Analyzing Students’ Understanding On Urinary System Through Paper And Pencil Test And Concept Map.
ANALYZING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING ON URINARY SYSTEM THROUGH PAPER AND PENCIL TEST AND CONCEPT MAP
Research Paper
Submitted as Requirement to Obtain Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education Study Program
Arranged by: Berliany Nuragnia
1100095
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA
BANDUNG
(2)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
SHEET OF LEGITIMATION
ANALYZING STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE ON URINARY SYSTEM THROUGH PAPER PENCIL TEST AND CONCEPT MAP
By:
Berliany Nuragnia
Approved and Authorized by, Supervisor I
Prof. Dr. Hj. Nuryani Rustaman, M.Pd. NIP.195012311979032029
Supervisor II
Rika Rafikah Agustin, M.Pd. NIP. 198308032012122001
Perceive,
Head of International Program on Science Education Study Program
Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed. NIP.196709191991032001
(3)
ANALYZING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING ON URINARY SYSTEM THROUGH PAPER AND PENCIL TEST AND CONCEPT MAP
Oleh Berliany Nuragnia
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan sebgai syarat untuk memperoleh gelr sarjana pendidikan pada Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam.
©Berliany Nuragnia 2015 Universits Pendidikan Indonesia
Juli 2015
Hak Cipta dilindungi undng undang
Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhnya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang difoto kopi, atau cara lainya tanpa ijin dari penulis.
(4)
(5)
Berliany Nuragnia
International Program on Science Education (IPSE) ABSTRACT
A descriptive study with correlation design about student’s cognitive is carried out to investigate the profile of student’s paper pencil test and concept map in
learning urinary system and the correlation between student’s paper pencil test and concept map as well. A number of eight grade students (n=26) in International school in Bandung was involved as research participants. International school has
been known for their students’ cognitive ability and their curriculum that support
students to be able to integrate their knowledge which related to daily life. The
data of student’s paper pencil test was obtained using objective and subjective test
instrument while student’s concept maps were assessed based on Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubrics. Research findings shows that most of student’s can not solve the problem of applying (C3) question test (42.8%) and the concept of urination process. Generally students were not able to determine the concept and make proportion in making concept map. Student found it difficult to explain the concept of disease in urinary system with their concept map. While there is no
significant correlation between student’s concept map and paper pencil test (Spearman correlation is 0.252). The low relationship between score test and score of concept map is due to the type of knowledge been assessed through paper pencil test was mostly factual and students’ low ability in explaining the concept by making concept map. Thus, type of conept map tasking should be adjust with
students’ ability.
Keywords: Concept map, urinary system, type of knowledge, objective test, cognitive domain
(6)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Analysing Student’s Understanding on Urinary System through Paper Pencil Test and Concept Map
Berliany Nuragnia
International Program on Science Education (IPSE) ABSTRAK
Sebuah penelitian deskriptif dengan desain korelasi dilaksanakan untuk meninvestigasi profil dri peta konsep dan tes kertas dan pensil dalam konsep sistem urin. Beberapa (n=26) siswa kelas delapan disalah satu sekolah internasional di Bandung dilibatkan dalam penelitian ini sebagai sampel. Kertas dan pensil tes data dikumpulkan menggunakan objektif dan subjektif test, sedangkan peta konsep dinilai berdasarkan Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubrics dan peta konsep acuan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa sebagian besar dari siswa kesulitan dalam menyelesaikan soal pada kognitif level 3 (applying) dengan presentase pencapaian hanya 42.8%. Berdasarkan konsep sebagian besar siswa kesulitan untuk menyelesaikan soal mengenai proses urinasi. Sedangkan hasil dari peta konsep siswa menunjukan bahwa sebagian besar siswa kesulitan untuk menentukan kosep dan menghasilkan proposisi dalam membuat pet konsep. Selain itu siwa juga kesulitan dalam menjelaskan konsep penyakit dalam sistem urin menggunakan peta konsep. Tidak ditemukan korelasi yang signifikan antara peta konsep dan kertas dan pensil tes (Spearman correlation= 0.252) disebabkan karena 50% dari soal kertas dan pencil tes adalah factual knowledge. Selin itu siswa masih belum dapat menjelaskn pemahaman mereka dalam peta konsep, oleh karena itu jenis dari penugasn peta konsep harus disesuaikan dengan kemampuan siswa.
(7)
(8)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background
Science teaching has changed from a text-based to an activity based (hands-on) approximation. Since the methodologies used to teach science have changed, the way we assess what students are learning also needs to be modified. . “Authentic” assessments are intended to provide evidence about what students know and can do in a subject matter (Shavelson Lang and Lewin, 1994). There is should be techniques that provide more or less direct measures of students‟ knowledge structures. Techniques, namely, concept maps, probe perceived concept relatedness more directly by having students build graphs or trees and make explicit the nature of the links between concept pairs (Shavelson Lang and Lewin, 1994). Stoddart (2000) selected concept map as assessment tools because the technique could be used with a wide range of content and with students at all grade levels.
Objective test as assessment has its limitation as it mostly only cover lower level of cognitive and high possibility of student to make speculation of answer. In subjective test the limitation is because of its low reliability and validity (Arikunto, 2003). Other than that the quality of responses may be influenced by a variety of factors that have nothing to do with knowledge that being assessed (McClure, Sonak and Suen, 1999). As assessments using objective and subjective test have some limitation, McClure, Sonak and Suen (1999) suggest that assessments based on concept mapping tasks may strike a balance between desired objectivity and sensitivity to the structure of students‟ knowledge.
Remembering the concept is most common way of learning done by students these days. Generally, pupils memorize the content and reproduce the same to pass the examination. In such an environment creative thinking, interest in inquiry activities and other skills for example problem solving skills, cooperative skills cannot be developed among them. To
(9)
help student develop skills like mentioned above Concept Mapping is the right technique to choose (Dahaka, 2012). Ahuja (2013) stated that the process of finding science is more important than the product itself, because the way of exploring the truth and knowledge always given more preference than memorization or gaining knowledge of the accumulated facts. One potential of finding is “concept mapping”. Concept map constructed by a student is interpreted as representing important aspects of the organization of concepts in that student‟s memory or cognitive structure (Shavelson Lang and Lewin, 1994).
Concept mapping method was developed by Joseph Novak‟s research team in early 1970s. As concept map is about finding relation between every concept, meaningful learning is occurred while constructing concept map. Pie, Tamarit and Portero (2011) stated that method of concept map is based on the meaningful learning theory of Ausubel and it assumes that learners construct knowledge, being already influenced by previous knowledge. Because concept map is hierarchical this will help student in processing meaningful learning. When meaningful learning take place there is some change in our cognitive structure, it modify the previous concept and relate it with the new one so the learning remain more time and it can be applied by the student in daily life.
Concept map as have various potential function. According to Novak‟s remarks, we may organize the potential of concept mapping to improve science education into four categories; as a learning strategy, as an instructional strategy, as a strategy for planning curriculum, and as a means of assessing students „understanding of science concepts (McClure, Sonak and Suen, 1999). As concept maps can be used as a knowledge representation tool to reflect relationships that exist between concepts that reside within an individual‟s long-term memory (Lawson and Hershey, 2002). Concept mapping can detect the extent of understanding of concepts and structure of knowledge. Concept maps as evaluative
(10)
3
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
measures are able to reflect differences in the concept and propositional knowledge of students (Ahuja, 2013).
Table1.1 Correlations between Concept Map Scores and Measures of Achievement and Ability
Achievement/Ability Correlation
Essay test on unit 0.69
Stanford Science Achievement Test
0.66
School science grades 0.49 Otis Lennon School Ability Test 0.74
(Anderson & Huang: 1989) As shown in Table 1.1 Several studies show that concept map has strong relation with students‟ cognitive. The use of concept map as potential assessment tools is in line with concept map function as knowledge representation tool (Lawson and Hershey, 2002). In this research correlation between concept map and paper pencil test in learning urinary system is being investigated. Investigation including whether there is significant correlation or not between concept map and students‟ paper pencil test as paper and pencil test is commonly use to assess student understanding. While, according to Arikunto (2013) paper and pencil test that used to assess student mostly limit in lower cognitive level (C1-C3). In this research paper and pencil test that consist of essay (subjective test) and multiple choice (objective test) will be involve higher level of cognitive. As McClure, Sonak and Suen (1999) stated that concept map can balance the objective and subjective test assessment, the profile of student concept map and paper pencil test is also investigated.
Urinary system is one concept that shows how science is integrated and work together to make a system work. In urinary system there is a lot of concept involve that would make student difficult to memorize all concept. Making concept map can help student in organizing the concept of urinary system as concept map has function as knowledge organizing
(11)
tools (Pie, Tamarit and Portero, 2011). Student should be able to identify the relation between every concept in order to know how this concept can work together to function a system.
In learning urinary system there is some integration of concept. Biology is not the only concept that involve in learning urinary system. Some concepts about diffusion and transport active is involving physic concepts. According to Dahaka (2012) concept map shows the relationships among concepts that would help student to find inter-relationships among concepts. Concept map also expected to be able to help student to explore more about this topic using their previous knowledge as concept map underlined theory of meaningful learning.
B. Research Problem
The research problem of this study is “How is The Profile of Student‟s Understnding on Urinary System through Paper Pencil Test and Concept Map?”
C. Research Question
Elaborating the research problem, the research attempts to explore b following questions:
a. How is the profile of students‟ understnding on learning urinary system through paper and pencil test based on its cognitive process and concept?
b. How is the profile of students‟ understnding on learning urinary system through concept map sored based on its leglibility, accuracy, completeness and sophistication?
c. Is there any correlation between student paper pencil test and concept map on learning urinary system?
d. What factor explains the correlation between students‟ pencil paper test and concept map in learning urinary system?
(12)
5
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
D. Limitation of Problem
In order to make the research become more focused, the problem is limited as follow:
a. Students understanding is analyzed through the profile of concept map includes its leglibility, accuracy, completeness and sophistication that scored based on Mullers‟ Classroom Concept Map Rubric. Profiling also include concept of urinary system that used by students in constructing their concept map. Profiling of paper and pencil test was based on its level of cognitive and concept in urinary system.
b. Correlation of paper and pencil test and concept map is analyzed by Spearman Correlation Coeficeient.
E. Research Objective
This research objective is specified as follow:
a. To investigate the profile of student‟s understnding on urinary system through paper and pencil test.
b. To investigate the profile of student‟s understndings on learning urinary system through concept map.
c. To investigate whether there is correlation between student concept map and paper pencil test in learning urinary system.
d. To investigate factors in correlation between student concept map and paper pencil test in learning urinary system.
F. Research Benefit
The result of this study is expected to provide the following benefits: a. For teacher, this research is expected to be a reference for teacher in
using concept map in learning to improve students‟ cognitive and motivation.
b. For students, helping the students to construct the concept of urinary system.
(13)
c. For another researcher, hope this research can be material of study in using concept map for different variable and problem.
G. Organization Structure of Research Paper
In order to get organized structure of paper, this research paper is arranged based on the following organization structure:
1. Chapter I : Introduction
This chapter describes about the background of the research and continue to the problem proposed as well as its limitation. This chapter also explains the aim of the research and also the significance of the research in the same field of study.
2. Chapter II: Literature Review
This chapter explains some literatures and supportive theories of the research. The basic explanation of concept map, the use of concept map in assessment and the concept that is being investigate; urinary system.
3. Chapter III : Methodology
This chapter explains about research procedures, research object, the type of research, how the data are being collected, the instruments used, and the research plot.
4. Chapter IV : Result and Discussion
In this chapter, the interpretation of all of the research data is served. Then the discussion are followed after, it analyses the result of research and its correlation between the result and the theories.
5. Chapter V : Conclusion and Recommendation
This is the last chapter of this research, all of research questions are concluded based on the result. The suggestion that derived from difficulties and obstacles found in this research are shared in recommendation part.
(14)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A. Research Method and Research Design
1. Research Method
The study applied descriptive research method to the use of concept map as assessment tool on urinary system. According to Best, descriptive research is concerned with how or what is exists related to some preceding event that has affected a present condition or event (Cohen et al., 2007). In this research, data was gathered by conducting paper and pencil test and concept map scoring. The score of students’ paper and pencil test and concept map were analysed and used to find the correlation between two variables.
2. Research Design
In this research correlation design is used. According to Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) correlation research involves collecting data to determine whether, and to what degree a relation exist between two or more quantifiable variable.
B. Population and Sample
1. Research Location and Period
The location of this research is International Junior High School in Bandung in the School period of 2014/2015. This school uses English as the formal language of instruction and applies Cambridge Curriculum in combined with National Curriculum and their own curriculum. This school mostly combines Cambridge and National Curriculum for science subject.
2. Population and Sample
The population of this research was all 8th grade students. The samples are 26 students in from 8th grade. The sampling technique that implemented is convenience sampling or accidental sampling. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009) stated that convenience sampling is the process of including whoever happen to be avilable at the time.
(15)
In order to avoid misconception about this research, some operational definition is explained. Those terminologies are explained as follow: 1. Definition of concept map is a visual representation of the
relationships between concepts held by an individual, materials of a lecture, textbook, or laboratory exercise. In conducting learning process, concept map is constructed manually by student in a piece of paper. The score of student’s concept map was gathered as data. Concept map would be scored by Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubric that has four aspect of assessment: legibility, accuracy, completeness and sophistication.
2. Paper and pencil test was constructed by 20 multiple choice question and four essay questions. Multiple choice questions were constructed by cognitive domain C1 until C5 while essay question construct by C3 until C6 cognitive process. Paper and pencil instrument will be testing its validity by expert judgement and ANATES. Essay item test was scored based on the indicator. The score of multiple choice and essay objective test were then combined and use as the data.
3. Cognitive that is being measured in this research involves level of cognitive remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analysing (C4), evaluating (C5) and creating (C6) based on Taxonomy Bloom from Anderson (2001). This competence is measured by using multiple choice and essay question of paper and pencil test.
D. Research Instrument
In this research, instrument is necessary to be used for gaining data. There are two type of instrument that is used in this research. Those instruments are described below.
1. Objective and subjective test is used as an evaluation to measure the students’ cognitive after learning urinary system.
2. Concept map rubric is proposed to determine the score of students’ concept map.
(16)
29
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
3. Guidance of interview is purpose to guide in collecting data through interview.
1. Design of Research Instrument
a. Objective and Subjetive Test Instrument
Objective test is in a form of multiple-choice questions. This objective test is used to see student cognitive after learning urinary system concept. There are six cognitive process that used in multiple-choice and essay questions; there are remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analysing (C4), evaluating (C5) and creating (C6). Multiple choice questions consist of five cognitive domains remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analysing (C4), and evaluating (C5). While essay question consist of four cognitive domains applying (C3), analysing (C4), evaluating (C5), and creating (C6).
All of the test item has been judged by experts and then analysed using ANATES statistical software after tested to 9th grade students. The result of the test items after tried out was used, revised or deleted. The blueprint of objective question before conducting instrument analysis is shown in Table 3.1 and 3.2.
Table 3.1 Blueprint of Multiple Choice Test Items before Validation.
Topic Cognitive Process ∑ %
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Structure 3, 7, 8
13, 14, 21
- - - 6 14.6
Function 1, 4 5, 6, 9, 11
- 36 - 7 17.0
Urination Process
- 12, 18 25 29, 32,
34, 35
- 7 17.0
Urine Formation
- 2, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20
- 33, 37 38 10 24.4
Disease - - 22, 23,
24, 26, 27
28, 30, 31
39, 40, 41
11 26.8
(17)
Topic Cognitive Process ∑ % C3 C4 C5 C6
Structure - - - - 0 0
Function - - - - 0 0
Urination Process - - - 0 0
Urine Formation - 2 3 - 2 50
Disease in Urinary System 1 - - 4 2 50
Sum 1 1 1 1 4 100
After conducting instrument analysis, new blueprint of objective test is gained and used as research instrument. The result of research analysis is attached in appendix. From 41 questions that have been judged and revised 20 questions are used. While for essay item test from four questions, all of them are used and revised. The blue prints of test items after instrument analyses are shown in the Table 3.3 and 3.4.
Table 3.3 Blueprint of Multiple Choice Test Items after Validation.
Topic Cognitive Process ∑ %
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Structure 2,6 8,11 4 20
Function 1 3 2 10
Urination Process 4,17 10, 13 4 20
Urine Formation 5,7,9 18 4 20
Disease in Urinary System
19 12,14 15,16 20 6 30
Sum 3 9 4 3 1 20 100
Table 3.4 Blueprint of Essay Objectives Test Items after Validation.
Topic Cognitive Process ∑ %
C3 C4 C5 C6
Structure - - - - 0 0
Function - - - - 0 0
Urination Process - - - 0 0
Urine Formation - 2 3 - 2 50
Disease in Urinary System 1 - - 4 2 50
Sum 1 1 1 1 4 100
b. Rubric
Rubric scale is used to analyse the concept map that made by the student. This rubric scale will determine whether student is able to make a good concept map or not. The rubric is based on Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubric.
(18)
31
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Table 3.5 Table of Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubric. Legible
easy to read and free of spelling errors No (0-1) Yes (2) Accurate concepts used accurately Many inaccuracies (0-2) A few inaccuracies (3-4) No inaccuracies (5) Complete sufficient number of relevant concepts and relationships
Limited use of concepts /relationship (0-2)
Some use of concepts and/or relationships (3-4) Sufficient number of concepts and relationships (5) Sophisticated finding meaningful connections between relevant concepts Little or none (0-1) Few meaningful connections made (2-4) Some meaningful connections made (5-7) Meaningful and original insights demonstrated (8)
c. Interview Guidance
Interview guidance is used to guide the process of interview while obtaining data. The interview is done after data of concept map and paper pencil test was obtained. The interview was regarding about students impression in constructing concept map and doing paper and pencil test.
2. Instrument Analysis
The objective test instrument is used to measure student’s cognitive. The analysis of instrument will be covers validity, discriminating power, level of difficulty, and reliability.
a. Validity
Validity is defined as the extent to which the instrument measures what it is designed to measure that emphasize on not on the test itself, but on the result (Arikunto, 2003). According to Arikunto (2003) to get valid result of the activity, the instrument that will be used must be valid. The validity that will be used is construct validity. Construct validity is used
(19)
cognitive based on learning objective. To determine the number of validity, it is done with the product moment correlation equation as follows.
∑ [ ∑ ∑ ]
√[ ∑ ∑ ][ ∑ ∑ ]
Where,
rxy = items correlation coefficient.
∑ = sum of total score of all student for each question’s item. ∑ =sum of total scoreof all students for whole test.
Y = total score of each student. X = items scores.
N = amount of subject.
(Arikunto, 2003) Table 3.6 Validity Interpretation
Correlation Coefficient Validity Criteria 0,80 < r ≤ 1,00 Very high 0,60 < r ≤ 0,80 High 0,40 < r ≤ 0,60 Enough 0,20 < r ≤ 0,40 Low 0,00 ≤ r ≤ 0,20 Very low
(Minium, et.al., 1993) b. Reliability
Reliability is a measurement, which stated about consistence of the measurement tools that used. Reliability is defined as the extent to which an instrument produce the same result on repeated trials. Reliability tends to a definition about trust instrument that is used as collecting data tools. To define the reliability of objective test, alpha formula will be used as a formula because the question using multiple question (Arikunto, 2003)..
22 11 1 1 i i n n r
(20)
33
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Where,
r11 : Instrument reliability n : Amount of question
2i
: Amount of variant score in each item 2i
: Varian total
(Arikunto, 2003) Table 3.7 Reliability Interpretation
Correlation Coefficient
Reliability Criteria 0,80 < r ≤ 1,00 Very high 0,60 < r ≤ 0,80 High 0,40 < r ≤ 0,60 Enough 0,20 < r ≤ 0,40 Low 0,00 ≤ r ≤ 0,20 Very low
(Arikunto, 2003) c. Difficulty Level
Too much difficult question will not good for student because it can make student depressed and do not motivated to solve the problem. The good question is the question that has easy, medium and difficult item on it.
To show the difficulty level of the question, difficulty index can be used to show the difficulty level of question. The range of level of difficulty is from 0,00 to 1,00. The lower the index then the question is more difficult and vice versa. To find out the difficulty index the formula that is used is shown below:
JS B P Where,
P =Difficulty index
B =Number of students who answer the question correctly JS = Number of all students who join the test
(21)
Value Criteria 0 – 0,29 Difficult
0,30- 0,69 Middle
0,70 - 1,00 Easy
(Arikunto, 2003) d. Discriminating power
Decimating power is define as ability of particular question to distinguish student who classified as higher achiever and lower achiever the amount of higher achievement student compared to lower achievement student means that those question have positive discriminating power index (Arikunto, 2003). Discriminating power index show the scale from minus one until positive one, with the negative one represent the lower discriminating power index. The formula is represented below.
Where:
DP= discriminating power
Ba= the number of upper group that answer correctly Ja= total of student in upper group
Bb= the number of upper group that answer incorrectly Jb= total of student in lower group
(Arikunto, 2003) Table 3.9 Classification of Discriminating Power
D Classification
0,00 – 0,20 Poor
0,21 – 0,40 Satisfactory
0,41 – 0,70 Good
0,71 – 1,00 Excellent
(Arikunto, 2003) e. Distractor
In multiple choice item tests, there is one right answer and the other option is wrong answer. This wrong answer is made
(22)
35
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
to make student attract to that option. In determining whether the distractor is good or no, we use this formula.
(Arikunto, 2003) The summary of all instrument data analysis is displayed in Table 3.10.
Table 3.10 Summary of Instrument Data Analysis Result MULTIPLE CHOICE OBJECTIVE TEST
No New Number Discriminating Power (%) Difficulty Index Validity Decision Value Significant
1 1 0.00 Medium 0.244 - Used with
revision
2 -28.57 Medium -0.033 -
3 2 14.29 Easy 0.216 - Used with
revision
4 00.00 Very easy -0.007 -
5 14.29 Very easy 0.213 -
6 -14.29 Medium 0.124 -
7 3 14.29 Very easy 0.161 - Used with
revision
8 00.00 Very easy NAN NAN
9 14.29 Easy 0.255 -
10 -14.29 Difficult -0.223 -
11 4 14.29 Very easy 0.296 Significant Used
12 5 42.86 Medium 0.311 Significant Used
13 8 57.14 Medium 0.493 Very
Significant Used
14 -14.29 Very
difficult -0.236 -
15 9 28.57 Very Easy 0.456 Very
Significant Used
16 6 28.57 Very Easy 0.296 Significant Used
17 7 28.57 Very Easy 0.362 Very
Significant used
18 10 14.29 Very Easy 0.161 - Used with
revision
19 14.29 Easy 0.238 -
20 28.57 Difficult 0.077 -
21 11 57.14 Very easy 0.568 Very
significant Used
22 57.14 Easy 0.542 Very
(23)
Number Power (%) Index Value Significant
23 0.00 Medium -0.221 -
24 12 42.86 Easy 0.326 Significant Used
25 13 14.29 Very
difficult 0.384
Very
significant Used
26 14 57.14 Medium 0.421 Very
significant Used
27 42.86 Easy 0.312 Significant
28 15 85.71 Medium 0.528 Very
significant Used
29 28.57 Difficult -0.040 -
30 16 57.14 Medium 0.548 Very
significant Used
31 100.00 Medium 0.714 Very
significant
32 17 28.57 Very easy 0.290 Significant Used
33 71.43 Medium 0.573 Very
significant
34 18 14.29 Medium 0.293 Significant Used
35 -42.86 Medium -0.351 -
36 19 42.86 Medium 0.330 Significant Used
37 57.14 Medium 0.516 Very
significant
38 42.86 Easy 0.409 Very
significant
39 20 57.14 Easy 0.542 Very
significant Used
40 -14.29 Medium 0.049 -
41 28.57 Medium 0.129 -
ESSAY OBJECTIVE TEST No New
Number Discriminating Power (%) Difficulty Index Validity Decision Value Significant
1 1 83.33 Medium 0.797 Very
significant Used
2 2 50.00 Medium 0.808 Very
significant Used
3 3 12.50 Medium 0.325 - Used with
revision
4 4 5.56 Medium 0.000 - Used with
(24)
37
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
E. Data Analysis
In this research the data is processed in quantitatively and supported by qualitative data. Quantitative data processing is used for measuring both students’ paper pencil and concept map.
1. Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis is done by Microsoft excel and SPSS calculation, in order to determine the score of pre-test and post-test. Then the result of the data will be processes as the following explanation.
a. Scoring test items
The first step to process data is scoring the test items. The test items are provided in the 20 number of multiple choice questions and four essay questions. The result will be scored, and the scores were processed using Microsoft excel. . Full score of multiple choice will be 20 while essay 30. To determine the final score of objective test as follow.
b. Scoring Concept Map
The second step is to process the scoring of student’s concept map. Student’s concept map is cored based on Mueller’s Classroom Concept Map Rubric. The scoring aspect is about the legibility, accuracy of concept used, the completeness of concept and the relation between every concept. The scores are processed using SPSS statistic 19.
c. Normality Test
Normality test is use to know whether the sample comes from population that has normal distribution or not (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). In this research, Normality test is used statistic test from SPSS 19 with significance level (α) is 0,05.
(25)
Determining the correlation coefficient is needed to analyse whether or not there is correlation between students’ paper pencil test and concept map. The analysing process is using non parametric statistic Spearman rank correlation. According to Simon and Goes (2011) Spearman rank correlation can be use to analyse the data that has less than 30 samples. Spearman rank correlation is used if the data at least one variable is an ordinal data (Gay, Mills and Airasian: 2009). According to Simon and Goes (2011) the formula of Spearman rank correlation is:
∑ Where,
rs = spearman coeficient
di =difference in the ranks given to the two variable values
n = amount of data
(Simon and Goes, 2011) The spearman coefficient then will be interpreted to identify whether or not there is correlation between two variables. One way to interpret the correlation coeficient is shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Interpreting Correlation Coefficient Chart.
Coeficient Relation between
variable
Between +.35 and -.35 Weak or none
Between +.35 and +.65 or between .35 and -.65
Moderate
Between +.65 and 1.00 or between 1.00 and -.65
Strong
(Gay, Mills and Airasian: 2009) Based on figure below, there are three types of association pattern; linear curvilinear and uncorrelated. The linear relation classified into two type’s negative and positive linear relation. Positive linear relation is the
(26)
39
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
relationship of score where the low (or high) the score on one variable relate to how low (or high) score on the other variable (Creswell, 2007).
Figure 3.1 Pattern of Association Between Two Variables. (Source: aqq.auburn.edu)
Creswell (2007) stated that a curvilinear distribution shows increase, plateau, and decline in Y- axis variable with increasing in x– axis variable or increase, plateau, and decline in Y- axis variable with increasing in – axis variable decrease, plateau, and increase in Y- axis variable with increasing in X– axis variable. While no correlation relationship shows the distribution of variables that independent each other. A particular score in one variable does not predict or tells us any information about the possible score on the other variable.
F. Research Procedure
There are three stages of procedure consist of preparation stage, implementation stage and completion stage. Those three stages will be explained as follow.
(27)
In this stage researcher prepare everything that will be needed for the implementation of this research. In this stage, the researcher conduct several stages that support the research, the steps will be explained as follow:
a. Conducting literature study.
This part is an initial step that conducted to gain actual information related to the theories and research problem. These data can be taking from compatible resources, such as the latest book, journal, articles, etc.
b. Choose the topic for implementing research. c. Analysing the concept.
d. Conducting prior study.
It can be done by examining schools’ archived file about students achievement in science subject and observe how the lesson conducts in the classroom.
e. Determine the research sample. f. Construct and justify the instrument. 2. Implementation Stage
a. Administration the instrument. b. Take data of student concept map. c. Conducting objective test.
d. Scoring the data of student’s paper pencil test and concept map. 3. Completion stage
a. Data analysis. b. Draw conclusion.
c. Give suggestion for further research. d. Consult it with the lecture.
(28)
41
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
(29)
REFERENCES
Ahuja, A. (2013). Concept Mapping as an Effective Teaching Practice in Science in Education. An International Journal of Educational Technology. 3 (1), 27-32. [Online]. Retrieved from http://jiw.indianjournals.com/. [Accessed on September 18, 2013].
Alonso, J., & Araya, C. (2008). Concept Mapping as an Assessment Tool in Higher Education Activities. [Online]. Retrieved from http://cmc.ihmc.us/. [ Accessed on June 29, 2015].
Anderson, L. W., et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. United States: Addison Wesley longman.
Anderson, T.H., & Huang, S-C.C. (1989). On Using Concept Maps To Assess The Comprehension Effects of Reading Expository Text. [Online]. Retrieved from www.ideals.illinois.edu. [Accessed on June 29, 2015].
Arikunto, S. (2003). Dasar- Dasar Evaluating Pendelikon. Bandung: Bumi Aksara.
Asan, A. (2007). Concept Mapping in Science Class: A Case Study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (1), 186-195. [Online]. Retrieve from http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/17.pdf. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Chiou, C.C. (2008). The Effect of Concept Mapping on Students’ Learning
Achievements and Interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45 (4), 375-387. [Online]. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ813831. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Cohen et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge Taylor
and Francis Group. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://knowledgeportal.pakteachers.org [Accessed on October 17, 2014]. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson Education.
Dahaka, A. (2012). Concept Mapping : Effective Tool in Biology Teaching. Technical and Non- Technical International Journal. 3 (6), 225-230. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.vsrdjournals.com [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Demirci N. (2007). Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perspective of Different Types of Exams: Multiple Choice, Essay and Computerized-type Testing. [Online]. Retrieved from www.usca.edu. [Accessed on June 29, 2015].
(30)
78
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Douquia A. and Narod F. B. (2009). Study on the Use of Concept Map in Teaching of ‘Chemical Periodicity’ at Upper Secondary Level. Chemistry Education in ICT Age.161-184. [Online]. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.id. [Accessed on June 28, 2015].
Gay L. R., Mills G. E., & Airasian P. (2009). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application. New Jersey: Perason Education.
Ghasemi A. and Zahediasl S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 10(2), 486-289. [Online]. Retrieved endometabol.com . [Accessed on June 30, 2015].
Hauke J. and Kossowski T, (2011). Comparison of Values of Pearson’s and
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients on The Same Sets of Data. [Online]. Retrieved geoinfo.uma.edu.pl. [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Jacobsen D. A. and Eggen P. (2009). Methods for Teaching. Boston: Pearson Education.
Jacobs-Lawson, J.M., & Hershey, D.A. (2002). Concept maps as an assessment tool in psychology courses. Methods & Techniques, 29(1), 25–29. [Online]. Retrieved from http://top.sagepub.com/content/29/1/25.short. [Accessed on November 22, 2013].
Jennings D. (2012). The Use of Concept Maps for Assessment. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0040.pdf. [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Keller, J. (2000). How to Integrate Learner Motivation Planning Into Lesson Planning: The ARCS Model Approach. [Online]. Retrieved from http://apps.fischlerschool.nova.edu. [Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013: Kompetensi Dasar Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Smp)/ Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Mts). Jakarta: Kemdikbud.
Kiliç, M. And Çakmak, M. (2013). Concept Maps as a Tool for Meaningful Learning and Teaching in Chemistry Education. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 4 (4), 152-164. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ijonte.org/. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Makokha A. and Ongwae M. (1997). Trainer’s Handbook- a 14 Days Teaching Methodology Course. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.nzdl.org/. [Accessed on June 27, 2015].
(31)
McClure J. R., Sonak B. and Suen H.K. (1999). Concept Map Assessment of Classroom Learning: Reliability, Validity, and Logistical Practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 36 (4), 475–492. [Online]. Retrieved from http://suen.educ.psu.edu/~hsuen/pubs/conceptmap99.pdf [Accessed on June 09, 2014].
Minium, E., King, B. M., & Bear, G. (1993). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education. Canada: John Wiley & Son.
Neville V., Bennett S. & Lockyer L. (2009). Teacher Education Students' Use of Concept Maps As Cognitive Tools Within Assessment. [Online]. HERDSA 2009 Conference. 6-9 July 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ipsepress.org/. Novak, J. D. (2008). Concept Map. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnd erlyingConceptMaps.htm. [Accessed on September 04, 2014].
Novak, J. D. and Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. [Online]. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/. [Accessed on September 4, 2013].
Piá, A.B., Blasco-Tamarit, E., & Muñoz-Portero, M.J. (2011). Different applications of concept maps in Higher Education. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(1), 81-102. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.jiem.org/ . [Accessed on September 18, 2013].
Pickard, M. J. (2007). The New Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview for Family
and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education. 25(1), 45-55. [Online]. Retrieved from http://uncw.edu/cas/documents/PickardNewBloomsTaxonomy.pdf.
[Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Poulsen, A., et al. (2008). ARCS Model of Motivational Design. [Online]. Retrieved from http://torreytrust.com/images/ITH_Trust.pdf. [Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Priadi A. (2009). Biology 2 for Senior High School. Jakarta: Yudistira.
Reece, J. B., et al. (2012). Campbell Biology. San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Ruíz-Primo, M. (2000). On The Use of Concept Maps As an Assessment Tool in Science: What We Have Learned So Far. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa. 2 (1), 30-52. [Online]. Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/index.php/redie/article/viewFile/16/29. [Accessed on June 9, 2015].
(32)
80
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Schunk D. H. (2012). Learning Theory an education perspective. Boston: Pearson Education.
Shavelson R. J., Lang H. and Lewin B. (1994). On Concept Maps as Potential
“Authentic” Assessments in Science. .[Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH388.pdf. [Accessed on June 09, 2014].
Simon M. K. and Goes J. (2011). Correlational Research. [Online]. Retrieved from www.dissertationrecipes.com. [Accessed on June 06, 2015].
Stoddart T. et al. (2000). Concept Maps as Assessment in Science Inquiry Learning - A Report of Methodology. The International Journal of Science Education. 22 (12), 1221-1246. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net. [Accessed on June 9, 2015].
Sumarwan, et al. (2010). Science for Junior High School. Jakarta: Erlangga. Tavares R. (2010). Concept Map Under Modified Bloom Taxonomy Analysis.
Concept Maps: Making Learning Meaningful. 34-39. [Online]. Retrieved from http://cmc.ihmc.us/.[Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Taylor-Powell E. and Steele S. (1996). Collecting Evaluation Data: Direct Observation. [Online]. Retrieved from learningstore.uwex.edu. [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Villalon, J., & Calvo, R. A. (2011). Concept Maps as Cognitive Visualizations of Writing Assignments. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (3), 16–27. [Online]. Retrieved http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_3/3.pdf . [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
(1)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Analyzing Students’ Understanding On Urinary System Through Paper And Pencil Test And Concept Map
In this stage researcher prepare everything that will be needed for the implementation of this research. In this stage, the researcher conduct several stages that support the research, the steps will be explained as follow:
a. Conducting literature study.
This part is an initial step that conducted to gain actual information related to the theories and research problem. These data can be taking from compatible resources, such as the latest book, journal, articles, etc.
b. Choose the topic for implementing research. c. Analysing the concept.
d. Conducting prior study.
It can be done by examining schools’ archived file about
students achievement in science subject and observe how the lesson conducts in the classroom.
e. Determine the research sample. f. Construct and justify the instrument.
2. Implementation Stage
a. Administration the instrument. b. Take data of student concept map. c. Conducting objective test.
d. Scoring the data of student’s paper pencil test and concept map.
3. Completion stage
a. Data analysis. b. Draw conclusion.
c. Give suggestion for further research. d. Consult it with the lecture.
(2)
(3)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Analyzing Students’ Understanding On Urinary System Through Paper And Pencil Test And Concept Map
REFERENCES
Ahuja, A. (2013). Concept Mapping as an Effective Teaching Practice in Science in Education. An International Journal of Educational Technology. 3 (1), 27-32. [Online]. Retrieved from http://jiw.indianjournals.com/. [Accessed on September 18, 2013].
Alonso, J., & Araya, C. (2008). Concept Mapping as an Assessment Tool in
Higher Education Activities. [Online]. Retrieved from http://cmc.ihmc.us/. [
Accessed on June 29, 2015].
Anderson, L. W., et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and
Assessing. United States: Addison Wesley longman.
Anderson, T.H., & Huang, S-C.C. (1989). On Using Concept Maps To Assess The
Comprehension Effects of Reading Expository Text. [Online]. Retrieved
from www.ideals.illinois.edu. [Accessed on June 29, 2015].
Arikunto, S. (2003). Dasar- Dasar Evaluating Pendelikon. Bandung: Bumi Aksara.
Asan, A. (2007). Concept Mapping in Science Class: A Case Study of fifth grade students. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (1), 186-195. [Online]. Retrieve from http://ifets.info/journals/10_1/17.pdf. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Chiou, C.C. (2008). The Effect of Concept Mapping on Students’ Learning
Achievements and Interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International. 45 (4), 375-387. [Online]. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ813831. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Cohen et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge Taylor
and Francis Group. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://knowledgeportal.pakteachers.org [Accessed on October 17, 2014]. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson Education.
Dahaka, A. (2012). Concept Mapping : Effective Tool in Biology Teaching.
Technical and Non- Technical International Journal. 3 (6), 225-230.
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.vsrdjournals.com [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Demirci N. (2007). Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perspective of Different Types of Exams: Multiple Choice, Essay and Computerized-type Testing. [Online].
(4)
Douquia A. and Narod F. B. (2009). Study on the Use of Concept Map in Teaching of ‘Chemical Periodicity’ at Upper Secondary Level. Chemistry Education in ICT Age.161-184. [Online]. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.id. [Accessed on June 28, 2015].
Gay L. R., Mills G. E., & Airasian P. (2009). Educational Research Competencies
for Analysis and Application. New Jersey: Perason Education.
Ghasemi A. and Zahediasl S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 10(2), 486-289. [Online]. Retrieved endometabol.com . [Accessed on June 30, 2015].
Hauke J. and Kossowski T, (2011). Comparison of Values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients on The Same Sets of Data. [Online]. Retrieved geoinfo.uma.edu.pl. [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Jacobsen D. A. and Eggen P. (2009). Methods for Teaching. Boston: Pearson Education.
Jacobs-Lawson, J.M., & Hershey, D.A. (2002). Concept maps as an assessment tool in psychology courses. Methods & Techniques, 29(1), 25–29. [Online]. Retrieved from http://top.sagepub.com/content/29/1/25.short. [Accessed on November 22, 2013].
Jennings D. (2012). The Use of Concept Maps for Assessment. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0040.pdf. [Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Keller, J. (2000). How to Integrate Learner Motivation Planning Into Lesson
Planning: The ARCS Model Approach. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://apps.fischlerschool.nova.edu. [Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013: Kompetensi
Dasar Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Smp)/ Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Mts).
Jakarta: Kemdikbud.
Kiliç, M. And Çakmak, M. (2013). Concept Maps as a Tool for Meaningful Learning and Teaching in Chemistry Education. International Journal on
New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 4 (4), 152-164. [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.ijonte.org/. [Accessed on September 8, 2014].
Makokha A. and Ongwae M. (1997). Trainer’s Handbook- a 14 Days Teaching Methodology Course. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.nzdl.org/.
(5)
Berliany Nuragnia, 2015
Analyzing Students’ Understanding On Urinary System Through Paper And Pencil Test And Concept Map
McClure J. R., Sonak B. and Suen H.K. (1999). Concept Map Assessment of Classroom Learning: Reliability, Validity, and Logistical Practicality.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 36 (4), 475–492. [Online]. Retrieved from http://suen.educ.psu.edu/~hsuen/pubs/conceptmap99.pdf [Accessed on June 09, 2014].
Minium, E., King, B. M., & Bear, G. (1993). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology
and Education. Canada: John Wiley & Son.
Neville V., Bennett S. & Lockyer L. (2009). Teacher Education Students' Use of Concept Maps As Cognitive Tools Within Assessment. [Online]. HERDSA 2009 Conference. 6-9 July 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ipsepress.org/. Novak, J. D. (2008). Concept Map. [Online]. Retrieved from:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryCmaps/TheoryUnd erlyingConceptMaps.htm. [Accessed on September 04, 2014].
Novak, J. D. and Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and
How to Construct and Use Them. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://cmap.ihmc.us/. [Accessed on September 4, 2013].
Piá, A.B., Blasco-Tamarit, E., & Muñoz-Portero, M.J. (2011). Different applications of concept maps in Higher Education. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, 4(1), 81-102. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.jiem.org/ . [Accessed on September 18, 2013].
Pickard, M. J. (2007). The New Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview for Family
and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences
Education. 25(1), 45-55. [Online]. Retrieved from http://uncw.edu/cas/documents/PickardNewBloomsTaxonomy.pdf.
[Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Poulsen, A., et al. (2008). ARCS Model of Motivational Design. [Online]. Retrieved from http://torreytrust.com/images/ITH_Trust.pdf. [Accessed on October 18, 2014].
Priadi A. (2009). Biology 2 for Senior High School. Jakarta: Yudistira.
Reece, J. B., et al. (2012). Campbell Biology. San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Ruíz-Primo, M. (2000). On The Use of Concept Maps As an Assessment Tool in Science: What We Have Learned So Far. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación Educativa. 2 (1), 30-52. [Online]. Retrieved from
http://redie.uabc.mx/index.php/redie/article/viewFile/16/29. [Accessed on June 9, 2015].
(6)
Schunk D. H. (2012). Learning Theory an education perspective. Boston: Pearson Education.
Shavelson R. J., Lang H. and Lewin B. (1994). On Concept Maps as Potential
“Authentic” Assessments in Science. .[Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TECH388.pdf. [Accessed on June 09, 2014].
Simon M. K. and Goes J. (2011). Correlational Research. [Online]. Retrieved from www.dissertationrecipes.com. [Accessed on June 06, 2015].
Stoddart T. et al. (2000). Concept Maps as Assessment in Science Inquiry Learning - A Report of Methodology. The International Journal of Science
Education. 22 (12), 1221-1246. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net. [Accessed on June 9, 2015].
Sumarwan, et al. (2010). Science for Junior High School. Jakarta: Erlangga. Tavares R. (2010). Concept Map Under Modified Bloom Taxonomy Analysis.
Concept Maps: Making Learning Meaningful. 34-39. [Online]. Retrieved
from http://cmc.ihmc.us/.[Accessed on May 31, 2015].
Taylor-Powell E. and Steele S. (1996). Collecting Evaluation Data: Direct
Observation. [Online]. Retrieved from learningstore.uwex.edu. [Accessed
on May 31, 2015].
Villalon, J., & Calvo, R. A. (2011). Concept Maps as Cognitive Visualizations of Writing Assignments. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (3), 16–27. [Online]. Retrieved http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_3/3.pdf . [Accessed on May 31, 2015].