PENERAPAN SIKLUS BELAJAR 7E UNTUK MENINGKATKAN PRESTASI BELAJAR SISWA DALAM DOMAIN KOGNITIF PADA KONSEP GERAK LURUS BERUBAH BERATURAN.

IMPLEMENTATION OF 7E LEARNING CYCLE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN COGNITIVE DOMAIN ON MOTION

WITH CONSTANT ACCELERATION CONCEPT

RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted as fullfilment of the requirement to obtain the degree of Sarjana

Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education

Proposed by: Siti Nurlaisma

0902171

International Program on Science Education Faculty of Mathematics and Science Education

Indonesia University of Education 2013

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the research paper that has title “IMPLEMENTATION OF 7E LEARNING CYCLE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN COGNITIVE DOMAIN ON MOTION WITH CONSTANT ACCELERATION CONCEPT“, is my original research work. Whereever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions.

Bandung, July 2013 Researcher

Siti Nurlaisma ID. 0902171

APPROVAL FORM OF RESEARCH PAPER SITI NURLAISMA

IMPLEMENTATION OF 7E LEARNING CYCLE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN COGNITIVE DOMAIN ON MOTION

WITH CONSTANT ACCELERATION CONCEPT

APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED BY :

Supervisor I

Dr. MIMIN NURJHANI K, M.Pd NIP: 1965092919911012001

Supervisor II

JUDHISTIRA ARIA UTAMA, M.SI NIP: 197703312008121001

Head of Study Program of

International Program on Science Education

Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed NIP. 1967091911991032001

Implementation of 7E Learning Cycle to Improve Students’ Achievement in Cognitive Domain on Motion with Constant Acceleration Concept

Siti Nurlaisma

Indonesia University of Education International Program on Science Education

Abstract

This study aims to implement the learning model of 7E Learning Cycle to improve students’ achievement in cognitive domain in Motion with Constant Acceleration concept. Population in this research is 7th grade students in one of Junior High School in Bandung, especially 7A to 7D classes. In this study used two classes as experimental class and control class. Simple random sampling is adopted to determine the sample of this study. The type of this study is quasi experimental method with matching pretest-posttest control group as research design in this study. Experimental class was given treatment by using 7E Learning Cycle model, meanwhile control class was given treatment by using conventional learning model. The comparison of normalized gain between experiment class (0.88) and control class (0.62) shows that 7E Learning Cycle model is better in increasing students’ achievement in the concept of Motion with Constant Acceleration than conventional learning model. 7E Learning Cycle is more influence in applying (C3) cognitive domain in Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Further, Students' response toward learning activity by using 7E Learning Cycle model include into positive response.

Keywords: 7E Learning Cycle, Conventional Learning, Achievement, Cognitive Domain, Motion with Constant Acceleration.

Penerapan Siklus Belajar 7E Untuk Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Siswa Dalam Domain Kognitif Pada Konsep Gerak Lurus Berubah Beraturan

Siti Nurlaisma

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia International Program on Science Education

Abstrak

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menerapkan model pembelajaran Siklus Belajar 7E untuk meningkatkan prestasi belajar siswa dalam domain kognitif pada konsep Gerak Lurus Berubah Beraturan. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas 7 di salah satu sekolah di Bandung, terutama kelas 7A sampai 7D. Dalam penelitian ini menggunakan 2 kelas sebagai kelas eksperimen dan kontrol. Teknik simple random sampling diadaptasi untuk menentukan sampel dalam penelitian ini. Tipe dalam penilitian ini adalah metode kuasi eksperimen dengan menggunakan desain penelitian matching pretest-posttest control group. Kelas eksperimen diberikan perlakuan dengan menggunakan model pembelajaran Siklus Belajar 7E, sedangkan kelas kontrol menggunakan model pembelajaran konvesional. Perbandingan gain yang ternormalisasi antara kelas eksperimen (0,88) dan kelas kontrol (0,62) menunjukkan bahwa model pembelajaran Siklus Belajar 7E lebih baik dalam peningkatan prestasi belajar dalam konsep Gerak Lurus Berubah Beraturan dibandingkan dengan model pembelajaran konvensional. Siklus Belajar 7E lebih mempengaruhi aspek menerapkan (C3) dalam Taxonomy Bloom Revisi. Berdasarkan hasil kuesioner, respon siswa terhadap kegiatan pembelajaran menggunakan siklus Belajar 7E termasuk kedalam respon yang positif.

Kata Kunci: Siklus Belajar 7E, Pembelajaran Konvensional, Prestasi Belajar, Domain Kognitif, Gerak Lurus Berubah Beraturan.

TABLE OF CONTENT

APPROVAL FORM OF RESEARCH PAPER………... i

DECLARATION……….. ii

PREFACE………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……….... iv

ABSTRACT……….. ABSTRAK……… v vi TABLE OF CONTENT……… vii

LIST OF TABLES……… ix

LIST OF FIGURES……….. LIST OF APPENDICES………... x xi CHAPTER I : BACKGROUND A. Background………... 1

B. Research Problems……… 4

C. Research Objectives……….. 4

D. Research Limitation……….. E. Significance of Research………... 5 5 CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW A. Constructivism ………. 6

B. Learning Cycle Model……….. 7

C. Conventional Model………. 12

D. Achievement………. 13

E. Cognitive Domain……… 14

F. Relation between 7E Learning Cycle Model and Achievement………….. 16

G. Relevant Research……...………. 17

CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Population and Sample………. 19

B. Research Design……….... 19

C. Research Method……….. 20

D. Operational Definition……….. 20

E. Research Instrument 1. Test………... 2. Questionnaire………... F. Research Stage……….. 21 28 29 G. Data Collection Technique………... 33

H. Data Processing Technique………... 33

1. Cognitive Achievement Test……… 2. Questionnaire……… 33 37 CHAPTER IV : RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Results……….. 39

B. Discussions………... 59

CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusion.………... 73

B. Recommendations……… 73

REFERENCES………. 75

APPENDICES

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background

According to Curriculum Education unit level (KTSP- Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) state that learning science (physics) has a purpose as follow: 1) Increasing belief to God based on the existence, the beauty and order of nature of His creation 2) Develop an understanding of a variety of natural phenomena, concepts and science principles that are useful and can be applied in daily life 3) Develop a curiosity, a positive attitude, and awareness of the relationship that influence each other between science, the environment, technology, and society, 4) Foster scientific attitudes that include: honest and objective of the data, open minded to opinions based on certain the evidence, critical of the scientific statements and can work together with others, 5) Increasing awareness to participate in preserving, maintaining, and conserving the environment and natural resources 6) Increasing awareness to appreciate regularity of nature and all of God's creation, 7) Mastering the knowledge, concepts and principles of physics as well as having the knowledge, skills and scientific attitudes (Depdiknas, 2006).

Based on the description above, it is clear that the process of learning physics should be more emphasis on student-centered learning and learning process is not the amount of information that must be memorized. But in general, Physics learning is still a conventional. It is reflected in observation result which is done by Alamsyah (2009) shows that learning physics in classroom only write what teacher explain is and as an information that must be memorized by student. Teachers tend to be a center of information and to inform the formulas and also laws of physics to students. Because of its informative it is no wonder, the learning is dominated by lecturing method. The process of learning is inconsistent with the character of science itself, so it will have an impact on learning achievement is less than optimal.

This situation is reflected in daily student test scores (cognitive ability measurement) in schools that are observed are still low. Similar situation occurs

also in one of the junior high school in Bandung. Author’s observation result showed that the learning process tends to be teacher-centered, while the students are passive learners. The analysis result of physics subject in daily test results showed that students’ average of cognitive ability is still low. The situation is shown by the last physics daily test (expansion) was only 5 students (16.66%) were able to achieve Minimum Completeness Criteria (KKM-Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimum), while KKM is 85.00.

By using the conventional model of learning, most students shows less response, it is seen from the passive attitude of the students, interest and motivation are low so that the acquired learning is still relatively low (Irawati, 2008). In fact, if students are interested, students will have motivation and excited to learning physics. So, students will study physics seriously and it can make learning becomes fun and can improve students’ achievement.

Based on the author's understanding to solve problems above, we need a learning model that appropriate with understanding of constructivism which can improve learning process and facilitate students to get maximum achievement in learning process. One alternative constructivism learning model that can be used in teaching is a 7E learning cycle model by Eisenkraft (2003).

Bramapurnama (2009) stated learning cycle model is a learning model that involves students actively participate in constructing knowledge and provide an opportunity to build on the knowledge and experience they have gained to acquire new knowledge, assisted by teachers as mentors or facilitators. Besides that, learning cycle not only makes students active but continuity that appear in one concept to another concept. According to Sanjaya (2007), teacher who is competent is teacher who can act as a facilitator. Teachers can make learning situation as student-centered not teacher-centered. Teachers who could make teaching and learning more meaningful, not monotonous and bored and also the teacher could ask students to be more active in thinking. Eisenkraft (2003) developed a learning cycle into seven phases. Changes in stage 5e learning cycle to 7e occur in engage phase into 2 stages elicit and engage, while at elaborate and evaluate phase become three stages. There are elaborate, evaluate and extend.

According to Siribunnam and Tayraukham (2009) state that the students who learned on using the 7E learning cycle model shows the improvement of learning achievement on Acid-Base than did the students who learned with conventional method. Another study also state the implementation of 7E learning cycle shows that student’s achievement on science become better, remember concepts is longer, increasing positive attitudes toward science and science learning, increasing the ability of reasoning and process skills to be better when compared with conventional learning approaches (Rahayu in Rahmayani, 2009). And also based on research results Rahmayani (2009) by using the learning cycle students responded well to learning and student interest. Another research result state that by using 7E learning cycle can improve students’ achievement in cognitive, if the average score gain compared to the ideal score it will get a percentage is about 70.50% in middle category for the experiment class and 62.00% in middle category for the control class (Alamsyah, 2009).

From description on 7E learning cycle model above, there are several strength of 7E learning cycle such as:

1. Stimulate students to recall the subject matter that they had acquired earlier. 2. Motivate students to become more active and more curiosity.

3. Train students to find concepts through investigation.

4. Train students to communicate orally the concept that they have learned orally.

5. Provide opportunities for students to think, looking for, find, and explain examples of the application of the concepts that they have learned.

6. Teachers and students carry out stages of learning that complement each other.

7. Teachers get to apply this model to the different method. (Lorsbach, 2006)

Actually 7e learning cycle can be carried out in all concepts because this learning model is student-centered and allows for each stage so that students can master the competencies to be achieved in learning process. 7E learning model provided students to build up the knowledge by themselves particularly during an

exploration and an elaboration phases. The students themselves were to find the technique to arrange the knowledge to learn. Every learning phase encouraged students to develop their thinking abilities, thus their learning achievements were improved also (Siribunnam and Tayraukham, 2009). In this research, the author takes the concept of motion with constant acceleration because characteristic of motion with constant acceleration is more contextual and one of phenomenon that occur in daily life.

Based on the background, researcher is interested to conduct the research about implementation of 7E learning cycle to improve students’ achievement in cognitive domain on motion with constant acceleration concept.

B. Research Problems

Based on the background above, the research problem that will be investigated is: “Does 7E Learning Cycle model can improve students’ achievement in cognitive domain on motion with constant acceleration concept?”. This research problem has two specific research questions as follow:

1. What is the improvement of student’s achievement in cognitive domain that using 7E learning cycle better than using conventional?

2. How do students' response to learning activities using 7E learning cycle?

C. Research Objectives

The research has two aims as follow:

1. To know the improvement of students’ achievement in cognitive domain that using 7E learning cycle better than using conventional.

D. Research Limitation

This research has limitation as follow:

1. Improvement students’ achievement in cognitive domain based on

Anderson’s cognitive aspect which is measured are remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3) and analyzing (C4).

E. Significance of Research

This research has some benefits as follow: 1. Significance for researcher

This study can be used as a reference for other researchers as a consideration for future research.

2. Significance for students

Through learning cycle students gain understanding of material easily in teaching learning process and remembering concept is longer.

3. Significance for teacher

Teacher can develop a learning model in an effort to improve and facilitate learning, so the achievement of learning can be improved.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Population and Sample

Population in this research is 7th grade students in one of Junior High School in Bandung, especially 7 (A to D) classes. Sample of this research is two classes through simple random sampling, namely 7A as an experimental class and 7B as a control class.

B. Research Design

The research design in this paper is Matching Pretest-Posttest Control Group. This design is used to know how improvement students’ cognitive achievement through 7E learning cycle model and conventional learning model.

First, both classes do pretest. Then in experimental class do the treatment by using 7E learning cycle. After that do the posttest on both classes and analyze the result of pretest and posttest from both classes.

Based on the description above, the design of research according to Sugiyono (2008) is shown on the table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1 Research design

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest

Experimental T1 X T2

Control T3 - T4

Where:

T1, T3 : Pretest done to both experimental and control class

experimental class given treatment

X : Treatment by using 7E learning cycle model

C. Research Method

According to Sugiyono (2008) state that research method is defined as a scientific way to get the data with the purpose and specific uses.The method used in this research is quasi experiment (Quantitative) method, because it was not conducted randomization of the subjects (students) but the randomization of the class and would like to see the relationship between research variables where 7E learning cycle as independent variable and students’ achievement in cognitive domain as dependent variable.

It can be seen from Ruseffendi’s opinion (2005) states that the quasi-experimental research is research that aims to see a causal relationship and the treatment of quasi-experimental research that has already occurred and oversight control cannot be done.

D. Operational Definition

1. The seven phases are as follows: Elicit phase to determine students' prior knowledge of the lessons about motion with constant acceleration to be learned. Engage phase is the teachers motivate the students to generate interest in learning the material to be studied by using animation about motion with constant acceleration. Explore phase is investigate about motion with constant acceleration by doing experiment to gain knowledge and experiences directly related to the motion with constant acceleration concepts that will be studied. Explain phase is to explain the motion with constant acceleration concepts that students find on explore phase. Elaborate phase is the students are given the opportunity to apply their new knowledge about motion with constant acceleration concepts that has been found. Evaluate phase is evaluating the learning outcomes by doing paper and pencil test.

Extend phase is the phases to think, search, discover and describe examples of applying concepts about motion with constant acceleration in daily life. 2. Conventional learning is learning process that uses conceptual approach by

give lecturing and motion with constant acceleration experiment method to verify the concept about motion with constant acceleration. Teacher gives all concepts to students and then it is approved by doing the experiment.

3. Achievement is capabilities of the student after they received a learning experience. The achievement in this study only covers the cognitive domain. Cognitive domains that will be examined in this study include are remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3) and analyzing (C4) that relate with motion with constant acceleration concepts.

E. Research Instrument

In an effort to obtain a comprehensive data and information this research, it was made set of instrument. In this research there is 2 kinds of instruments, they are test and non-test. The instruments to be used in this research are as follows: 1. Test

Test used in this study is divided into two, namely:

a) Pretest is test done before learning process about motion with constant acceleration concepts is given.

b) Posttest is test done after learning process about motion with constant acceleration concepts is given.

Pretest is conducted in first meeting of the lesson. Pretest conducted to know students’ prior knowledge about motion with constant acceleration concept. While posttest conducted in the last meeting of the lesson. Posttest is to determine the students’ understanding about the concept of motion with constant acceleration and to know the improvement of students’ achievement after given the treatment or the implementation of learning. Pretest and posttest are conducted by experimental and control class.

Question form which is given at pretest and posttest in the form of multiple choice, and questions used are the same. Instrument tests used to measure

students’ achievement. All of instrument refers to cognitive domain based on Bloom Taxonomy Revised (Anderson, 2001), the aspects which is measured are remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3) and analyzing (C4).

Blueprint of pretest and posttest is provided on the table 3.2 is shown below.

Table 3.2

Blueprint of pretest and posttest

Indicator Test Item Number Describe about motion with constant

acceleration. 1

Describe acceleration as change in

velocity per unit of time. 2

Analyzing the graph related with

motion with constant acceleration 4 Analyzing the picture related with

motion with constant acceleration 11

Apply the formula to the problem 3 and 7

Differentiate graph and picture related to motion with constant acceleration which is accelerated and deaccelerated

10 and 15

Apply examples of motion with

constant acceleration related with daily life

5, 6, 8, 9, and 12

Interpret the graph related with motion

with constant acceleration 13

show the graph related with motion

Before instrument used in this research, instruments must be tested for validity, then analyzed whether instruments are valid or invalid. The valid instrument will be used as an instrument to take the data. Instrument is tested on class VII-A which already learned the material about motion with constant acceleration at the different school with the number of students is 45. Analysis of test instrument as follow:

a) Items Validity

Validity which is used in this research is content validity, which is related to the ability of assessment tool to measure what should be measured (Sudjana, 2009). In this research, instruments are validating by research supervisor.

b) Reliability

Reliability of an instrument is intended as a tool that gives the same results if the measurement is given on the same subject although done by different people, at different times and different places (Suherman, 2003). Not affected by the behaviour, circumstances, and conditions. High reliability measurement tool called a reliable gauge. Reliability was determined from the value of the reliability coefficient.

Then, the reliability coefficient obtained interpreted in classification reliability coefficient according to Arikunto (2008) are presented on the table 3.3 below:

Table 3.3

Classification of reliability coefficient

Correlation coefficient Interpretation

0,81 - 1,00 Very high

0,61 - 0,80 High

0,41 - 0,60 Medium

0,21 - 0,40 Low

According to result’s test trial obtained the correlation coefficient of instrument is shown on the table 3.4 below:

Table 3.4 Result of reliability

Correlation coefficient Interpretation

0.66 High

From the table 3.3 above, it is seen clearly that result’s test trial obtained the correlation coefficient of instrument as much as 0.66. It means that reliability of instrument which is categorized as high.

c) Difficulty level

A good test item is neither too easy nor too difficult. A scale that shows the difficulty level of test item is difficulty index (Arikunto, 2008). The equation which is used to calculate the difficulty level is:

(1)

With:

P = difficulty level

B = amount of student who answer question with the right answer

JS = total amount of students who undertakes the test

Then, Classification of difficulty level according to Arikunto (2008) is presented on the table 3.5 below:

P = B JS

Table 3.5

Classification of difficulty level

Difficulty index Category of test

0,0 – 0,3 Difficult

0,3 – 0,7 Medium

0,7 – 1,0 Easy

d) Discriminating Power

Discriminating power of test item is the ability of test item to differentiate between high achiever and low achiever (Arikunto, 2008). To determine discriminating power of test item, the equation below is used:

(2)

With:

D = discriminating power JA = amount of high achiever JB = amount of low achiever

BA = amount of high achiever who answers question with the right answer

BB = amount of low achiever who answers question with the right answer

PA = proportion of high achiever who answers question with the right answer

PB = proportion of low achiever who answers question with the right answer

Then, criteria of discriminating power according to Arikunto (2008) are presented on the table 3.6 below:

D = B J -

B

Table 3.6

Criteria of discriminating power Discriminating power

interval Criteria of discriminating power Negative Test item is not appropriate

0,0 – 0,2 Poor

0,2 – 0,4 Satisfactory

0,4 – 0,7 Good

0,7 – 1,0 Excellent

Recapitulation of validity test item about motion with constant acceleration concept inform of multiple choice question is shown on the table 3.7 below:

Table 3.7

Recapitulation of validity test item

Question Number

Discriminating Power

Difficulty Level

Validity

Conclusion Value Significant

1 50.00 Medium 0,604 Significant Valid

2 50.00 Medium 0,604 Significant Valid

3 58.33 Easy 0.454 Very

significant Valid

4 62.50 Easy 0,548 Very

significant Valid

5 75.00 Medium 0,536 Significant Valid

6 66.67 Easy 0.716 Significant Valid

Table 3.7

Recapitulation of validity test item (continued)

Question Number

Discriminating Power

Difficulty Level

Validity

Conclusion Value Significant

8 50.00 Difficult 0.826 Very

significant Valid

9 25.00 Difficult 0.307 - Invalid

10 50.00 Difficult _0,728 Very

significant Valid

11 _33,33 Medium _0,228 - Invalid

12 0,00 Medium 0,027 - Invalid

13 50.00 Medium _0,428 Significant Valid

14 _25,00 Difficult 0,181 - Invalid

15 66.67 Medium _0,416 Significant Valid

16 37,50 Difficult _0,327 - Invalid

17 33,33 Difficult _0,290 - Invalid

18 25,00 Difficult _{0,436 -} Invalid

19 0.00 Difficult 0,088 - Invalid

20 58.33 Medium 0,436 Significant Valid

21 _0,00 Difficult 0,004 - Invalid

23 66.67 Medium _0,459 Significant Valid

24 _8,33 Medium _0,233 - Invalid

25 _0,00 Difficult _0.044 - Invalid

26 37,50 Medium 0,367 - Invalid

27 8,33 Difficult _0,233 - Invalid

28 0,00 Difficult -0,088 - Invalid

29 0,00 Difficult -0,061 - Invalid

According to the table 3.4, it can be seen that from 30 questions is taken 15 questions to be instrument for determine students’ cognitive achievement because only 15 questions have been valid.

2. Questionnaire

According to Sugiyono (2008), the questionnaire is a list of questions or statements must be answered by the person being evaluated (the respondent). Questionnaire is also a tool for collecting data. Questionnaire is intended to know how the students' response toward learning process by using 7E learning cycle model. To fill the questionnaire is conducted at the end of the study after students did posttest. This questionnaire only conducted by experimental class.

Blueprint of questionnaire about students’ respond toward the implementation of 7E learning cycle is shown on the table 3.8 below:

Table 3.8

Blueprint of questionnaire

Indicator Statement Question Number

Students' interest toward implementation of 7E learning cycle

By using this kind of learning, I feel happy and interest in motion with constant acceleration learning.

1

By using this kind of learning the

atmosphere become “life” and fun. 5

Students' respond toward implementation of 7E learning cycle

I can follow all of phases in learning. 2

Students' motivation toward implementation of 7E learning cycle

By using this kind of learning gives me motivation to keep attention to the material during learning process.

3

By using this kind of learning makes me

Table 3.8

Blueprint of questionnaire (continued)

Indicator Statement Question Number Students' motivation

toward implementation of 7E learning cycle

By using this kind of learning can help

me to understand concept easily. 6

Students' respond toward implementation of each 7E learning cycle phase

I like the way when the teacher began the

lesson by asking questions. 7

I like when teacher gives animation about motion with constant acceleration so I was interested to matter.

8

I like when teacher give experiment about motion with constant acceleration so I have experience directly.

9

I like when teacher gives students the opportunity to explain the experiment results.

10

I understand the way teacher gives

explanation. 11

I can solve the problem/question from

teacher. 12

I like when teacher apply the problem in

daily life. 13

F. Research Stage

This research will be conducted through 3 stages which are defined below: 1. Preparation stage

a) Literature study is done to get accurate theory about 7E learning cycle, conventional, achievement, and cognitive domain.

b) Curriculum analyse is done to know basic competence that will be achieved so the learning model of 7E learning cycle that implemented in experimental class will get the appropriate result with competence in curriculum that relevant to motion with constant acceleration concepts. Curriculum used in this research is KTSP (Indonesian Curriculum) because school which is used to take the data using Indonesian curriculum. c) Doing observation to get information about class condition, teaching style when conduct the learning, students’ characteristic, organizing schedule and learning infrastructure such as experiment equipment.

d) Lesson plan design about motion with constant acceleration concept based on 7E learning cycle model and its properties that appropriate with Indonesian curriculum.

e) Instrument design, the instrument is divided into two; there are test and non-test. Test used in this research are 30 multiple choice questions of motion with constant acceleration to measure student 'achievement, meanwhile non-test is questionnaires to know how the students' respond toward 7E learning cycle model. Then the instrument should be judge by 3 lectures and make revision if there is mistake. After that, the instrument should be tested to students to determine which questions that used as a test.

f) Analyse the result of instrument trial by using Anates (validity, reliability, discriminating power and difficulty index) and the result is 15 questions that will be used as a pretest and posttest where pretest and posttest using the same questions. This test will be conducted before and after instructional.

g) Determine research subject of this research that consist of experimental and control class.

2. Implementation stage

Activities that will be conducted in this stage consist of:

a) Conduct pretest for both classes (experimental and control class) to know students’ prior knowledge about motion with constant acceleration concept in the first meeting of lesson.

b) Conduct the learning for both classes. Experimental class is given treatment by 7E learning cycle and it conduct for 5 meeting, while control class is given by lecturing and the concept prove by doing experiment (conventional), it conduct for 4 meeting.

c) Conduct posttest for both classes (experimental and control class) to know the improvement of students’ achievement after given the learning in the last meeting. But, in the experimental class after conduct posttest then questionnaire is given directly. Questionnaire is distributed to know students’ respond after implement of 7E learning cycle.

3. Final stage

Activities that will be conducted in this stage consist of:

a) Processing data and analysing data of pretest and posttest data by using statistic test, while questionnaire by using percentage.

b) Taking conclusion

For more details, research plot which conducted can be used in figure 3.1 below:

Experimental class Control class

Figure 3.1 Research plot

Literature study and curriculum analysis

Doing observation

Lesson plan design

Instrument design (test and questionnaire)

Instrument judgment

Instrument trial

Analyze the result of instrument trial

Determine research subject

Pretest

7E Learning cycle model Conventional model

Posttest

Data analyze

Conclusion

Revision

G. Data Collection Technique

Data collection techniques used in this study is cognitive achievement test and questionnaire. The following is an explanation of the data collection techniques:

1. _{Cognitive achievement test}

This test is to measure students' cognitive achievement before and after instructional in experiment and control class. Tests will be used are pretest and posttest where pretest and posttest using the same questions as much as 15 questions. The questions used in the form of multiple choice of motion with constant acceleration concept. All of instrument refers to cognitive domain on the aspect of remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3) and analyzing (C4).

2. _{Questionnaire}

This questionnaire is done by experimental class in the last meeting. This is use to know how student’s respond after implemented 7E learning cycle. Questionnaire is given in form of a sheet and students have to fill it by a fixing a check mark (√) in the space provided.

H. Data processing Technique

After the data is obtained, then it is made the selection of data which is processed and analyzed. It is categorized into two categories, namely quantitative and qualitative data.

1. Cognitive Achievement Test

Data of cognitive achievement test obtained from pretest and posttest. Make scoring from the result of pretest and posttest in experimental and control class by using formula the correct amount multiplied by 100 and divided by the number of questions in Microsoft Excel. Analyze the data to answer the hypothesis. Data analysis techniques in this study using a statistical test that is average test. Average test will be used to determine the differences improvement in students’ achievement by using 7E learning cycle and conventional.

After the data is obtained, the next step is to analyze and process the data by using statistical test. Data processing is performed on the pretest and posttest scores. Explanation of data processing techniques obtained are as follows:

a) Descriptive statistic analyse

This is done to determine the maximum value, minimum value, mean, standard deviation, and variance of the data that has been obtained. To test the hypothesis by using statistical tests (t-test) and it is done by using software SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution) 18.0 for windows which is operated by using a laptop.

b) Normality test

Normality test conducted to determine whether data obtained normally distribute or not. To count it we can use SPSS software using

Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic test with 5% signification level. Normality test conducted to

pretest and post test score from two different class/group (experimental and control class).

If both data distribute normally, we can continue the data processing to homogeneity test. If the data show that the distribution from one or all the data not normally distribute, the data processing can continue using non parametric statistic it is using Mann Whitney test.

c) Homogeneity test

If the data obtained normally distribute the next process to continue is homogeneity test. Homogeneity test is used to determine whether both groups have homogenous variances or not. To count homogeneity we can use Leven’s test with 5% signification level. Homogeneity variances test done in order to determine which statistic test will be used to test our hypothesis (similarities and mean test).

If both data normally distribute and homogenous, the hypothesis test will be use is t-test (less than 30 students), meanwhile if the data comes from normal and did not have homogenous variances hypothesis test that will be use is t’ test.

d) Compare mean test

Compare mean test is done to determine whether both classes (experimental and control class) have the same mean score or not. If the data obtained normally distribute and has homogenous variances, the next test will be

t-test (independent sample t test). If the data normally distribute and did not have

homogenous variances will be tested by using t’-test (independent simple t test).

Meanwhile if the data obtained did not distribute normally, the test will be used is non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney test).

It has already explained in the beginning that the data which is processed and analysed in this research are pretest and posttest data. The similarity test of those two classes and the mean test are done to both pretest and posttest data. Similarity test done to determine whether both classes (experimental and control class) has the same initial mean score or not.

Meanwhile, difference test and mean test done to the posttest data only to determine the improvement of student’s cognitive achievement. The counting obtained from pretest and posttest score experimental class and control class. Gain index will be used if the mean test of pretest score are different and to determine the student’s achievement of cognitive quality improvement. The improvement occurred after and before the learning process according to Hake (1998) is calculated by gain index formula below:

(3)

The criteria of the gain that is used by Hake (1998) are presented on the table 3.9 below:

Table 3.9 Criteria Gain

Gain Interprets

g > 0,7 High

0,3 < g < 0,7 Medium

g < 0,3 Low

For more detail, cognitive achievement test data processing shown in figure 3.2 below:

Figure 3.2

Steps of test processing data Pretest and Postest

Scoring and Total Score

Desriptive Analysis

Normality Test

Normal

Homogeneous Test

Parametric

Homogenous

T test < 30 Z test > 30

Not homogenous

T' test

Not normal

Non Parametric

2. Questionnaire

Questionnaire is conducted at the end of meeting and filled by students. This questionnaire contains five selections of answers: Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither (N), Disagree (DA), and Strongly Disagree (SDA). Questionnaire is filled by students as the respondent by a fixing a check mark (√) in the space provided. This is used to know how student’s respond is after implemented 7E learning cycle.

For this questionnaire, the data were processed by classifying students’ respond that consist of Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Neither (N), Disagree (DA), and Strongly Disagree (SDA). Then, the answer is expressed as a percentage. This percentage to determine the percentage of students’ responds toward 7E learning cycle.

Data obtained from the questionnaire is processed by counting the total number of respondents who chose the items that are available, and then the number converted into percentage below:

P = x 100% (4) With :

P = Percentage of the respondent’s answer F = Frequency of the respondent’s answer n = Number of respondent

Calculation of the percentage classification in each category of interpretation according to Arikunto (1990)is shown on the table 3.10 below:

Table 3.10

Classification of percentage interpretation questionnaire

Percentage of Answer (%) Criteria

0% No improvement

0 %- 25% Just a little

26%-40% Almost half of total

41%-50% Half of total

51% - 75% Most of

76% - 99% Almost all

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusion

After research conducted by comparing the experimental and control classes prove that 7E learning cycle model can improve students’ achievement in cognitive domain on motion with constant acceleration concept. Based on results and discussion, it can be concluded that the improvement of student’s achievement in cognitive domain that using 7E learning cycle model better than using conventional learning model. It can be seen from data obtained that normalized gain in experimental class is 0.88, meanwhile in control class is 0.62. Students' response to learning activities by using 7E learning cycle model include into positive response.

B. Recommendations

Based on results and conclusion which is obtained, so there are several recommendation as follow:

1. 7E learning cycle model as an alternative of learning models that can be used to facilitate and improve students’ achievement.

2. Based on research that has been conducted by researcher, when designing lesson plan it needs good plan by considering time that will be used in every phase of 7E learning cycle. Moreover, students’ condition in instructional process should be considered.

3. Based on research that has been conducted by researcher, it is better to apply the learning by using 7E learning cycle repeatedly for the other concepts before taking the data so that students are familiar with 7E learning cycle model.

4. Achievement that use in this research only cognitive achievement. For further research is needed to conduct research in 7E learning cycle to observe students in affective and psychomotor achievement.

5. Based on the result of questionnaire, engage phase is highest result. So give more attention to engage phase, it can be used puzzles, games, etc. not only using animations.

6. When the implementation of experiment activity about motion with constant acceleration, condition of class little bit crowded. So, teacher should guidance more equal distributed in each group in order to reduce the chances of students to annoy, thus condition of learning more conducive.

7. When the implementation of 7E learning cycle model, it need observation instrument to know 7E has been implemented well or not.

REFERENCES

Abdul Qadeer soomro, Muhammad Nasim Qaisrani, Khalid Jameel Rawaat, Shahid Hussain Mughal. (2010). Teaching Physics through Learning Cycle Model: An Experimental study. Journal of Educational Research. 13, (2).

Ahmed, B. Q. Qarareh. (2012). The Effect of Using the Learning Cycle Method in Teaching Science on the Educational Achievement.

International Journal Education Science. 4, (2), 123-132.

Alamsyah, B. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 7E

Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Kognitif Siswa. Skripsi Jurusan

Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: unpublished.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning,

Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Arikunto, S. (2008). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.

Bramapurnama, Topan. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Siklus

Belajar (Learning cycle) Untuk Meningkatkan Kompetensi Penalaran Matematik Siswa SMP. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA

UPI Bandung: unpublished.

Bransfort, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cockling, R.R. (1999). How people learn:

Brain, Mind, Experience, and School National Academies. Washington.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bybee, R.W. (1993). Achieving Scientific Literacy: from Purposes to

Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Colburn A. Clough M. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. Journal

of Science Teacher. 64, (5), 30-33.

Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E Model. The Science Teacher. 70(6) 56-59. [online]. Available at: http://its-about-time.com/htmls/ap/eisenkrafttst.pdf [November, 23th 2012]

Fajaroh, F and Dasna, W. (2008). Pembelajaran Dengan Model Siklus

Belajar (Learning cycle). [online]. Available at:

http://lubisgrafura.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/pembelajaran-dengan-model-siklus-belajar-learning-cycle/ [November, 23th 2012]

Gagne, Robert M. 1977. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal Physics. 66, 64-74.

Hanuscin Deborah L dan LEE Michele H. (2007). Using A Learning Cycyle

Approach To Teaching the Learning Cycle to Preservice Elementary Teacher. University of Misiori Columbia.

Irawati. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Siklus Belajar 7E Untuk

Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir kritis Siswa. Skripsi Jurusan

Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Band. Unpublished.

Iskandar, M. (2001). Penerapan Konstruktivisme Dalam Pembelajaran Kimia di SMU. Jurnal Ilmu Kimia dan Pembelajarannya. 5, (2), 1-11.

Karplus, R., & Their, H. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kuan-Jhen Huang. (2009). Embedding mobile technology to outdoor natural

science learning based on the 7E learning cycle. National Central

University.

Lawson, A.E. (1998). Science Teaching and The Development of Thinking. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lorsbach, A. (2006). The Learning Cycle as a Tool for Planning Science

Instruction. [online]. Available:

http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/scienceed/lorsbach/257lrcy.htm [November, 24th 2010].

Mappa. (1979). Aspirasi Pendidikan dalam Kaitannya dengan Prestasi

Belajar Murid. Jakarta: IKIP Jakarta.

Moyer, R.H.; Hackett, J.K., & Everett, S.A. (2007). Teaching science as

investigation:Modelling inquiry through learning cycle lessons. New

Putri, Grahita. (2010). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 7E

untuk meningkatkan keterampilan proses sains dan prestasi belajar siswa. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung:

Unpublished

Rahmayani. (2009). Penerapan Pembelajaran siklus Belajar 7E Untuk

Meningkatkan Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa. Skripsi

Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: Unpublished

Rasana, Raka. (2009). Model-model Pembelajaran. Singaraja: Undiksha.

Ridwan. (2008). Model Pembelajaran Konvensional. [online]. Available:

http://ridwan200.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/model-pembelajaran-konvensional/ [June, 15th 2013]

Ruseffendi, E. T. (2005). Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Pendidikan dan Bidang

Non-Eksakta Lainnya. Bandung: Tarsito

Sam’unZabriel. (2012). Pembelajaran Konstuctivisme Dalam siklus Belajar

7E. Available at:

http://samun16wahnie.blogspot.com/2012/02/pembelajaran-kontruktivisme-dalam.html [November, 23th 2012]

Sanjaya, W. (2007). Strategi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Siribunnam,R and Tayraukham,S. (2009). Effects of 7-E, KWL and Conventional Instruction on Analytical Thinking, Learning Achievement and Attitudes toward Chemistry Learning. Journal Of Social Sciences. 5, (4), 279-282.

Slavin, Robert. E. (2000). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (6th

ed.). Johns Hopkins University: Allyn & Bacon.

Sudjana, Nana. (2004). Penelitian Dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo.

Sudjana, Nana. (2009). Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Rosdakarya

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta.

Suparno, (1997). Aplikasi Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.

Sutee Sornsakrda. (2009). Effect of Learning Environmental Education Using

7E Learning Cycle With Metacognitive Techniques and the Teacher’s

Handbook Approaches and Learning Achievement, Integrated Science Process Skills and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 5 students With Different Learning Achievement. Pakistan Journal of Science. 6, (5), 297-303.

Warpala, I Wayan Sukra. (2009). Pembelajaran Konvensional. [online].

Available:http://edukasi.kompasiana.com/2009/12/20/pendekatan-pembelajaran-konvensional.html [June, 15th 2013]

Wibowo. (2010). Model Pembelajaran Siklus Belajar. [online]. Available:

http://penelitiantindakankelas.blogspot.com/2012/07/model-pembelajaran-siklus-belajar.html [November, 24th 2010]

Winkel, WS. (1986). Psikologi Pendidikan dan Evaluasi Belajar. Jakarta: Gramedia,

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusion

After research conducted by comparing the experimental and control classes prove that 7E learning cycle model can improve students’ achievement in cognitive domain on motion with constant acceleration concept. Based on results and discussion, it can be concluded that the improvement of student’s achievement in cognitive domain that using 7E learning cycle model better than using conventional learning model. It can be seen from data obtained that normalized gain in experimental class is 0.88, meanwhile in control class is 0.62. Students' response to learning activities by using 7E learning cycle model include into positive response.

B. Recommendations

Based on results and conclusion which is obtained, so there are several recommendation as follow:

1. 7E learning cycle model as an alternative of learning models that can be used to facilitate and improve students’ achievement.

2. Based on research that has been conducted by researcher, when designing lesson plan it needs good plan by considering time that will be used in every phase of 7E learning cycle. Moreover, students’ condition in instructional process should be considered.

3. Based on research that has been conducted by researcher, it is better to apply the learning by using 7E learning cycle repeatedly for the other concepts before taking the data so that students are familiar with 7E learning cycle model.

4. Achievement that use in this research only cognitive achievement. For further research is needed to conduct research in 7E learning cycle to observe students in affective and psychomotor achievement.

5. Based on the result of questionnaire, engage phase is highest result. So give more attention to engage phase, it can be used puzzles, games, etc. not only using animations.

6. When the implementation of experiment activity about motion with constant acceleration, condition of class little bit crowded. So, teacher should guidance more equal distributed in each group in order to reduce the chances of students to annoy, thus condition of learning more conducive.

7. When the implementation of 7E learning cycle model, it need observation instrument to know 7E has been implemented well or not.

75

REFERENCES

Abdul Qadeer soomro, Muhammad Nasim Qaisrani, Khalid Jameel Rawaat, Shahid Hussain Mughal. (2010). Teaching Physics through Learning Cycle Model: An Experimental study. Journal of Educational Research. 13, (2).

Ahmed, B. Q. Qarareh. (2012). The Effect of Using the Learning Cycle Method in Teaching Science on the Educational Achievement. International Journal Education Science. 4, (2), 123-132.

Alamsyah, B. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 7E Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Kognitif Siswa. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: unpublished.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Arikunto, S. (2008). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara.

Bramapurnama, Topan. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Siklus Belajar (Learning cycle) Untuk Meningkatkan Kompetensi Penalaran Matematik Siswa SMP. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: unpublished.

Bransfort, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cockling, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School National Academies. Washington. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge Mass:

Harvard University Press.

Bybee, R.W. (1993). Achieving Scientific Literacy: from Purposes to Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Colburn A. Clough M. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. Journal of Science Teacher. 64, (5), 30-33.

Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E Model. The Science Teacher. 70(6) 56-59. [online]. Available at: http://its-about-time.com/htmls/ap/eisenkrafttst.pdf [November, 23th 2012]

Fajaroh, F and Dasna, W. (2008). Pembelajaran Dengan Model Siklus

Belajar (Learning cycle). [online]. Available at:

http://lubisgrafura.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/pembelajaran-dengan-model-siklus-belajar-learning-cycle/ [November, 23th 2012]

Gagne, Robert M. 1977. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal Physics. 66, 64-74.

Hanuscin Deborah L dan LEE Michele H. (2007). Using A Learning Cycyle Approach To Teaching the Learning Cycle to Preservice Elementary Teacher. University of Misiori Columbia.

Irawati. (2009). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Siklus Belajar 7E Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir kritis Siswa. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Band. Unpublished.

Iskandar, M. (2001). Penerapan Konstruktivisme Dalam Pembelajaran Kimia di SMU. Jurnal Ilmu Kimia dan Pembelajarannya. 5, (2), 1-11.

Karplus, R., & Their, H. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kuan-Jhen Huang. (2009). Embedding mobile technology to outdoor natural science learning based on the 7E learning cycle. National Central University.

Lawson, A.E. (1998). Science Teaching and The Development of Thinking. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lorsbach, A. (2006). The Learning Cycle as a Tool for Planning Science

Instruction. [online]. Available:

http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/scienceed/lorsbach/257lrcy.htm [November, 24th 2010].

Mappa. (1979). Aspirasi Pendidikan dalam Kaitannya dengan Prestasi Belajar Murid. Jakarta: IKIP Jakarta.

Moyer, R.H.; Hackett, J.K., & Everett, S.A. (2007). Teaching science as investigation:Modelling inquiry through learning cycle lessons. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.

77

Putri, Grahita. (2010). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 7E untuk meningkatkan keterampilan proses sains dan prestasi belajar siswa. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: Unpublished

Rahmayani. (2009). Penerapan Pembelajaran siklus Belajar 7E Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa. Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FPMIPA UPI Bandung: Unpublished

Rasana, Raka. (2009). Model-model Pembelajaran. Singaraja: Undiksha.

Ridwan. (2008). Model Pembelajaran Konvensional. [online]. Available:

http://ridwan200.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/model-pembelajaran-konvensional/ [June, 15th 2013]

Ruseffendi, E. T. (2005). Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Pendidikan dan Bidang Non-Eksakta Lainnya. Bandung: Tarsito

Sam’unZabriel. (2012). Pembelajaran Konstuctivisme Dalam siklus Belajar

7E. Available at:

http://samun16wahnie.blogspot.com/2012/02/pembelajaran-kontruktivisme-dalam.html [November, 23th 2012]

Sanjaya, W. (2007). Strategi Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Siribunnam,R and Tayraukham,S. (2009). Effects of 7-E, KWL and Conventional Instruction on Analytical Thinking, Learning Achievement and Attitudes toward Chemistry Learning. Journal Of Social Sciences. 5, (4), 279-282.

Slavin, Robert. E. (2000). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Johns Hopkins University: Allyn & Bacon.

Sudjana, Nana. (2004). Penelitian Dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo.

Sudjana, Nana. (2009). Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Rosdakarya

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta.

Suparno, (1997). Aplikasi Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.

Sutee Sornsakrda. (2009). Effect of Learning Environmental Education Using 7E Learning Cycle With Metacognitive Techniques and the Teacher’s Handbook Approaches and Learning Achievement, Integrated Science Process Skills and Critical Thinking of Mathayomsuksa 5 students With Different Learning Achievement. Pakistan Journal of Science. 6, (5), 297-303.

Warpala, I Wayan Sukra. (2009). Pembelajaran Konvensional. [online].

Available:http://edukasi.kompasiana.com/2009/12/20/pendekatan-pembelajaran-konvensional.html [June, 15th 2013]

Wibowo. (2010). Model Pembelajaran Siklus Belajar. [online]. Available:

http://penelitiantindakankelas.blogspot.com/2012/07/model-pembelajaran-siklus-belajar.html [November, 24th 2010]

Winkel, WS. (1986). Psikologi Pendidikan dan Evaluasi Belajar. Jakarta: Gramedia,