
3
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Inner-Outer Circle Teaching Method VS Demonstration Method:
A Comparative Study of Classroom Assessment in PGSD-UKSW Teaching
Education does not only include scores, GPA, graduation, and other
symbols of achievement. Education has a deeper meaning of those things. There
are various definitions of education that focus on the purpose of education.
Langeveld in Gulo (2005) stated "Education is efforts to reach moral
maturity". The notion suggests that the final product of education is human
decency of an adult. On the other hand, Vadeboncoeur in Richardson (1997)
stated that there are two perspectives educational purposes. The first objective is
"to educate the individual child in a manner that supports the child's interests and
needs". The purpose of education is consistent with the educational objectives
according to Piagetian flow. While the second goal is "social transformation and
the reconstruction of society aligned with democratic ideals." This goal is
consistent with the educational objectives according to Vygotskian flow.
Education objectives are broad and can be narrowed down into more
specific educational goals. One of the goals of education, particularly in relation
to the concept of a link to the world of work are programmed by UNESCO, is the
mastery of competencies (Arguelles et al., 2000:7). Due to their competence,
students are expected to be ready to face the working experience.
In fact, students should possess competencies which are formulated in the
curriculum and which are not optimal in producing graduates who are ready to
work. There are two main competencies that students should have: hard skills and
soft skills (Ramesh et al., 2010:2). Soft skills as the complement of hard skills can
be like; attitude, communication skills, and ethics. Basic skills and soft skills are
perfect combination that graduates should have to be able to compete in working
environment.
Therefore, it is suggested that to achieve mastery of competencies (which
tend to be hard skills), must be followed by mastering another aspect, that is soft
skills. Consequently, innovative and non-conventional teaching methods
apparently support this matter.
4
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Literature Review
Innovative learning methods are often identified with non-lecture teaching
methods. If teaching is associated with the concept proposed by Ramsden
(1992:111-118), he divided 3 concepts of teaching as: teaching as telling or
transmission, teaching students as organizing activity, and teaching as making
learning possible. Then learning on innovative teaching method is about teaching
students as organizing activity, and teaching as making learning possible.
There are various forms of innovative learning method that can be
selected. The particular methods should be adjusted to at least 6 terms as proposed
by Babanthdge (Ю
К
чБ
, 1927 to 1987) in Wang
(2012:415). The first is that the choosing of method should conform to teaching
principles; the second is to be in accordance with teaching purpose and tasks; the
third is to be in line with teaching content; the forth is to come up to student's
possibility, his preparation and the peculiarities of the class; the fifth is to fit in
with the current situation and specific time; the last one is to be corresponded with
teacher's possibility, in terms of his experience and knowledge, the actual training
level, the capability to apply various methods and personality. Based on these
considerations, the study will focus on testing the comparison between inner-outer
circle method and the method of student demonstrations.
Inner-outer circle is a form of Socratic Method or method of Elenchus.
This method is one of the oldest teaching methods that focus on critical thinking.
Although this method was implemented few decades ago, this method is still
innovative and possible to be modified in various ways.
In the inner-outer circle method, technically a student in a class will be
divided into two groups of the same number, and each group will sit in a circle.
Circle forms the first group then the second group, thus forming two circles,
where one circle is inside (inner circle), and another circle is outside (outer circle).
Canady (1996:32) states "Those students seated in the inner circle are of
participants while those on the outer circle are observers who have a task to
complete". From these quotations it appears that each group had their respective
duties. Furthermore, Hidalgo (2013:15) states "inner circle will use the same
5
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
template (Socratic Method Template for Group Discussion or Inner Circle) and
follow the same steps of the small group." While "the Outer Circle is allowed to
enter the discussion and ask questions".
In this study, the inner-outer circle method is tested in grade RS-11-I
PGSD SWCU in the Assessment of Teaching course. Methods used to teach the
material on evaluation models. The class consists of 42 students that are divided
into two groups (21 people each), which is the inner circle of the group, and the
other group is the outer circle.
After sitting around in pairs between the inner circle and outer circle, each
student in the outer circle asks one question to her partner in the inner circle. The
pair subsequently answered, and answers are recorded for later assessed by the
questioner. After the questions, the student who sits in the outer circle then rotates
clockwise as far as 1 person to change their partner. To a new partner, outer circle
do the same thing with what to do with his old partner. After 10 times with
multiple partners, and ask 10 questions, the outer circle group then swap roles
with the inner circle group. The same activity is repeated up to 10 times of
changing partners.
Demonstration of the method used in the classroom and the same course
with the method of inner-outer circle, but on a different topic, the topic of
evaluation according to the Education Ministerial Regulation (Permendiknas) no.
20 of 2003 on Evaluation Standards. Petrina (2007:14) states "A demonstration is
a teaching method for modeling knowledge and skills related to effective use of
applications, experiments, tools, machines, instruments, and processes."
Demonstration method used in this study is the demonstration conducted by
students in explaining the given material. Demonstrations can be drama, debates,
talk shows, and other forms of creative others. In this lesson, students were
divided into 7 groups, where each group presents a chapter in the Permendiknas.
The research was mix method that combines quantitative and qualitative
research methods. The strategy used is the sequential explanatory strategy.
According to Creswell (2010:316), sequential explanatory strategy in the study
used a mixture of stages starting with the collection of quantitative data; analysis
6
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
of quantitative data; qualitative data collection; qualitative data analysis, and
interpretation of the overall analysis.
Quantitative data collection in this study is performed with instruments
such as post test, and questionnaires. Post-test is used to assess the ability of
students associated with the end of the lecture material after the learning cycle is
done. While the questionnaire used to obtain feedback from students regarding the
teaching methods used. Prior to it, the validity of the two instruments have been
tested (the method corrected item-total correlation), and its reliability (Cronbach's
alpha method) in another class, the RS 11 J. Both instruments will produce
quantitative data that will be measured in interval scale. Quantitative data that
have collected will be analyzed before inferential (classic assumption of
normality) using Kolmogorov Smirnov technique. Once the data is complete, the
t-test is used for comparing the effectiveness between inner-outer circle indicator
and demonstration method on mastery of the material (post-test), and motivation
(questionnaire). Error rate (level of error) is set at 0.05. All calculations, both
descriptive statistical calculations, classical parametric test assumptions, and
inferential calculations will be carried out with the help of statistical program
PASW Statistics Data Editor 18.
Qualitative data collection in this study was done through observation, and
interviews. Both techniques are performed to obtain data on activities in the
classroom, creativity, and interest in learning, then to obtain valid data, used
triangulation of sources, especially on interviewing techniques. Data were
collected and analyzed by an interactive data analysis technique of Miles and
Hubberman (Hubberman, 1994:10).
Finding
Quantitative data that are obtained consist of 4 data, from the post-test, and
questionnaire, either after the inner-outer circle method, as well as methods of
demonstration. The fourth data is then compared to the method with inner-outer
circle and demonstration method. The results of descriptive statistical calculations
for data post test results are shown in Table 1.
7
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Post Test
Iner_outer
Demo
Valid
42
42
Missing
0
0
Mean
74.7619
65.2381
Median
75.0000
66.0000
N
a
65.00
a
Mode
75.00
Std. Deviation
6.61782
6.61782
Minimum
55.00
50.00
Maximum
92.00
83.00
Sum
3140.00
2740.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
From the results of these calculations it appears that the average score of students
after learning the inner-outer circle method of 74.7619. This value is higher than
the average value after the method of demonstration that only 65.2381. However,
the average difference is still to be tested with inferential analysis. However,
previously, the data should be distributed in a normal curve. Calculation results
for the value of post test normality after inner-outer circle method are shown in
Table 2, while the calculation of the value of post test for normality after the
demonstration method are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test For Inner-Outer
Method’s Post-test
Iner_outer
N
Normal Parameters
42
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
74.7619
Std. Deviation
6.61782
Absolute
.145
Positive
.143
Negative
-.145
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.937
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.343
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
8
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 3. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test For
Demonstration Method’s Post-test
Demo
N
42
Normal Parameters
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
Mean
65.2381
Std. Deviation
6.61782
Absolute
.118
Positive
.118
Negative
-.116
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.766
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.600
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
From both tables, it appears that both the average post-test data (after the method
of inner-outer circle and demonstration) distributed in a normal curve. Therefore,
it is worth analyzing the data inferential techniques t-test. Table 4 below is the
calculation of the second t-test data.
Table 4. Paired Samples Test of Score
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 Inner_outer
Std.
Std.
Interval of the
Deviatio
Error
Difference
n
Mean
Lower
Upper
Sig. (2t
df
9.52381 2.29780 .35456 8.80776 10.23986 26.861 41
tailed)
.000
- Demo
Table 4 shows that the value of t as 26.861 that was significant at an error rate of
0.000. This indicates that the value of t is also significant at a higher error rate,
0.05, which means there is different of significant value of the post test methods
between inner-outer circle and demonstration method, where the average score on
the post test inner-outer circle method is higher than the methods of
demonstration.
9
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 5. Paired Samples Correlations Inner-outer Circle Post-test
and Demonstration Post-test
Pair 1
Iner_outer & Demo
N
Correlation
Sig.
42
.940
.000
Furthermore, Table 5 shows that the correlation between the two methods was
0.940 which is significant at 0.000. This means there is a significant correlation
between the post-test of inner-outer circle and demonstration method. Students
who scored high on the inner-outer circle method also get high marks on the
method of demonstration. Similarly for students who receive low grades.
Data on student motivation were collected through a questionnaire divided
into two groups of data, which follow the students' motivation during learning
with a method of inner-outer circle and demonstration methods. Data has been
collected the motivation described in the descriptive statistics in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Motivation
Inner_outer
Demo
Valid
42
42
Missing
0
0
Mean
29.3810
33.7381
Median
29.0000
34.0000
Mode
28.00
34.00
Std. Deviation
4.13759
4.32835
Minimum
20.00
23.00
Maximum
38.00
40.00
Sum
1234.00
1417.00
N
a
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
From the table it appears that the motivation of the students participating in
learning with demonstration method (33.7381) is higher than the methods of
inner-outer circle (29.3810). However, these data need to be tested in inferential
Statistics, but first tested the normality of the distribution in Table 7 below.
10
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Table 7. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of Motivation
Inner_outer
Demo
42
42
Mean
29.3810
33.7381
Std. Deviation
4.13759
4.32835
Absolute
.107
.123
Positive
.083
.088
Negative
-.107
-.123
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
.696
.796
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.718
.551
N
Normal Parameters
a,b
Most Extreme Differences
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
From that table, it appears that the data in the two methods tend to be normally
distributed. Therefore, the data deserves to be tested in trials using inferential
statistical parametric t-test technique as set forth in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Paired Samples Test of Motivation
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair
Inner_outer -
1
Demo
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Dev
Mean
Lower
Upper
.94249
-6.26055
-2.45374
-4.35714 6.10806
Sig. (2t
df
tailed)
-4.623 41
.000
It appears that the t value of -4623 significant at the 0.000 level also means
significant at the 0.05 level. This indicates a significant difference in the selfmotivation of students when learning to follow the inner-outer circle method and
demonstration method, in which the motivation of students in the following study
with demonstration method is higher than the motivation of students to follow the
learning with inner-outer circle method.
To support the existence of the quantitative data, qualitative researchers
collect data, and then interpreted as a whole with the sequential explanatory
techniques. Qualitative data derived from observations in the form of a note in
11
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
class path that includes active learning, and creativity of students. While the data
derived from the interview contains data on interest, impressions, and a message
from the students. Collected data is then reduced as Miles and Hubberman
interactive analysis. The following is the data display.
In the inner-outer circle method, which acts as an outer group students
often are not satisfied with the answers and explanations of the inner group,
especially when paired with inner-capable students who are less academic.
Therefore, learning is less effective, because the sources of students are often not
competent to answer and explain. Other outer group students were satisfied when
paired with students from inner group who are competent in terms of the material
being discussed. In addition, the outer students often have difficulty in judging
their partners, their ignorance about the validity of an answer from the couple.
Therefore, the assessment is based on only pair stability in answering. On the
other hand, inner students feel anxious when meeting with the requester (outer
group) which is considered to be competent. Fear is when students are given
questions that cannot answered, it is feared the outer group will give a poor
assessment. To deal with such matters, the students had prepared as well as
possible in terms of mastery of the material before the lecture. Similarly, in the
lecture, the students feel they have a challenge to learn (especially when given a
question). Books and reference sources are brought from home to be a reference
in answering the question. After answering, students could understand the topic
better and the knowledge can be easily embedded in long term memory.
In the method of demonstration, students were divided into 7 groups show
different show. Noted there are demonstration models, namely drama (2 groups),
talk shows (1 group), talk shows and movies (1 group), an explanation using
wayang kulit (1 group), debate (1 group), eg the selection of miss education (1
group). In this method, students can channel their talents (especially in art) in
order to convey the material. Students perform a variety of well prepared for
presentational purposes such as costumes, props, video, music, and other
supporting facilities. Regularly scheduled demonstrations, in which each meeting,
there is a demonstration of the elements of the group. Thus, this demonstration
12
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
activity takes 7 times the meeting, with a maximum 50-minute demonstration (1
credit). Students recognize that this method can increase creativity, selfconfidence, and innovation in them. The ideas and the ideas channeled in the
presentation of innovative concepts. When not performing, the students also felt
comforted by the appearance of another group of mostly high-value innovation.
Motivation in following the course also increased in the presence of this
demonstration (evident from the high student attendance at meetings that there is
an element of the demonstration). However, when watching the demonstration,
students tend to pay attention to the elements of art and innovation, rather than the
substance of the material. Thus, student mastery of the material seems very low. It
shows that the discussion session tends to contain criticism and comments about
appearance, instead of the substance.
Conclusion and Future Study
The implementation of inner-outer circle method and demonstration
method has advantages and disadvantages. Inner-outer circle method is better than
the demonstration method in terms of study skill and critical thinking, meanwhile,
to improve creativity, innovation, self-confidence, and motivation, demonstration
method better than inner-outer circle. Therefore, the selection of correct teaching
method needs to be adapted to the purpose of learning itself. Aspects that will be
developed within students need to be identified prior to the interests of teaching
method. Nevertheless, it would be better if feedback research is conducted to
develop teaching methods support hard skills and soft skills at the same time.
13
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
References
Arguelles Antonio, Gonczi Andrew. (2000). Competency Based Education and
Training. A World Perspective. Belderas, Mexico: Editorial Limusa, S.A
de C.V. pp 7.
Canady L. Robert, Rettig D. Michael. (1996). Teaching in the Block. Strategies
for Engaging Active Learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. pp 32.
Gulo W. (2005). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta, Indonesia: Grasindo. pp 4041.
Hidalgo Alan. (2013). Between Two Worlds. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. pp 15.
Lee W. Steven. (2005). Encyclopedia of School Psychology. Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage Publisher. pp 134.
Miles B. Matthew, Hubberman Michael. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publisher. pp 10.
Petrina Stephen. (2007). Advanced Teaching Methods for The Technology
Classroom. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. pp 14.
Richardson Virginia. (1997). Constructivist Teacher of Education. Building a
World of New Understanding. London, UK: Falmer Press. pp 15.
Ramesh Gopalaswamy, Ramesh Mahadevan. (2010). The Ace of Soft Skills.
Attitude, Communication, and Etiquette for Success. Noida, India: Dorling
Kindersley. pp 2.
Ramsden Paul. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London, England:
Routledge. pp 111-118.
Shipley G. Kenneth, McAfee G. Julie. (2009). Assessment in Speech Language
Pathology. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning. pp 9.
Wang Yuanzhi. (2011). Education and Educational Technology. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag. pp 415.
14
INNER-OUTER CIRCLE VS DEMONSTRATION
Biography
Donald Samuel is a student of Social Science, Post-Graduate Program of State
University of Semarang. As bachelor graduate SWCU FKIP Economics
Education she had a variety of experiences in research and scientific publications.
Some articles that have been written, among others:
The Behavior Using Theory to Increase Students GPA (International
Seminar, University Student's Health, Chung Yuan Christian University,
Taiwan);
Scenario Economic Education Curriculum Development FKIP SWCU
(Seminar on Social and Cultural Globalization in perspective Economics
Education’s Curriculum Development, SWCU);
Progressive Teacher vs Perennials Teacher, in answering the needs of
future teachers (Indonesian Educationist Association, Muhammadiyah
Solo University);
Students’ Learning in Semester Credit System (National Seminar, Post
Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University);
Monitoring and Evaluation Program of Compulsory Education in Salatiga,
2012 (Academica Journal).