IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL WITH MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7TH GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT.

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL WITH

MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7TH

GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY

IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT

RESEARCH PAPER (SKRIPSI)

Submitted as requirement to obtain degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education

Arranged by: Amrina Painty Metalinda

1105096

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE EDUCATION FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

(2)

MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS

APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7

TH

GRADE

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT

TRANSFER CONCEPT

Oleh

Amrina Painty Metalinda

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan pada Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam

Oktober 2015

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

SHEET OF LEGITIMATION

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL

WITH MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7THGRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT

By:

Amrina Painty Metalinda 1105096

Approved and Authorized by, Supervisor I

Drs. Hikmat, M.Si NIP.196204061989031001

Supervisor II

Dr. Selly Feranie, M.Si. NIP. 19741108199032004

Perceive,

Head of International Program on Science Education Study Program

Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed. NIP.196709191991032001

(4)

SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT

Amrina Painty Metalinda

Department of International Program on Science Education, FPMIPA, UPI

This study, Problem based learning model has been applied to improve 7th grade students’ scientific consistency in the context of heat transfer concept. The instrument of this research, we were designed using various representations such as verbal, picture and mathematical, yielding 45 multiple choice items using different representations concerning five central concepts underpinning the heat concept: conduction, convection, radiation, natural phenomena sea breeze and land breeze. Those are altogether 15 items sub-theme in heat concept. This analysis is limited to the 7th grade population. The method which is used was experimental method with pre-test post-test design. Students took problem based learning using multiple representations at two hours meeting each week for 3 weeks unit. 1st week about conduction. 2nd week about convection and radiation. 3rd week about land breeze and sea breeze. Each those sub concepts used problem based learning syntax which served in different representations learning. We also discuss the lesson design and how each learning scenario with its learning materials trigger student to learn the concept using different multiple representations. On average, we found scientific consistency increased during the instruction <g> of 0.92 which are in the high category. The enhancement of sub concept scientific consistency obtained value <g> of 0.98 on radiation concept and the number of students has highest scientific consistency improvement are 26 students from 26 students. In addition, we suggest that students’ scientific consistency should be recognized in physics teaching.

Keywords: Problem Based Learning Model, Scientific Consistency, Multiple Representation Test, Heat Transfer Concept

(5)

IMPLEMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH DENGAN PENDEKATAN MULTI REPRESENTASI UNTUK MENINGKATKAN SAINTIFIK KONSISTENSI SISWA KELAS 7 DALAM PEMBELAJARAN

KONSEP PERPINDAHAN PANAS

Amrina Painty Metalinda

International Program on Science Education Departemen, FPMIPA,UPI

Dalam penelitian ini, pembelajaran berbasis masalah telah diaplikasikan untuk meningkatkan saintifik konsistensi pada siswa kelas 7 dalam pembelajaran konsep perpindahan panas. Adapun instrument pada penelitian ini, penulis merancang berbagai representasi seperti verbal, gambar, dan matematis, yakni 45 pertanyaan pilihan ganda dengan berbeda representasi yang mengacu pada 5 pokok konsep perpindahan panas: konduksi, konveksi, radiasi, angin laut, dan angin darat. Semua konsep pokok tersebut, dikemas menjadi 15 sub tema perpindahan panas. Populasi penelitian ini dibatasi hanya untuk siswa kelas 7. Metode dalam penelitian ini adalah metode eksperimen dengan desain pre-test dan post-test. Pembelajaran berbasis masalah dengan pendekatan multi representasi diaplikasikan 3 kali pertemuan selama 2 jam pelajaran. Pertemuan pertama sub-konsep konduksi, pertemuan sub-kedua konsep konveksi dan radiasi, dan pertemuan ketiga konsep angin laut dan angin darat. Pada pembelajaran, setiap sub-konsep diterapkan dengan berbagai representasi. Penulis juga mendiskusikan desain pembelajaran dan bagaimana skenario dalam pembelajaran sehingga dapat merangsang siswa untuk belajar menggunakan multi representasi. Hasil penelitian yang didapat adalah adanya peningkatan saintifik konsistensi dengan gain normalisasi 0.92 yang berada di kategori tinggi. Peningkatan pada setiap sub konsep didapat gain normalisasi 0.98 pada sub konsep radiasi juga berada di kategori tinggi. Disamping itu, Terdapat 26 siswa yang mengalami peningkatan saintifik konsistensi pada setiap sub-tema. Penulis menyarankan bahwa saintifik konsistensi siswa harus diperhatikan di setiap proses belajar mengajar khususnya fisika.

Kata kunci: Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah, Saintifik Konsistensi, Tes Multi Representasi, Konsep Perpindahan Panas

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SHEET OF LEGITIMATION ... i

DECLARATION ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iii

PREFACE ... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... v

TABLE OF CONTENT………..vii

LIST OF TABLES ... ix

LIST OF FIGURES……….x

LIST OF APPENDIX ... xii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background ………... 1

B. Research Problem ………. 5

C. Research Question ……… 5

D. Limitation Of Problem ………. 5

E. Research Objective ………... 6

F. Research Benefit ……… 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW A. Problem Based Learning with Multiple Representations Approach ... …7

B. Scientific Consistency ... …16

C. Heat Concept ... …18

D. Relevant Research ... …25

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A. Research Method and Research Design ... …27

(7)

C. Assumption ………28

D. Hypothesis……….28

E. Operational Definition ... …29

F. Research Instrument ... …30

G. Instrument Validation Result ... …34

H. Data Analysis ... …35

I. Research Procedure ... …36

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Results and Discussion of Problem Based Learning Model of Multiple Representations Approach... …39

B. The Result and Discussion of Scientific Consistency ... …52

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion ... …64

B. Recommendation ... …64

REFERENCES ... …66

APPENDIX A. INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS ... …69

B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ... …92

C. DATA RESULT ... ..152

D. DOCUMENTATION ... ..164

(8)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model ... 8

Table 2.2 application the multiple representation approach on Problem Based Learning model ... 13

Table 2.3 Assessment of Scientific Consistency ... 16

Table 2.4 Core and Basic Competence of Heat Transfer ... 18

Table 2.5 Conductivity………..21

Table 3.1 One-group post-test pre-test Design ... 27

Table 3.2 Interpretation of Validity ... 31

Table 3.3 Interpretation of Reliability ... 32

Table 3.4 Interpretation of Difficulty Level ... 33

Table 3.5 Interpretation of Discriminating Power ... 34

Table 3.6 Criteria of Normalized Gain ... 35

Table 4.1 Percentage of Learning Model Implementation... 39

Table 4.2 Students’ Scientific Consistency on Pre Test and Post Test………..52

Table 4.3 Scientific Consistency N-Gain on Every Sub Concept ... 55

(9)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Styrofoam is low conductivity ... 22

Figure 2.2 Sea breeze Land breeze ... 24

Figure 2.3 Radiant energy………...25

Figure 2.4 Radiant energy type ... 23

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure ………..38

Figure 4.1 Orientation Syntax ... 40

Figure 4.2 Organize Syntax... 41

Figure 4.3 Teachers’ demonstration ... 42

Figure 4.4 conductor isolator demonstration ... 42

Figure 4.5 Students’ Investigation ... 43

Figure 4.6 Communicating syntax ... 43

Figure 4.7 Motivating students ... 45

Figure 4.8 Giving problems ... 45

Figure 4.9 convection investigation ... 46

Figure 4.10 Students full fill the worksheet ... 47

Figure 4.11 Investigation second problem ... 47

Figure 4.12 Communicate ... 48

Figure 4.13 Identify the phenomena of heat transfer ... 48

Figure 4.14 Making poster ... 51

Figure 4.15 sea breeze land breeze communication... 51

Figure 4.16 Average of Enhancement of Scientific Consistency on Heat Transfer Concept ... 53

Figure 4.17 Enhancement of Scientific Consistency on Every Sub Concept ... 56

Figure4.18 Amount of student has Scientific Consistency enhancement on conduction ... 59

(10)

Figure 4.19 Amount of student has Scientific Consistency enhancement on

convection………...59

Figure4.20 Amount of student has Scientific Consistency enhancement on

radiation……….60

Figure 4.21 Amount of student has Scientific Consistency enhancement on sea

breeze……….61

Figure 4.22Amount of student has Scientific Consistency enhancement on sea

(11)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

A. INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS

Appendix A.1 Lesson Plan (First Meeting)………….………..

Appendix A.2 Lesson Plan (Second

Meeting)………….………. Appendix A.3 Lesson Plan (Third Meeting)………

Appendix A.4 Question and Answer Worksheet………..

B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Appendix B.1 Instrument of Multiple Representations Question…………... Appendix B.2 Instrument of Multiple Representations Test

Pre Test-Post Test………..

Appendix B.3 Forms of Expert Judgement……….. Appendix B.4 Observation Sheet………..….………..…………

C. RESULT OF RESEARCH DATA

Appendix C.1 Data Processing of ScientificConsistency……….………. Appendix C.2 Data Processing ofStudents’ Scientific Consistency On Every

Sub Concept………

Appendix C.3 Data Processing ofThe Number Of Students’ Scientific Consistency On Every Sub Theme...……….

D. DOCUMENTATION

Appendix D.1 Photo Documentation………

78 84 87

92 126

149 150

152

158

163

(12)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Criteria to the implementation of learning in an education to achieve competency standards adapted to some of the principles of learning used. Attached in Permendikbud No. 18A year 2013 on the implementation of the curriculum refers to competency standards and content standards. Learning activities need to use principles: (1) centered on the learner, (2) developing the creativity of learners, (3) create conditions fun and challenging, (4) uncharged values, ethics, aesthetics, logic, and kinesthetic, and (5) provides a diverse learning experience through the application of various strategies and methods of learning fun, contextual, effective, efficient, and meaningful. Based on point 5 on the learning principle above means the educator is required to give the opportunity to students with diverse learning strategies. Based on the national curriculum 2013, educator facilitate students in learning process to get the principle of five learning experience. It was attached in Permendikbud No. 18A year 2013 the principle of five learning experience such as observing, asking, experimenting, associating, and communicating. Those learning experience is a series of scientific approach activities as strengthen in teaching learning activities.

Physics subject already applied the scientific approach in learning process. Physics is one of a subject that provides experiences for students to discover the knowledge through scientific approach. There are so many problems in physics phenomena that students have to prove and solve it to get the truth evidence. In learning process, student will be trained to develop their thinking to solve the

(13)

physics subjects. The successful in solve the physics problems is effected by the presentation of representations format from that problems, the representations form are sometimes easier to make students understand of the concept (Deliana, 2012: 3). Learning physics subject expect to students calculate the data, solving the physics problems using mathematically, making a graph to describe the certain concept, communicating the data result. The mastery of physic concept requires the understanding and the ability of different representations or multiple representation way to the concept. The implementation of multiple representations in learning activities will create the atmosphere of learning with the active role of all the potential of students, activates students’ learning ability , both minds-on and hands-on, so the learning physics become meaningful (Abdurahman et al., 2011).

Based on the previous research when researcher did teaching practice (PPL) in one of national school, unfortunately scientific consistency has low score is about 38.46. The scientific consistency in every sub got in low score

category it’s about lower than 4.15 average score, less than 18 students who have scientific consistency. Those phenomena above due to students is not trained the multiple representation in learning physics concept. This can be seen from the way when delivery of physics materials in the classroom more tendency to derivatives the mathematics equation. The physics question is more demanding on mathematical calculations only a few questions that require verbal representation. When student are given the multiple representation questions on the exam, in three different representations such as verbal, picture, mathematics, most of students has difficulties to answer the problems was given. Even though, three questions have the main concept is same. But the presentation is presented in three different forms. Besides that, when students explain the knowledge about

(14)

some evidence, students just explain and describe it by verbally. Students very rarely use the other representation at the same time using different representation. For example, teacher order students to solve the mathematic equation in front of the class. Most of students just wrote the calculation of the problem but when teacher order to explain more by verbally and picture, students feel difficult even thought it still same focus. Students find physics difficult because they have to contend with different representation such as experiments, formulas, and calculation, graphs, and the conceptual explanation at the same time (Angell et al. 2004). This makes the representation of students' abilities are limited to one representation, the mathematical understanding of the students who make less deep so, it gives effect less scientific consistency when confronted with a multiple representation test.

The multiple representations in learning activities will be effected on the scientific consistency based on the previous research. Yusuf (2011) found the data that when students were given questions with the same theme in different representations, most of 80% students did not consistent for the answer. The scientific consistency is students’ ability to consistent in different representation such as verbal, picture, mathematic with still the same sub concept or theme. If students consistent in correct answer, that student were categorized understand about that concept (Nieminen et al. 2012). The previous research stated that 13.37 on student average who did not have scientific consistency (Krishnayanti, 2015).

The research about scientific consistency to answer the multiple representations problem is measured by Nieminen et al. (2010). He stated that to measure the level of scientific consistency in understanding a physics subject used multiple representations test in the achievement test. To analyze the scientific consistency of student, researcher has been created 3 questions with

(15)

different representation (verbal, picture, mathematic) in multiple representation tests to measure 1 same concept on heat concept. Students can be categorized he or she is consistent scientifically if they were be able to answer 3 questions correctly in different representation and there is in understand the concept category of multiple representation test. If students were not in that category, so students are not consistent scientifically. Based on the preliminary research, none of student who answer 3 questions correctly. That means all of students is not in consistent category in that concept. Lack of scientific consistency of students on

physics concept is characterized by students’ inability to understand and use physics concept on different representation (Krishnayanti, 2015).

Based on the number of students who are not consistent in understanding the physics concept, researcher expects to enhance students’ scientific consistency in this study. Student is expected to mastery the physics concept scientifically. Because if students who mastery the concept properly, they would be use the multiple representation ability.

The implementation of problem based learning with multiple representation approach will be used in this study. The reason is suitable with the main objective of physics education, is helping students to use the multiple representation in solving problem and understanding the physics subject well (Van Heuleven & Zou, 2011). Besides that, problem based learning model with multiple representations approach has been applied in another research. Based on Sari (2015) said that the score result of scientific consistency is increase which as gain 0.58 through PBL with multiple representations. It needs for present the problems in the form of different representations to overcome to student individual differences. If problem based learning model combine with the multi-representation approach, students able to solve the problems with various representations. It would be increase the advantages of this learning model.

(16)

Researcher expects to implement this learning strategy to improve scientific consistency in school where researcher did teaching practice. The material that will be implemented with this learning model is about heat transfer. Because learning heat concept there are so many opportunities to improve their understanding using PBL with multiple representation approach.

Based on the explanations above, the title in this research is

“IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL WITH

MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7TH GRADE

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT”

B. Research Problem

The research problem of this study is “How is the implementation of problem based learning model with multiple representations approach to enhance 7thgrade students’ scientific consistency in learning heat concept?”

C. Research Question

Elaborating the research problem, the research attempts to explore the following questions:

1. How is the enhancement of scientific consistency in learning heat transfer concept after the implementation of problem based learning model with multiple representations approach?

2. How is the enhancement of students’ scientific consistency category in every sub concept?

(17)

3. How is the enhancement of the number of student in scientific consistency category in every sub theme?

D. Limitation of Problem

In order to make the research become more focused, the problem is limited as follow:

1. Problem Based Learning with multiple representation approach.

In teaching learning process use Problem Based Learning syntax such as: giving the problem orientation, organizing students to observe, helping student to investigate individually and group, presenting the result, analyzing and evaluating the problem. In learning materials, teacher trigger student to learn the concept using different representations.

2. Multiple representation test as an instrument use three representation such as verbal, picture, and mathematics. Students can be categorized is consistent scientifically if they were be able to answer 3 questions in the same questions indicator correctly

3. Heat concept is the physics concept in 7 grade of junior high school based on curriculum 2013. The sub concept that will be applied are conduction, convection, radiation, sea breeze, and land breeze

E. Research Objective

This research objective is described specifically as follow:

1. To investigate the enhancement of students’ scientific consistency through the implementation of problem based learning model with multiple representation approach

2. To investigate the enhancement of students’ scientific consistency category in every sub concept

(18)

3. To investigate the enhancement of the number of students towards scientific consistency category in every question indicator

F. Research Benefit

The results of this study are expected to provide the following benefits:

1. For teachers, this study may give the alternative assessment tool to measure the scientific consistency. This is one of learning strategies in educational field especially in physics education.

2. For students, in learning this approach gives opportunity to learn in diverse ways. Student could solve the physics problems with different representations. Student could feel new experience in learning process. 3. For other researchers, this study may use as precious references in

(19)

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of research method and design, population and sample, operational definition, research instrument, instrument validation result, data analysis, and research procedure.

1. Research Method and Design

The research method that is used is an Experimental Method. The experimental method involves manipulating one variable to determine if changes in one variable cause changes in another variable. This method relies on controlled methods, random assignment and the manipulation of variable to test a hypothesis

One group post-test pre-test design defined as a single group that is measured or observed not only after being exposed to a treatment of some sort, but also before (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). A diagram of this design is as follows:

Table 3.1 One-group post-test pre-test Design

Pre test Treatment Post Test

O1 X O2

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). O1 is a test before learning activity and O2 is a test after learning. X is a form of learning that treatments using models Problem based Learning with multiple representations approach.

2. Location and Sample 1. Location of Research

(20)

The location of this research at National Junior High School in Bandung which is one of National Secondary High School in Bandung, West Java. The school uses bilingual as the main language in the teaching learning process.

2. Population of Research

The population was taken is class of Secondary I Ibnu Rusyd, at that National School. The sampling technique that was a purposive sampling because Secondary I Ibnu Rusyd is despite it is the only class that available to be intake in the research. It was due to the class has a high focus on learning. There are 26 students as a sample of this research.

3. Assumption

The assumption as the foundation of this study as follow:

1. Problem based learning model with multiple representation approach enables student to learn diverse representations to solve the physics problem

2. Problem based learning model with multiple representation helps student to used to multiple representation in learning process. In this case, teacher train and trigger students to learn various multiple representations.

3. Problem based learning model with multiple representation will become precious assessment to enhance scientific consistency because using this treatment, teacher know well students’ capability in teaching learning process as well verbally, picture, and mathematically.

4. Hypothesis

Hypothesis that is tested in this study are as follow:

1. H0 : There is no difference of students’ scientific consistency in learning heat transfer concept using problem based learning model with multiple representations approach

(21)

2. H1 : There is difference of students’ scientific consistency in learning heat transfer concept using problem based learning model with multiple representations approach

1. Operational Definition

In order to avoid misconception about this research, so some operational definitions are explained in this research. Those terminologies are explained as follows:

1. Problem Based Learning model with multiple representation approach means learning to solve the problem with diverse .The application use of this model, expected to be investigating students’ scientific consistency. By learning activities PBM performed consists of five phases, namely: 1) Provide an orientation about the problem to the learners, 2) Organize learners to research, 3) Helping the investigation independently and groups, 4) Develop and present their work and 5) Analyze and evaluate the process of overcoming the problem. At each phase is done multiple representation approach.

2. Scientific Consistency is the consistency of students' ability to answer correctly scientifically on the same concept, in the form of different representations. Multiple representation based scientific consistency identified through students' answers during the test multiple representations. Students categorized scientific consistency if the three inputs (verbal, mathematical and picture) are in the category of understanding the concept. Category understand the concept of meaning, the student answered correctly on a given third representative, Then the pretest and posttest data results expressed with the normalize gain, to identify the enhancement of students’ scientific consistency.

(22)

1. Research Instrument

In this research, instrument is necessary to be used for gaining data. There is one type instrument that is used in this research; it is multiple representations test in multiple choice forms. The instrument is described below.

1. Multiple representation test

Multiple representation test to measure scientific consistency understanding of students, carried out by giving 45 about multiple representation (verbal, picture, and mathematical) test that consists of five concepts such as conduction, convection, radiation, sea breeze, and land breeze. The multiple representation test is formed in multiple choice questions. This test aims to analyze the scientific consistency student. Instruments for research, tested in advance to students who have earned a heat transfer material. Instruments test of scientific consistency with multi representations made only once trial

The multiple representations test is formed in multiple choice questions. This instrument is tested through several statistical test which common use to test the research instrument.

The statistical test have to be tested consist of in terms of validity, reliability, difficulty level, discriminating power, and distractor. It will be explained as follows.

1. Validity

Validity is defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what is designed to measure that emphasizes not on the test itself, but on the result (Arikunto, 2013). Construct Validity is considered to be used in this study since the questions will be formulated based on the level cognitive of Taxonomy Bloom. Arikunto (2013) stated that construct validity measures thinking aspect based on logical, such as classified the question item into

(23)

cognitive dimension. The formula to determine the validity is below (Arikunto, 2013).

rxy=

√ ………. (1) Where:

rxy = coefficientcorrelation or item validity

ƩX = sum of total score of all students for each question item

ƩY = sum of total score of all students for whole test N = total number of students

X = score of each student for each question item Y = total score of each student

The validity interpretation is represented in the table below.

Table 3.2 Interpretation of Validity

No. Value rxy Criteria

1 0.80 r 1.00 Very High

2 0.60 r 0.80 High

3 0.40 r 0.60 Fair

4 0.20 r 0.40 Low

5 0.00 r 0.20 Very Low

(Arikunto, 2013) 2. Reliability

Reliability is defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, test observation or any measurement procedure produces the same results on repeated trials. In short, it is the stability or consistency of scores over time or across raters (Arikunto, 2013). The split-half method using KR 20 equation is used to calculate reliability of the test by giving score one point for correct answer and zero point for wrong answer. The formula of reliability is described below (Arikunto, 2013).

r11 = (

) (1 -

(24)

Where:

r11 = instrument reliability k = the amount of test item

Ʃpq = multiplication result of p and q s = deviation standard

The reliability interpretation is represented in the table below.

Table 3.3 Interpretation of Reliability

No. Reliability Coefficient Criteria

1 0.00 r 0.20 Very Low

2 0.20 r 0.40 Low

3 0.40 r 0.60 Fair

4 0.60 r 0.80 High

5 0.80 r 1.00 Very High

(Arikunto, 2013) 3. Difficulty Level

The quality of question will be good if it is arranged in balance, it means the proportion should not consist of whole easy or difficult questions, since easy questions will not stimulate students to spend more effort in answering as well as difficult questions will make the students desperate and have no motivation to solve it (Arikunto, 2013). Consideration of difficulty level is based on proportion of problem categories such as easy, medium, and difficult. The formula to determine the difficulty level is described below (Arikunto, 2013).

P = ………. (3)

Where:

P = difficulty level

B = number of students who answer correctly N = total number of students

The classification of difficulty level is represented in the table below.

(25)

Table 3.4 Interpretation of Difficulty Level

No. Difficulty Value Criteria

1 0.00 – 0.30 Difficult

2 0.30 – 0.70 Medium

3 0.70 – 1.00 Easy

(Arikunto, 2013) 4. Discriminating Power

Discriminating power is defined as the ability of particular question to distinguish students who are classified as higher achievement and lower achievement. The amount of higher achievement students who can answer more particular questions compared to lower achievement means that those questions have positive discriminating power index (Arikunto, 2013). Discriminating power index shows the scale from minus one until positive one. The negative one represents lower discriminating power index, and vice versa. The formula to determine the discriminating power is described below (Rustaman in Maulidah, 2015).

DP = ……… (4)

Where:

DP = Discriminating Power

U = the number of upper group that answer correctly T = total number of students in upper and lower group L = the number of lower group that answer correctly The Interpretation of discriminating power is represented in the table below.

(26)

Table 3.5 Interpretation of Discriminating Power

No. Discriminating Power Value Criteria

1 Negative-0.00 Very Poor

2 0.00-0.20 poor

3 0.20-0.40 satisfactory

4 0.40-0.70 Good

5 0.70-1.00 Excellent

(Arikunto, 2009)

5. Distractor

Distractor is considered to have an effect on the result of discriminating power value. The analysis of distractor is done to determine the distractor of each item of multiple choice which is not work well to distract the students from answering the questions correctly. The distractor is considered as a good distractor when it can attract the

attention of unwell prepared students’ in the test to be chosen, it is chosen

by at least 5% of the students. Meanwhile, a distractor is considered as a bad distractor when it is not chosen by any student, it means the distractor is clearly wrong. Hence, even the students who are not mastering the concept will believe that the distractor is totally wrong choice. A distractor can be treated with three ways i.e. accepted, rejected, and rewrite (Arikunto, 2013).

1. Instrument Validation Result

Before using the objective test as the instrument in the research, it needs to be tested in terms of validity, reliability, discriminating power, and difficulty level as explained before. To obtain the data for testing those aspects, limited test need to be done. The test was given to 20 students which have learned about the chapter that will be learned for the research. The limited test consists of 45 multiple representations in form multiple choice questions. The data obtained

(27)

from the limited test was analyzed by Software Anatest 4.0. The content validation is very good that analyzed from expert judgement. The reliability of the test item is 0.63 with the interpretation high.

On multiple representations test instrument consists of 45 questions consisting of five concept of heat transfer. All matter in the form of multiple representations consisting of verbal, images and mathematically. Although some questions were on the validity and distinguishing low, matter is not disposed. It is due to the questions required for the purposes of research and has sufficient validity questions.

The instrument from limited test that should be revised is not totally changes the questions. The reason the instrument will be used is not only based on anatest but also from judger recommendations.

2. Data Analysis of Scientific Consistency

Researcher adapted the technical scoring of scientific inquiry from Nieminen (2010), he made the categorize of scientific consistency which students’ answer in a given theme were graded in the following way on Table 2.3

After that, calculated the enhancement of scientific consistency in pretest and posttest results using normalized gain equation. Based on Hake (1999) stated the score of pre-test and post test could be computed in the equation bellow

<g>=

Then interpreted into a normalized gain of criteria such as the table 3.7

Table 3.6 Criteria of Normalized Gain

<g> Kriteria

<g> > 0,7 Tinggi

0,3 <<g> < 0,7 Sedang

<g> < 0,3 Rendah (Hake, 1999)

(28)

3. Research Procedure 1. Preparation Stage

The preparation stage of this study consist of analysis every variable related to this study and instrument making. For analysis variables related to this study consists of:

1. 2013 Curriculum as National Curriculum of Indonesia 2. multiple representations in teaching learning process

3. Problem Based Learning when teaching learning activity 4. Concept of heat transfer

For instrument making, this study will use several kinds of instruments i.e. draft of multiple representations in multiple choice form, lesson plan of Problem Based Learning with Multiple Representations Approach, and worksheet, observation sheet

A draft of multiple representations in multiple choice form will be acquired through the process of expert validation, revision, limited test, and analysis by anatest. Meanwhile a draft of lesson plan, worksheet, and observation sheet will be acquired through the process of consult to expert judgement then revision.

5. Implementation Stage

The implementation stage of this study will be described as follows. 1. Giving the pre test

2. Conducting the learning process using problem based learning with multiple representations approach

(29)

4. Completion Stage

The completion stage of this study consists of data analysis and drawing the conclusion. Analyze the improvement of scientific consistency of the students in problem solving then conclude the result of the study ;there is improvement or not.

(30)

Preparation stage

Implementations stage

Completion stage

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure

curriculum learning in class activity

heat transfer concept

representations in teaching learning process

Making instrument

Lesson plan problem based model with multiple representations

Multiple representations test- multiple choice form Observation sheet

Expert Validation

revision Limitted Test

Analysis anatest Draft multiple representations questions

Pre test

Experimental group

Problem based learning model with multiple representations approach Post test

Data analysis Observation sheet

(31)

CHAPTER IV

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Results and Discussion Problem Based Learning Model of Multiple representation Approach

1. The observation result of the implementation of learning model

The observation result of the implementation problem based learning with multiple representation approach done using observation formats given to the observer. Table 4.1 the percentage of the implementation the learning model for each meeting.

Table 4.1 Percentage of Learning Model Implementation

No. Learning Step Meeting (%)

1 2 3

1 1st Step 100 100 100

2 2nd Step 100 100 100

3 3rd Step 100 100 100

4 4th Step 100 100 100

5 5th Step 100 100 100

Average 100 100 100

2. The discussion of implementation the learning Model a. 1st meeting

First meeting, students learn about conduction. The learning objective of this meeting are : Students are able to understand how does the heat could be transferred using simple experiment, students are able to explain the conduction characteristics, Students are able to distinguish conductor and isolator, and

(32)

students are able to solve the problem of conduction phenomenon. The step of problem based learning has reached the learning objectives in the first meeting. This meeting, teacher is able to finish the mission in problem based learning with multiple representation approach completely, 100% in whole step.

The learning process did well. Students learn the multiple representations very well. Student could listen the instruction carefully so when experimenting student did smoothly without asking too much to teacher. Sometimes, student too noisy when discuss to their peer group. The observer immediately rebuked students who noisier. Despite, Students has a great enthusiastic during teaching learning process.

The application of the model of problem-based learning approach in accordance with the statement multiple representation Mayer (2003), the learning approach can multiple representation strengthen students' understanding because of the formation of meaning between words, images and mathematical simultaneously. This is evident from the student's ability to answer various representations on worksheets and answer questions from the teacher to the student.

1) First step - giving the orientation

(33)

In this step teacher motivate student starts with show the real pan. Student visualized that pan. Teacher start giving the problem to student choose the best material to make a pan, there is zinc, iron, and aluminum. Teacher trigger student to give the alternative opinion. Students give their opinion by verbally. Then teacher allow them to compare three of material to make a pan by mathematically. So, in the 1st step teaching learning, teacher guide student in different representations with the same focus.

2) Second step – Organize

The picture bellow shows teacher organize students make some groups that consist of 4-5 students for doing experiment.

Figure 4.2 Organize Step

Before come to experiment, teacher demonstrated to pour the hot water to plastic and metal glass. Teacher asks which glass did not make you comfortable when holding the glass. Student gives their answer verbally then teacher asks which hotter glass is. Students mention and explain the glass is hotter and the glass is not hotter by verbally and mathematically based on Picture 4.3

(34)

Figure 4.3 Teachers’ demonstration

Then, teacher show the picture of iron and wood given toothpick and butter. Teacher leads student to get the conduction and isolator concept by simple demonstration regarding the picture based on picture 4.4

Figure 4.4 conductor isolator demonstration

3) Third step – Investigation

Teacher distributes the worksheet. This syntax, students have to find out the problem solution which material is the appropriate to make a pan using iron, zinc or aluminum. Student should do simple experiment to find out with their peer group. Then student discuss what they get from their experiment by verbally .after that students full fill the worksheet individually. In experiment, student proof their problem by their visualizing that the appropriate material to make a pan. Students interpret

(35)

the data on the table then they comparing each other which material fallen down first, second, and third by mathematically.

Figure 4.5 Students’ Investigation

4) Fourth step - Communicating

This step, students try to present their result. Students communicate the result in front of the class. Students explain which the best material to make a pan and analyze why aluminum is the best material could be make a pan based on the heat transfer concept.

Figure 4.6 Communicating Step

5) Fifth step – Evaluation

This step, teacher gives clarification the concept behind on their experiment. Teacher show the conduction percentage. Students see that picture then students analyze and explain between conduction percentage and their result of experiment by verbally. Students compare three of metals with the percentage of conduction by mathematically.

(36)

b. 2nd meeting

Second meeting, students learn about convection and radiation. This meeting, teacher is able to finish the mission in problem based learning with multiple representations approach completely, 100% in whole step.

The step of problem based learning has reached the learning objectives in the second meeting. The learning objectives are Students are able to explain how the heat could be transferred through simple experiment, Students are able to explain the characteristics of convection and radiation, Students are able to identify the conduction, convection, and radiation phenomena, student are able to solve the problem from the convection, and radiation phenomenon. In addition, the appropriate implementation learning 3 characteristics of PBM models according to Eggen (2012), which is "learning to focus on solving the problem, the student is responsible for solving the problem and support the teachers when the students solve the problem". These three characteristics are already performing well during learning.

Learning convection and radiation can be delivered well as the use of PBM models has focused on issues of daily life, so that students are motivated to solve the problem with the application of the concepts being taught. When teaching learning process occurs on the orientation syntax, student has not interest response. It was proved when teacher asked the chimney set up vertically why did not set in horizontally. Students just silent. So, Teacher has to trigger with different questions with the same focus. But in the other syntax students has motivation during learning process. Student active to discuss with their friends, students very enthusiastic when identify and explain the heat transfer phenomena, and students did experiment well.

(37)

1) First step - orientation

Figure 4.7 Motivating students

First step, teacher starts the lesson with shows the picture to

trigger students’ motivation. Then teacher asks why chimneys set up vertically upwards? why does not be made horizontally? And asks what does the correlation with the topic today? Then students visualize that picture and try to explain by verbally by just 2-3 of students. Teacher asks the second picture about comparing two planets has the warmer or colder temperature from sun.

2) Second step - Organize

`This stage student listen two problems from teacher that the first is how could become hot water thoroughly even though the source of the fire in the bottom of the pan. Second question is arrange sitting position your friend when fire camp. Little bit of student express their thinking for the 1st picture. While, most of student answer the second problem with enthusiastic.

(38)

Figure 4.8 Giving problems

3) Third step - investigate

Teacher distributes the worksheet. This step, students have to find out the problem solution through two experiments. For the first experiment, students have to boil the water then drop 2 food coloring with different direction. Then observe what will happen with the direction of food coloring.

Figure 4.9 convection investigation

Students full fill the worksheet individually. From investigation, students visualize what they get then student have to draw the direction of red food coloring and green food coloring on worksheet. Students express the movement of fluid when boiling the water by verbally on their worksheet.

(39)

Figure 4.10 Students full fill the worksheet

Finding out the second problem, student should do experiment by using several wet tissues with different distance. Every group has different strategies to arrange those tissues.

Figure 4.11 Investigation second problem

Based on their experiment, they visualize what they did during investigation. Then student express their new knowledge on the worksheet. Student also could make the sitting arrangement in fire camp by that investigation. Student could give the value of the temperature based on the worksheet.

4) Fourth step - communication

This step, students try to present their result. Students communicate the result in front of the class. Student draw first the movement of fluid then students explain the direction of the fluid movement when water boiling

(40)

by verbally and using picture. The other group, try to present the 2nd problem. Student draw the sitting arrangement for Sherli, Ali, and Michael when fire camp. Then student explain it related to the experiment by verbally and mathematically.

Figure 4.12 Communicate

5) Fifth step – evaluation

Teacher give emphasize the knowledge about convection and radiation to avoid misconception. In the end of session, the evaluation is formed by identifying the picture which conduction, convection, and radiation.

(41)

Students not only identify the pictures are belong to but also students explain why the picture should be convection etc.

c. 3rd meeting

Third meeting, students learn about sea breeze and land breeze. This meeting, teacher is able to finish the mission in problem based learning with multiple representations approach completely, 100% in whole step.

The step of problem based learning has reached the learning objectives in the second meeting. The learning objectives are Students are able to apply the concept of heat transfer through sea breeze and land breeze phenomena.

Student has a higher motivation when student sticking, drawing, coloring their poster. Because the previous meeting, students only do several experiment. It was time to them to make a creation using their imaginations and creativity. Especially in this meeting, students looks has high emotion when they have to coloring just ten minutes for two posters.

With the approach of multi representation of almost all students have the drive of curiosity large and active role during learning, because learning is presented in a variety of forms of representation so as to stimulate students who are in the group of verbal intelligence, and mathematical images to be actively involved. Active students to ask and answer while learning in accordance with the functions of the approach according multiple representations based on Ainsworth (2006), to complement other representations. So, students can resume the concept being studied, build up a clearer understanding than just a representation only and is able to construct a deep understanding for the students to obtain information from various representations.

(42)

Teacher found just 1 group that is not correct to put the arrow of the wind direction. It is due to their team did not read carefully the guidelines on the worksheet.

1) First step - orientation

The first lesson starts with the problem. Students have to find out the alternative opinions about design a ship without engines and how to sail and schedules go to the sea. Teacher leads student to express their opinion by verbally using several questions. Teacher draw the illustration then asks student to explain related with heat transfer. Some of students give their opinion. Teacher lead based on temperature, pressure, etc. Students try to answer with comparing temperature, pressure between land and sea.

2) Second step - Organize

Teacher asks student to sit in group. Teacher lead student to find out the problem solve through worksheet. Students make a poster and the worksheet as the guideline.

3) Third step - investigate

Student starts the investigation with discussion first to their peer group. Teacher provides the cartoon and envelope to students. Students have to make two posters; the schedule of fisherman on night and sunny day. Then students open the envelope to stick the arrow, moon, sun. Student starts to draw after that, stick the arrow, moon or sun on the poster. Students try to full fill the worksheet with discuss to peer group

(43)

Figure 4.14 Making poster

4) Fourth step - communication

Students present their work in front of the class. Students draw first the fisherman catches the fish on sunny day and come back on night. Students try to explain reviewed by the investigate comparing land and sea which as the high temperature, low temperature, low pressure, high pressure, etc.

(44)

5) Fifth step - evaluation

Teacher emphasizes the concept of land breeze and land breeze to student. Students write down those phenomena on their book.

B.The Result and Discussion of Scientific Consistency

1. Enhancement of Scientific Consistency on Heat Transfer Concept

Scientific consistency is the consistency of students answer questions correctly scientifically. The question is made by using a multiple representation test. Student could answer correctly 3 questions in different representation picture, verbal, and mathematic but it is still same theme.

After the whole learning activities on heat transfer concept and taking the data posttest, found the result of the average score of scientific consistency. The result of students’ scientific consistency when pretest and posttest shown on

table 4.2

Table 4.2 Students’ Scientific Consistency on Pre Test and Post Test

Based on table 4.2 describe some information that we get from the data. The sum of pre test score in scientific consistency is 11.42 while the sum of post test score is 28.57. The average of pre test score in scientific consistency is 38.46 while the average of post test score is 95.25. There is enhancement of students’ scientific consistency in learning heat transfer concept. The average score of

students’ scientific consistency on posttest score is higher than pretest score. If

Sum Average <G> <g> Category

PRE

TEST 11.42 38.46

17.15 0.92 HIGH

POST

(45)

compare with the average of pre test and post test score is has gain normalized (<g>) is 0.92 which in the high category (Hake, 1999).

The data result of students’ scientific consistency not only served in table but also in graph. The data could be seen clearer on this graph. The graph of result can be shown figure 4.16

Figure 4.16 Average of Enhancement of Scientific Consistency on Heat Transfer Concept

Based on the graph, we can see clearly there is enhancement significantly the average score of pretest and posttest in learning heat concept. The initial of average score is 38.46 after implementation problem based learning model with multiple representations approach occur significant enhancement of average score about 95.25. It means that most of students are consistent to answer multiple representations test. Students have been consistent in verbal, picture, and mathematically in learning heat transfer concept. Based on data recapitulation in pre test just one student in enough category of scientific consistency, while the other students are in inconsistent category of scientific consistency. For the post test is vice versa.

38.46 95.25 0 50 100 150 E n h a n ce m e n t Av e ra g e

Heat Transfer Concept

Average of Enhancement of Scientific

Consistency

on Heat Transfer Concept

pre test post test

(46)

The enhancement on students’ scientific consistency occur after giving the treatment problem based learning with scientific consistency approach, because student used to learn with it. Student could understand the concept in

various representations and it is suitable with Kohl and Noah’s (2003) state that teaching learning in class effect the multiple representation ability of students. Using multiple representations approach on PBL model, student used to various representation such verbal, picture, and mathematics. This multiple representations approach served on the syntax of problem based learning model and the questions on students’ worksheet. Besides that, the enhancement of scientific consistency is supported on the previous research stated that after the treatment in the problem based learning model with multiple representations

approach towards improving students’ scientific consistency , obtained a normalized gain value by 0.58 in enough category (Sari, 2015). The scientific consistency could enhance due to the percentage of implementation is 100% means student get the multiple representation during class activity. Besides that, one of the function of multiple representations is using multiple representation in learning students integrate information from more than one representation (Nieminen, 2010). In the field, students are able to explain, analyze the phenomena heat transfer problem in different representation. For example in learning sea breeze and land breeze, students explain the wind flow from the picture and compare the temperature, pressure in the land and in the sea. Students not only think the wind flow abstractly but also using picture helps student master the concept.

2. N-Gain Scientific Consistency on Sub-Concept

After getting the scientific consistency gain normalized of heat transfer concept, the next calculation is the enhancement of scientific consistency on every sub concept. Based on table 4.3 describes the scientific consistency in sub concept in heat transfer concept. It is consist of conduction, convection,

(47)

radiation, sea breeze, and land breeze with comparing with pretest and posttest, which following on table 4.3

Table 4.3 Scientific Consistency N-Gain on Every Sub Concept

Sub

Concept of Scientific Consistency

Amount of question

N average Gain

N-Gain

Category Pretes

Post test Conduction 9

1.42 5.73 4.3 0.93 High

Convection 9 1.19 5.69 4.5 0.90 High

Radiation 9 4.15 5.9 1.8 0.98 High

Sea breeze 9 2.23 5.53 3.3 0.86 High

Land breeze

9 2.3 5.6 3.3 0.87 High

Based on the result table, the sub concept of scientific consistency consists of 9 questions in every sub concept. The five sub concept involved in this research such as conduction, convection, radiation, sea breeze, and land breeze. Every concept in multiple representations test is about basic concept (picture, verbal, mathematic), application phenomena in daily life (picture, verbal, mathematic), solving problem (picture, verbal, mathematic).

The data result has enhancement of students’ scientific consistency in every sub concept. The average score in post test is higher than average score in pre test. The enhancement can be seen clearly on this graph figure 4.17

(48)

Figure 4.17 Enhancement Average of Scientific Consistency on Every Sub Concept

If we took a look the graph above based on gain normalized shows radiation has highest enhancement of scientific consistency on every sub concept, it is 0.98. Data shows the average score of pre-test on radiation about 4.15 and post test about 5.9. It means student more consistent scientifically than the other sub concept. Unfortunately, the sub concept has lowest enhancement of scientific consistency is sea breeze about 0.86. The second sub concept which has high enhancement of scientific consistency is conduction, it is 0.93. Data shows the average score of pre-test on conduction about 1.42 and post test 5.73. Then the third is convection about 0.90. Data shows the average score of pre-test on convection is 1.19 and post test is 5.69. The sub concept land breeze has low enhancement of scientific consistency is about 0.87.

Convection has significant enhancement pre test and post test average score than radiation. But convection has low gain normalized than radiation. It is due to most of students did not consistent about 1.19 average pre test score. After the implementation of PBL with multiple representations, student has significant enhancement of scientific consistency in post test about 5.69. Student could consistent

1.42

1.19

4.15

2.23 2.3

5.73 5.69 5.9 5.53 _5.6

0.93 0.9 0.98 _0.86 _0.87

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CONDUCTION CONVECTION RADIATION SEA BREEZE LAND BREEZE

e n h a n ce m e n t Av e ra g e Sub Concept

N-Gain Scientific Consistency on

Sub-Concept

PRE TEST POST TEST N-GAIN

(49)

scientifically in verbally, picture, and mathematically. The result is suitable with the statement of Krishnayanti and Sari (2015) stated that there is enhancement of scientific consistency in every sub concept.

The enhancement on every sub concept displays with compare between pre test and post test on picture 4.17. Based on the picture 4.17 the average of scientific consistency is increase on every sub concept, concept which verbal, picture, and mathematics form.

In learning process in convection sub concept, student very enthusiastic to see the flow direction of food coloring, come to hot temperature or cold temperature. Student visualizes direction about the flow then students draw the flow of food coloring on their worksheet. After that they explain on words to emphasize their finding. So, student trained using multiple representations.

While, learning radiation sub concept, student have already had prior knowledge about radiation. When students are given the problem to arrange the sit position in fire camp, student have already known the result before they prove it through simple experiment. Student very corporate when did experiment of radiation, peer group have to hold the tissue at the same time but different distance. So the research result is not significant consistent scientifically.

Every sub concept, teacher guides students in different representations. Student give facilitate to student for learning diverse way by verbally, mathematic, and picture based on lesson plan. Multiple representation trains student able to understand the concept and able to solve physics problem (Krishnayanti, 2015). Student could solve physics problem with various representation. . By “representational skills” we refer to

students’ ability to appropriately interpret and apply various representations can include

mathematics, verbal, graphical, and pictorial formats (Kohl and Noah, 2006). The lesson plan in teaching learning is very important to sustain the implementation of multiple representations. It is attached on instructional appendix. Every PBL step, the multiple representations has been trained to students.

(50)

3. Enhancement The amount of Students in Scientific Consistency Category In Every Sub Theme

Based on the data result, researcher found the amount of students has improvement in scientific consistency. The data like this table bellows:

Table 4.4 Amount of student has enhancement on Scientific Consistency

Sub concept QUESTION INDICATOR AMOUNT OF

STUDENTS ON

PRE-TEST POST TEST

CONDUCTION T1: CONCEPT CONDUCTION 1 23

T2: CONDUCTION APPLICATION 1 24 T3: problem solving of CONDUCTION 2 24

CONVECTION T1: CONCEPT CONVECTION 0 26

T2: CONVECTION APPLICATION 0 23 T3: PROBLEM SOLVING OF CONVECTION 3 24

RADIATION T1: RADIATION CONCEPT 18 25

T2:RADIATION APPLICATION 15 26 T3: problem solving of RADIATION 11 26

SEA BREEZE T1: SEA BREEZE CONCEPT 4 25

T2: APPLICATION MECHANISM OF SEA BREEZE

1 24 T3: SOLVING PROBLEM OF SEA BREEZE 9 24

LAND BREEZE T1: LAND BREEZE CONCEPT 7 25

T2: APPLICATION MECHANISM OF LAND BREEZE

2 25 T3: problem solving of LAND BREEZE 11 23

Amount of students have significant enhancement in every theme. The picture shown none of student is consistent in convection especially on the theme (T1) and theme (T2) about concept convection and convection application. After students given the treatment, most of student is consistent. Amount of student who undergoes the enhancement of scientific consistency in every sub concept shown on these pictures bellow:

(51)

Figure 4.18 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on conduction

Conduction divided into three themes: T1 = concept conduction

T2 = conduction application

T3 = problem solving of conduction

Based on the picture, on pretest there is 1-2 students are consistent in answer the multiple representation test. After did a treatment, most of students 23-24 students who consistent scientifically.

1 1 2

23 24 24

0 10 20 30

TI T2 T3

nu m ber o f st ud ent s

Sub Concept: Conduction

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test post test

0 0 3

23 24

0 10 20 30

T1 T2 T3

a m o un t o f st ud ent s

Sub Concept: Convection

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test post test

(52)

Figure 4.19 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on convection

Convection divided into three themes: T1 = concept convection

T2 = convection application

T3 = problem solving of convection

Based on the picture, on pretest there is 0-3 students are consistent in answer the multiple representation test. After did a treatment, most of students 23-26 students who consistent scientifically.

Figure 4.20 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on Radiation

Radiation divided into three themes: T1 = concept Radiation

T2 = Radiation application

T3 = problem solving of Radiation

25 26 26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T1 T2 T3

a m o un t o f st ud ent s

Sub Concept : Radiation

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test post test

(53)

Based on the picture, on pretest there 11-18 students are consistent in answer the multiple representation test. After treatment, most of students 25-26 students who consistent scientifically.

Figure 4.21 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on sea breeze

Sea breeze divided into three themes: T1 = concept sea breeze

T2 = application mechanism of sea breeze T3 = solving problem of sea breeze

Based on the picture, on pretest there 1-9 students are consistent in answer the multiple representation test. After treatment, most of students 24-25 students who consistent scientifically.

25 25 ₂₄

0 10 20 30

T1 T2 T3

a m o un t o f st ud ent s

Sub Concept : Sea Breeze

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test post test

(54)

Figure 4.22 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on land breeze

Land breeze divided into three themes: T1 = concept land breeze

T2 = application mechanism of land breeze T3 = solving problem of land breeze

Based on the picture, on pretest there 1-9 students are consistent in answer the multiple representations test. After did the treatment, most of students 24-25 students who consistent scientifically.

Resume those of graph; found there is significant enhancement the amount of students on scientific consistency in every theme. We can see in T1 and T2 concept of convection has highest enhancement the value amount of students on scientific consistency, especially on convection concept and convection application.

Before conducting the multiple representation approach in PBL, none of student has consistent to answer in convection concept. After post test, there is all of 26 students has consistent on their answer. It is due to already understand

25 25

23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T1 T2 T3

a m o unt o f st ude nt s

Sub Concept : Land Breeze

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test post test

(55)

about main concept of convection and the application of conduction during learning process. Student has been trained multiple representations during learning activity. The reason of convection has highest scientific consistency is student investigate by themselves to get information the water flow indicated by food coloring using simple experiment. Student draw by themselves to draw the water flow, then students explain the concept verbally regarding convection concept after that they compare the density on hot water and cold water to solve the food coloring flow phenomena. This strategy triggers students to learn and experience various representations.

Mean while, on radiation T1 and T2 there is little bit scientific consistency enhancement of the value amount of students. There is a correlation between the amounts of student with the lowest enhancement in every concept. The lowest enhancement of scientific consistency affects the number of student in scientific consistency. At the beginning, students have already known about the radiation as their prior knowledge, it would be affects the research result. Student have already known all about radiation because the radiation phenomena is very close with them

This research did not train many mathematics representations. Because basically the heat transfer topic did not use equation not like force topic. Heat transfers no need mathematic representation much. So, the implementation of representations should be applied in appropriate topics.

(56)

REFFERENCES

Abdurahman et al., (2013). Implementasi Pembelajaran Berbasis Multirepresentatif Untuk Peningkatan Penguasaan Konsep Fisika Kuantum. Jurnal: Cakrawala

Pendidikan, 1, 1-45.

Ainsworth. (1999) The Function Of Multiplerepresentations. Computers & Education Journal, 33,131-152

Aminudin (2013). Profil konstitensi representasi dan konsistensi ilmiah siswa SMA

pada konsep Gerak. Undergraduate Thesis, Physics Education, Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia: Bandung

Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K. & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun, Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching [Electronic version]. Science Education, 88, 683-706.

Arends, R. (2008). Learning to Teach. New York: McGraw Hill Company. Arikunto, S. (2009). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Arikunto, S. (2013). Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan edisi 2. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara. Bahri, S. (2006). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Cutnell & jhonson (2007). Physics 7th edition. Carbondale: Wiley Asia

Deliana, E.N. (2012). Analisis Kemampuan Multirepresentasi Siswa Dalam

Menjawab Soal Tes Uraian Pada Materi Cermin Lengkung Di SMP.

Undergraduated Thesis, Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung

Eggen, P. (2012). Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Pearson

Fitria, I. (2013). Pengunaan Model Problem Based Learning dengan Multirepresentasi pada Materi Usaha dan Energi di SMA. Jurnal FKIP Utan. Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2009). How To Design and Evaluate Research in

Education, Seventh Edition. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. [Online]. Retrieved

(57)

Hake, R.R. (1999). Analyzing Change/ Gain Scores. Dept. of Physics Indiana University. [Online]. Retrived from http://www.physics.indiana.edu [accessed on July 25, 2015]

Hewitt, P (2010). Conceptual Physics. San Fransisco: Harper Collins

Johnstone, A.H. (2006). Chemical Education Research in Glasgow in Perspective.

Chemical Education and Practice, 7, 75-83.

Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013 Kompetensi Dasar

Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP)/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs).

Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Kohl, P & Noah. (2003). Effects of Representation on Students Solving Physics Problem: A Line-Grained Characterization. Physics Review Special Topics-

Physics Education Research, 2(1), 1-6.

Kohl and Finkelstein (2006). Effects of representations on students solving physics problem: A fine-grained characterization. . Physics Education Research, 2, 1-12

Kohl, Rosengrant, Finkelstein (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physics Education Research, 3, 1-10

Krishnayanti (2015). Penerapan Five Stage Conceptual Teaching Model Untuk

Meningkatkan Konsistensi Ilmiah dan Prestasi Belajar Pada Siswa SMA

Maulidah (2015). the analysis of using physics education technology (phet) as virtual laboratory in learning waves and sounds. Undergraduate Thesis, International Program on Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Bandung Mayer, R. E. (2003). The Promise of Multimedia Learning: Using The Same

Instructional Design Method Across Different Media. Learning and

Instruction, 13, 125-139.

Menteri Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Nomor 81A tahun 2013

Implementasi Kurikulum. Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Ni Made. (2008). Penerapan Model Problem Based Learning Untuk Meningkatkan Partisipasi Belajar Dan Hasil Belajar Teori Akutansi Mahasiswa Jurusan Ekonomi Undiksha. Jurnal Laporan Penelitian, 74-84.

(1)

Amrina Painty Metalinda, 2015

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL WITH MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7TH _{GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT}

TRANSFER CONCEPT

Figure 4.22 Amount of student has scientific consistency enhancement on land breeze

Land breeze divided into three themes: T1 = concept land breeze

T2 = application mechanism of land breeze T3 = solving problem of land breeze

Based on the picture, on pretest there 1-9 students are consistent in answer the multiple representations test. After did the treatment, most of students 24-25 students who consistent scientifically.

25 25

23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T1 T2 T3

a m o unt o f st ude nt s

Sub Concept : Land Breeze

Amount of Student has Enhancement

on Scientific Consistency

pre test

(2)

(3)

Amrina Painty Metalinda, 2015

IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL WITH MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS APPROACH TO ENHANCE 7TH GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY IN LEARNING HEAT TRANSFER CONCEPT

REFFERENCES

Abdurahman et al., (2013). Implementasi Pembelajaran Berbasis Multirepresentatif Untuk Peningkatan Penguasaan Konsep Fisika Kuantum. Jurnal: Cakrawala

Pendidikan, 1, 1-45.

Ainsworth. (1999) The Function Of Multiplerepresentations. Computers & Education Journal, 33,131-152

Aminudin (2013). Profil konstitensi representasi dan konsistensi ilmiah siswa SMA

pada konsep Gerak. Undergraduate Thesis, Physics Education, Universitas

Pendidikan Indonesia: Bandung

Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K. & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful,

but fun, Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching

[Electronic version]. Science Education, 88, 683-706.