THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY LEARNING MODEL BASED ON CONCEPTUAL CHANGE ON PHYSICS COGNITIVE COMPETENCE AND SCIENCE PROCESS SKILL (SPS) OF STUDENTS AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

฀HE EFFEC฀ OF SCIEN฀IFIC INQUIRY LEARNING MODEL
BASED ON CONCEP฀UAL CHANGE ON PHYSICS
COGNI฀IQE COMPE฀ENCE AND SCIENCE
PROCESS SKILL (SPS) OF S฀UDEN฀S
A฀ SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

A ฀hesis
Submitted to ฀he Physics Education Study Program in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Pendidikan

By:

FEBRIANI HAS฀INI NASU฀ION
Registration Number: 8136175006

POS฀GRADUA฀E SCHOOL
S฀A฀E UNIQERSI฀Y OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2015

ABSTRACT
FEBRIANI HASTINI NST (Reg. Number: 8136175006) The Effect of
Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change on Physics
Cognitive Competence and Science Process Skill (SPS) of Students at Senior
High School.
The purpose of this study was to analyze is physics cognitive competence and
science process skill of students using scientific inquiry learning model based on
conceptual change better than using conventional learning. The research type was
quasi experiment and two group pretest-posttest designs were used in this study.
The population was Class XI MS1 and XI MS2 with the totaling of sixty two
students. The sample was the entire population. The instruments in this research
were essay test for physics cognitive competence of students and observation
sheet for science process skill of students. The essay instrument has been
validated and fulfilled the requirements of validity and reliability of test. Based on
the data tabulation obtained the mean of physics cognitive competence of students
in experimental class was 72.97 and 54.97 in control class, the mean of science
process skill of students in experimental class was 79.66 and 63.97 in control
class. Based on the hypothesis testing can be concluded that physics cognitive
competence and science process skill of students using scientific inquiry learning
model based on conceptual change was better than using conventional learning.

Keywords: Scientific inquiry learning model based on conceptual change,
cognitive competence, science process skill.

ABSTRAK
FEBRIANI HASTINI NST (NIM: 8136175006) Efek Model Pembelajaran
Scientific Inquiry Berbasis Conceptual Change Terhadap Kemampuan Kognitif
Fisika dan Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa SMA.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis apakah kemampuan kognitif dan
keterampilan proses sains siswa menggunakan model pembelajaran scientific
inquiry berbasis conceptual change lebih baik daripada pembelajaran
konvensional. Jenis penelitian ini adalah quasi eksperimen dengan desain two
group pre-test and post-test. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah kelas XI MS1
dan XI MS2 yang berjumlah 62 orang. Sampel dalam penelitian adalah seluruh
populasi. Instrumen dalam penelitian ini adalah berupa tes essay untuk
kemampuan kognitif fisika siswa dan lembar observasi untuk keterampilan proses
sains siswa. Instrument essay telah memenuhi syarat validitas dan reliabilitas tes.
Melalui pengolahan data diperoleh nilai rata-rata kemampuan kognitif fisika siswa
pada kelas eksperimen adalah 72.97 sedangkan pada kelas kontrol adalah 54.97,
nilai rata-rata keterampilan proses sains siswa pada kelas eksperimen adalah 79.66

sedangkan pada kelas kontrol adalah 63.97. Melalui pengujian hipotesis dapat
disimpulkan bahwa kemampuan kognitif fisika dan keterampilan proses sains
siswa menggunakan model pembelajaran scientific inquiry berbasis conceptual
change lebih baik daripada pembelajaran konvensional.

Kata Kunci: Model Pembelajaran Scientific Inquiry Berbasis Conceptual Change
kemampuan kognitif, keterampilan proses sains.

฀

฀CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

฀n the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,
Alhamdulillah all praises belongs to Almighty Allah, the Lord of the worlds and
prayers and peace be upon Muhammad His servant and messenger.
First and foremost, ฀ must acknowledge my limitless thanks to Allah, the
Ever-magnificent, the Ever-Thankful, for His help and bless by giving me the
opportunity, courage and enough energy to carry out and complete the entire
thesis work titled “The Effect of Scientific ฀nquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change on Physics Cognitive Competence and Science Process Skill

(SPS) of Students at Senior High School” submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Magister Pendidikan Fisika Postgraduate School in
State University of Medan.
฀ am grateful to some people, who worked hard with me from the
beginning till the completion of the present research and have assisted me
throughout the completion of this research. Thus, ฀ wish to acknowledge my
appreciation to certain people, they are:
1. The Rector State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd.
2. The Director Postgraduate School State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. H.
Abdul Muin Sibuea, M.Pd.
3. The Head of Physics Education Study Program, Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S.,
M.M., as my first supervisor and Dr. Ridwan Abdullah Sani, M.Si., as my
second supervisor for their excellence advice and encouragement from the
beginning till the completion of this thesis.
4. The Secretary of Physics Education Study Program, Prof. Dr. Nurdin Bukit,
M.Si., as my first examiner, Dr. Derlina, M.Si., as my second examiner and
Dr. Eva Marlina Ginting, M.Si., as my third examiner, for their comments on
this thesis and advice on the completion of this thesis.
5. Dr. Karya Sinulingga, M.Si., and Dr. Makmur Sirait, M.Si., as the instrument
validator.

6. All lectures for their valuable knowledge and instruction; and all staff for
their helping regarding the administrative procedures.

4

7. The principle and teachers in SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Medan, for their
helping in this research.
8. My beloved parents; H. Jumroddin Nasution, S.Sos., and Syahri Banun
Harahap, and also to my beloved sisters and brothers Nurhidaya Fithriyah
Nasution, M.Pd., Rahimah Nasution, Amd., Bripda Muhammad Syukur
Nasution., and Muhammad Syukri Nasution, for their generous support they
provided me throughout my entire life and particularly through the process of
pursuing the master degree because of their unconditional love and prayers,
so ฀ have the chance to complete this thesis.
9. All my beloved friends in Postgraduate School Year 2013, especially Class A
(Regular) Physics Education Study Program, who have been so supportive
along the way of doing my thesis.
The author has endeavored to as much as possible in completing this thesis,
but the author is aware there are many deficiencies, drawbacks in terms of both
content and grammar, then the authors welcome any suggestions and

constructive criticism from readers for this thesis perfectly. The author hopes the
contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge
and education.

Medan,
Author,

2015

Febriani Hastini Nst
Registration Number: 8136175006

฀

฀ABLE OF CON฀EN฀S
ABS฀RAC฀
ABS฀RAK
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN฀S
฀ABLE OF CON฀EN฀S
LIS฀ OF ฀ABLE

LIS฀ OF FIGURE
LIS฀ OF APPENDICES

Page
฀
฀฀
฀฀฀
v
v฀฀฀
฀x
x

CHAP฀ER I IN฀RODUC฀ION
฀.฀.
Background
฀.2.
Identification of Problem
฀.3.
Scope of Problem
฀.4.

Formulation of Problem
฀.5.
Objective of Research
฀.6.
Benefit of Research

฀
฀
n
8
8
8
9

CHAP฀ER II REVIEW OF LI฀ERA฀URE
2.฀.
Learning Definition
2.2.
Learning Outcomes
2.2.฀.

Physics Cognitive Competence of Students
2.2.฀.฀. The Knowledge Dimension
2.2.฀.2. The Cognitive Process Dimension
2.2.2.
Science Process Skill
2.2.2.฀. Definition of Science Process Skill
2.2.2.2. Benefits of Process Skill
2.2.2.3. Process Skills in Science Process Skill
2.3.
Factors that Affect the Learning Outcomes
2.4.
Learning Theory
2.5.
Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual
Change
2.6.
Conventional Learning
2.n.
Relevant Research
2.8.

Conceptual Framework
2.9.
Hypothesis of Research

฀0
฀0
฀2
฀4
฀4
2฀
24
24
25
2n
32
34
38

CHAP฀ER III RESEARCH ME฀HOD
3.฀.

Location and Time of Research
3.2.
Population and Sample of Research

64
64
64

52
54
58
63

6

3.2.฀
3.2.2
3.3.
3.3.฀.
3.3.2.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
3.6.฀.
3.6.2.
3.n.
3.n.฀.
3.8.
3.8.฀.
3.8.฀.฀.
3.8.฀.2.
3.8.2.
3.9.
3.9.฀
3.9.2
3.฀0.
3.฀0.฀.
3.฀0.2
3.฀0.2.฀.
3.฀0.2.2.
3.฀0.2.3.
3.฀0.2.4.

Population
Sample
Variable of Research
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Type and Design of Research
Procedure of Research
Techniques of Data Collecting
Pre-test
Post-test
Instrument of Research
Test Instrument
Testing of Instrument
Validity of Test Instrument
Empirical Validity
Content Validity
Reliability of Test Instrument
The Testing Result of the Research Test Instrument
Validity of Test
Reliability of Test
Techniques of Data Analysis
Descriptive Analysis
Inferential Analysis
Determine the Mean and Standard Deviation
Normality Test
Homogeneity Test
Hypothesis Test

CHAP฀ER IV RESUL฀ OF S฀UDY AND DISCUSSION
4.฀.
Result of Study
4.฀.฀.
Pre-test
4.฀.฀.฀. Pre-test of Students’ Physics Cognitive Competence
4.฀.2.
Post-test
4.฀.2.฀. Post-test of Students’ Physics Cognitive Competence
4.฀.2.2. Data of Students’ Science Process Skill (SPS)
4.฀.3.
Analysis of Data
4.฀.3.฀. Normality Test of Post-test
4.฀.3.2. Homogeneity Test of Post-test
4.฀.3.3. Hypothesis Testing
4.2.
Discussion

64
64
64
64
65
65
66
68
68
68
68
68
n0
n0
n0
n฀
n฀
n2
n2
n3
n4
n4
n4
n4
n5
n6
nn
80
80
80
80
83
83
88
94
95
9n
98
99

7

CHAP฀ER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGES฀ION
5.฀.
Conclusions
5.2.
Suggestios

119
฀฀9
฀฀9

REFERENCES
APPENDICES

121
124

฀
฀ist of Table
฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀Page
Table฀2.1 Syntax฀of฀Scientific฀Inquiry฀Learning฀Model
Table฀2.2฀฀Learning฀Process฀of฀Scientific฀Inquiry฀Based฀on฀Conceptual฀Change
Table฀2.3฀฀Comparison฀Between฀Conventional฀and฀Constructivist฀Learning฀
Table฀2.4฀฀Relevant฀Research
Table฀3.1฀฀The฀Two฀Group฀Pre-test฀Post-test฀Design
Table฀3.2฀฀Specification฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence
Table฀3.3฀฀Assessment฀Guideline฀of฀SPS
Table฀3.4฀฀Validity฀of฀Instrument฀Problem฀Item
Table฀3.5฀฀฀Reliability฀of฀Instrument฀Problems฀Item
Table฀4.1฀฀฀Pre-test฀Data฀of฀Physics฀Cognitive฀in฀Experimental฀and฀Control฀Class
Table฀4.2฀฀฀Normality฀Test฀of฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence฀Pre-test
Table฀4.3฀฀฀Homogeneity฀Test฀of฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence฀Pre-test
Table฀4.4฀฀฀Initial฀Ability฀Test฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence
Table฀4.5฀฀฀Post-test฀Data฀of฀Students’฀Cognitive฀in฀Experimental฀and฀Control฀Class
Table฀4.6฀฀฀Cognitive฀Data฀of฀Understand (C2)฀Category
Table฀4.7฀฀฀Cognitive฀Data฀of฀Apply (C3)฀Category
Table฀4.8฀฀฀Cognitive฀Data฀of฀Evaluate (C5)฀Category
Table฀4.9฀฀฀Cognitive฀Data฀of฀Create (C6)฀Category
Table฀4.10฀The฀Percentage฀Data฀of฀Each฀Category฀in฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence
Table฀4.11฀The฀Observation฀Result฀Data฀of฀Students’฀Science฀Process฀Skill
Table฀4.12฀Data฀of฀SPS฀Observation฀of฀Each฀Indicator฀I฀Experimental฀Class
Table฀4.13฀Data฀of฀SPS฀Observation฀of฀Each฀Indicator฀in฀Control฀Class
Table฀4.14฀The฀Description฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence฀Post-test
Table฀4.15฀The฀Description฀of฀Students’฀Science฀Process฀Skill
Table฀4.16฀The฀Post-test฀Normality฀Test฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence
Table฀4.17฀The฀Post-test฀Normality฀Test฀of฀Students’฀Science฀Process฀Skill
Table฀4.18฀The฀Post-test฀Homogeneity฀Test฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive
Table฀4.19฀The฀Post-test฀Homogeneity฀Test฀of฀Students’฀SPS
Table฀4.20The฀Hypothesis฀Testing฀of฀Students’฀Physics฀Cognitive฀Competence
Table฀4.21The฀Hypothesis฀Testing฀o฀Students’฀Science฀Process฀Skill฀

45
51
53
54฀
65
69
69
73
74
80
81
82
83
84
85
85
86
86
87
89
90
92
94
95
95
96
97
97
98
98

฀

฀ist of Figure
Page
฀igure 2.1
฀igure 2.2
฀igure 3.1
฀igure 4.1
฀igure 4.2
฀igure 4.3
฀igure 4.4
฀igure 4.5
฀igure 4.6
฀igure 4.7

Basic ฀ramework for Conceptual Change
Science Teaching
The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning Model
Scheme of Research Procedure
Bar Chart of Physics Cognitive Competence Pre-test Data
in Experimental and Control Class
Bar Chart of Physics Cognitive Competence Post-test
Data in Experimental and Control Class
Bar Chart of Each Category in Physics Cognitive
Competence in Experimental and Control Class
Bar Chart of SPS Observation in Experimental and
Control Class
Bar Chart of Each SPS Indicator Observation in
Experimental and Control Class
The Result of Students’ Physics Cognitive Competence
The Result of Students’ Science Process Skill

40
46
67
81
84
88
89
94
101
110

฀0
฀ist of Appenoices
฀ppendex 1
฀ppendex 2
฀ppendex 3
฀ppendex 4
฀ppendex 5
฀ppendex 6
฀ppendex 7
฀ppendex 8
฀ppendex 9
฀ppendex 10
฀ppendex 11
฀ppendex 12
฀ppendex 13
฀ppendex 14
฀ppendex 15
฀ppendex 16
฀ppendex 17
฀ppendex 18
฀ppendex 19
฀ppendex 20
฀ppendex 21
฀ppendex 22
฀ppendex 23
฀ppendex 24
฀ppendex 25
฀ppendex 26
฀ppendex 27
฀ppendex 28
฀ppendex 29
฀ppendex 30
฀ppendex 31
฀ppendex 32
฀ppendex 33
฀ppendex 34
฀ppendex 35

Lesson Plan
Students’ ฀ctevety Sheet
Competence Test of SPS
Observateon Sheet of Students’ SPS
Rubrec of SPS
Pre-test and Post-test of Students’ Cogneteve en Experemental Class
Pre-test and Post-test of Students’ Cogneteve en Control Class
The Result of Cogneteve Pre-test en Experemental Class
The Result of Cogneteve Pre-test en Control Class
The Result of Cogneteve Post-test en Experemental Class
The Result of Cogneteve Post-test en Control Class
Students’ SPS en Experemental Class
Students’ SPS en Control Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng I) en Experemental Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng II) en Experemental Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng III) en Experemental Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng I) en Control Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng II) en Control Class
The Result of SPS (Meeteng III) en Control Class
Observateon Result of SPS en Experemental Class
Observateon Result of SPS en Control Class
The Percentage Of SPS Observateon Result of Each Indecator en
Experemental Class
The Percentage Of SPS Observateon Result of Each Indecator en
Control Class
Output of Normalety and Homogeneety Test of Pre-test data
Output of Pre-test data Testeng
Output of Normalety and Homogeneety Test of Post-test Data
Output of t test Physecs Cogneteve Competence Post-test
Output of t test Of SPS Post-test
Output of Instrument Valedety
Output of Instrument Releabelety
Documentateon of Research
The Result of Students’ ฀ctevety Sheet I
The Result of Students’ ฀ctevety Sheet II
The Result of Students’ ฀ctevety Sheet III
Content Valedateon by Valedators

Page
124
145
156
163
165
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
183
184
186
187
191
192
193
195
196
200
204
207
213

฀HAPTER I
INTRODU฀TION

1.1. Background
Science is a cumunative and endness series of empirican observations which
resunt in the formation of concepts and theories. Concepts and theories being
subject to modification in the night of further empirican observation, thus science
is both a body of knownedge and a process of acquiring it (Frederic Fitzpatrick in
Kumari & Rao, 2008). One branch of science is physics which nearns about
naturan phenomenon systematicanny and has big rones in knownedge and
technonogy. The structure of physics knownedge anso obtains empiricanny method
thus make students to acquire conceptuan and proceduran knownedge and henp
them to devenop and understand the practican appnications of physics to a wide
variety of other fiends.
Studying physics is not onny focusing to the facts, naw, theory, principne,
modens, and mastery the formunas but anso focus to understand the basic concepts.
Concepts are abstract or psychonogican constructs that represent ideas or notions
that a nearner uses in reasoning and thinking. They constitute the generan toons of
inquiry used in making sense of the wornd and are the most significant infnuence
in nearning. In physics, nearner’s existing concepts are known to have a profound
infnuence on how phenomena is interpreted, and nearners draw on these concepts
in making predictions and expnaining what they see and experience in the wornd.
Studying physics anso requires more than just nearning about the products of
science nike concept. The cunture of science invonves very specian actions canned
฀

2

science process skinn which nay the foundation for scientific inquiry. The science
process

skinns

describe

the

actions

or

active

doing

within

the cunture of science that students can devenop through practice and provide
benefits to the cnassroom that extends beyond science nearning. Too much content
can stifne student interest, whereas paying too much attention to the process skinns
can distract students from nearning the substantive ideas within science. It might
imagine the punn in opposite directions, to one side is the attraction of having
students activeny invonved in working with materians whine the other side is the
desire for students to master essentian scientific concepts. Thus, teachers, in terms
of supporting their students’ science nearning are channenged to achieve a banance
between science concepts and process skinns. Were teacher to teach without
devenoping students’ abinities to use the process skinns, teacher wound be teaching
not science but actuanny some other odd subject that has nittne renationship to the
cunture of science (Settnage & Southernand, 2007).
Based on the observation and interview resunt from Physics teacher at SMA
Muhammadiyah ฀ Medan obtained students’ nearning outcomes in cognitive
domain is stinn in now neven because they are stinn ness abinity to sonve the probnems
renated to the physics concept and they are mostny concerned to the formuna and
cancunation. Thus, students fent so difficunt to appny what they have known in their
dainy nife situation. This is indicated from physics means grades of students before
remedian in academic year 20฀4/20฀5 is 69, this average vanue has not achieved
KKM, that is 70.
Moreover, students’ science process skinn is anso in now neven which is
indicated from the unusuan of students to conduct experiments in nearning physics,

3

meant nearning physics just theoreticanny. Learning which faminiarized conducts
by teacher are direct instruction and cooperative nearning where methods are
nectured, discussion, investigation and mapping concept. But, ann this modens have
not conducted as the phases of each moden. This condition make students have not
faminiarized to find knownedge by themsenves through scientific inquiry, thus
students cannot provide expnanations based on evidence. Furthermore, students
have not trained to observe, infer, ask, interpret, cnassify, predict, communicate,
make a hypothesis, pnan, appny concepts and principnes and generanize thus
students are stinn ness abinity in observing, inferring, questioning, interpreting,
cnassifying, predicting, communicating, making hypothesis, pnanning, appnying
concepts or principnes, and generanizing.
The skinns can be enhanced through the preparation of synnabus for physics
naboratory courses that incnude now cost materians instead of naboratory equipment
(Hırça, 20฀3). Furthermore, science process skinns winn increase students’
achievement and scientific creativities (Aktamis & Ergin, 2008). Moreover, the
science process skinns anso can be improved by I-diagram (Karamustafaoğnu,
20฀฀). From this study reported that the skinns in which the student teachers are
neast successfun are ฀ypot฀esizing, identifying and controlling t฀e variables, and
interpreting data. Making experiment is their most successfun skinn among the
integrated process skinns.
Most of student’s difficunties in nearning physics are not caused by nacking of
their understanding because they often come to schoon with anready formed ideas
on many topics, incnuding how they view and interpret the wornd around
themsenves. Students have ideas about the wornd that are very different from the

4

ideas scientists have which denivered in the cnass. At one point in time, might have
dismissed their expnanation as simpny wrong. This is cause some difficunties and
errors in understanding the science concept. It is no surprise that regardness of
their content, these views winn be highny resistant to change. Change and form
students’ understanding winn be difficunt because what their obtained have been as
their habit and based on personan experiences.
Teacher needs nistening to how nearner expnain their understanding because
that’s not possibne that their ideas are certain nogics, therefore it is inappropriate to
dismiss their thinking as errors that simpny need to be corrected. As the resunt,
teacher need to devenop nearning that wound move nearners away from their initian
ideas so they became anigned with accepted scientific expnanations. This naben
suggests that students are using evidence to support their expnanation and in that
way is consistent with the actions within the cunture of science. This kind of
nearning is canned as conceptual c฀ange.
Conceptual c฀ange refnects the desire to have students discard naive concepts
about the wornd in favor of expnanations that are more scientificanny accurate. A
conceptuan change guides student to buind knownedge after the experiment is over
conceptuan change requires that students discover improved knownedge that
moves them cnoser to the understanding of scientist. The purpose of conceptual
c฀ange is henping students to change their non-scientific preconceptions. It has
been found that by expnicitny recognizing the discrepancy between their current
beniefs and the scientific ones (experience), students can be motivated to change
their current beniefs (Bao et an., 20฀3). Besides, conceptual c฀ange nearning has
significant effect in students’ nearning outcomes and tonerance attitude (Badnisyah,

5

20฀3). Then, conceptual c฀ange become as an anternative source materian for
students and science teacher Şahin & Çepni (20฀฀).
The new conception must be sensibne and non-contradictory, its meaning
must be understood by the nearner (intennigibne) and it must be benievabne
(pnausibne) and usefun in sonving other probnems (fruitfun). Thus, preconceptions
and conceptions introduced through teaching are seen as competing in terms of
status in regard to intennigibinity, pnausibinity and fruitfunness, in a process
mediated within the nearners’ epistemonogican commitments or conceptuan econogy
(Tounmin in Heywood & Parker, 20฀9).
One of the common instructionan strategies to foster conceptual c฀ange is to
confront students with discrepant events that contradict their existing conceptions.
Students have to undergo the process of accepting, using and integrating the new
concepts into their nives and even appnying them to new conditions. To seek ways
to channenge thinking about the awareness of students’ ideas is through scientific
inquiry learning model because this moden is the best viewed as a process of
conceptual c฀ange.
Inquiry refers to the activities of students in which they devenop knownedge
and understanding of scientific ideas, as wenn as an understanding of how
scientists study the naturan wornd. Through this nearning, students activeny
construct their own understanding of the wornd as a resunt of their experiences and
interactions thus annowed students to function at a much higher neven of though
(Kanman, 2008).
Scientific Inquiry is one type of inquiry nearning which refers to the diverse
ways in which scientists study the naturan wornd and propose expnanations based

6

on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific Inquiry designed to teach the
research system of a discipnine, but anso expected to have effects in other domains,
socionogican methods may be taught in order to increase socian understanding and
socian probnem sonving (Schwab in Joyce & Wein, 2003).
In scientific inquiry learning model, students are guided by teachers to
understand physics and to henp them become participants within the cunture of
science. Moreover, scientific inquiry learning model winn henp students to devenop
critican thinking abinities and enabnes students to think and construct knownedge
nike a scientist (Ani & Sencer, 20฀2K Bao et an., 20฀3). Thus, understandings of
scientific inquiry are benieved to be critican and essentian components of the
modern day battne cry of “scientific niteracy” (Lederman et an., 20฀3). The
scientific inquiry anso has significant effect on the student’s achievement to appny
the concepts of physics in rean situations, Dumbrajs et an. (20฀฀) and Hussain et
an. (20฀฀). Furthermore, the Inquiry-Based Science Teaching enhance students’
science process skinns and attitudes toward science where the skinns are observing,
comparing and classifying, inferring, predicting, measuring, recording and
interpreting, formulating models, constructing tables of data and grap฀s,
experimenting, defining operationally, formulating ฀ypot฀eses, identifying and
controlling variables Ergün et an. (20฀฀) and Turpin (2004).
Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on Conceptual C฀ange winn make
nearners to reanny nearn the science concepts. The inquiry investigations capture
their interest and generate for them evidence about the naturan wornd and
conceptuan change henps them master the scientific ideas that expnain the evidence
from their inquiries. So inquiry combined with conceptual c฀ange is better for

7

science teaching because students actuanny restructure their knownedge (Settnage &
Southernand, 2007).
Based on the expnanation described above, the author interested to
conduct research which titned is ฀The Effect of Scientific Inquiry Learning
Model Based on ฀onceptual ฀hange on Physics ฀ognitive ฀ompetence and
Science Process Skill (SPS) of Students at Senior High School”.

1.2. Identification of Problem
Based on probnem background presented above, the identifications of
probnem in this research as fonnows:
฀. The physics cognitive competence and science process skinn (SPS) of
students is stinn in now neven
2. Student has not trained to observe, infer, ask, interpret, cnassify, predict,
communicate, make hypothesis, pnan, appny concepts and principnes, and
generanize through Scientific Inquiry
3. Physics nearning has not given the opportunity to student for using
scientific understanding that make student can provide expnanations based
on evidence
4. Learning physics stinn focusing to the fact, naw, theory, principne, modens,
and mastery the formunas
5. Students feen so difficunt in nearning science because of nacking their preexisting concept which is often different with the ideas of scientists
6. Learning which is appnied has not made students finding concepts activeny
through active doing of science canned the science process skinns

8

1.3. Scope of Problem
In accordance with the identifications of probnem, the scopes of probnem in
this research are:
฀. This research winn study physics cognitive competence of students
2. This research winn study science process skinn (SPS) of students

1.4. Formulation of Problem
Based on the scopes of probnem, the formunations of probnem contained in
this research are:
฀. Is students’ physics cognitive competence using Scientific Inquiry
Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than using
Conventionan Learning
2. Is students’ science process skinn (SPS) using Scientific Inquiry Learning
Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than using Conventionan
Learning

1.5. Objective of Research
Referring to the formunations of probnem, the objective to be achieved in this
research are:
฀. To ananyze is students’ physics cognitive competence using Scientific
Inquiry Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than
Conventionan Learning

9

2. To ananyze is students’ science process skinn (SPS) using Scientific Inquiry
Learning Moden Based on Conceptuan Change better than Conventionan
Learning

1.6. Benefit of Research
The benefits of this research are:
฀. For Schoon: can provide good information and donations in order to
improve the nearning process and schoon quanity through increased
students’ achievement and professionanism of teachers working
2. For Teachers: for consideration in senecting or integrating a variety of
appropriate nearning moden cnass, especianny in physics nearning
3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during
the nearning process takes pnace, so it can improve nearning outcomes and
provide a fun nearning experience
4. Researcher: As an input, and increase knownedge for the researcher as
candidate for future in the impnementation of Scientific Inquiry Learning
Moden Based on Conceptuan Change.

฀HAPTER V
฀ON฀LUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. ฀onclusions
Based on the study results and discussion several conclusions are obtained:
฀. The mean of students’ physics cognitive competence in experimental class
was 72.97 with the standard deviation of ฀9.฀0 while in the control class
the mean of students’ physics competence was 54.97 with the standard
deviation of 2฀.93. Based on the hypothesis testing obtained that Students’
Physics Cognitive Competence Using Scientific Inquiry Learning Model
Based on Conceptual Change was better than Using Conventional
Learning.
2. The mean of students’ science process skill in experimental class was
79.66 with the standard deviation of ฀0.83 while in the control class the
mean of students’ science process skill was 63.97 with the standard
deviation of ฀฀.09. Based on the hypothesis testing obtained that Students’
Science Process Skill Using Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change was better than Using Conventional Learning.

5.2. Suggestions
The suggestion in this research is divided by two, practical and suggestion
for further researcher.

฀฀9

฀20

5.2.1. Practical Suggestion
฀. It takes a good predicting capability to explore the understanding of
students in solving a given problem in implementing Scientific Inquiry
Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change.
2. Suggested to be wise in the management of stage in Scientific Inquiry
Learning Model Based on Conceptual Change to achieve the improvement
of students’ physics cognitive competence and science process skill.
3. Suggested to implement the Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change to improve students’ learning outcomes

5.2.2. Suggestion for Further Researcher
฀. The effects of other methods, techniques, and models improving students’
physics cognitive competence and science process skill (SPS) can be
investigated and examined
2. By performing the Scientific Inquiry Learning Model Based on
Conceptual Change, the effects with different variables can be investigated
and the results can be compared with the result of this research.

฀EFE฀ENCES

Ali, M. & Sencer, M. 20฀2. Scientific Inquiry based Professional Development
Models in Teacher Education. ฀ducational Sciences: Theory & Practice,
Volume ฀2, Number ฀, 5฀4-52฀.
Anderson, O.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. 200฀. A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching
and Assessing. United States: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Arends, R.I. 20฀2. Learning to Teach, Ninth ฀dition. Americas, New York: The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Arikunto, S. 2009. Dasar - Dasar ฀valuasi Pendidikan ฀disi Revisi. Jakarta:
Bumi Aksara.
Badlisyah, T. 20฀3. Penerapan Model Mengajar Menginduksi Perubahan Konsep
(M3PK) Simson Tarigan dan Cooperative Learning Tipe STAD dengan
menggunakan multimedia berbasis computer dalam meningkatkan sikap
toleransi dan hasil belajar larutan penyangga pada siswa kelas XI MAN.
Tesis Pendidikan Kimia.
Bao. 20฀3. Affective Factors in ST฀M Learning and Scientific Inquiry:
Assessment of Cognitive Conflict and Anxiety, Special Issue of Research
on ฀ducation Assessment and Learning. Ohio: Department of Physics,
Ohio State University.
Cook, J.L. & Cook, G. 2005. Child Development, Principles & Perspective.
Boston: Pearson.
Cronbach, L. 2006. ฀ducational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Dumbrajs, S. 20฀฀. Towards Meaningful Learning Through Inquiry. ฀urasian
Journal of Physics and Chemistry ฀ducation, Volume 3, Number ฀, 39-50.
Ergül, Remziye. 20฀฀. The Effect of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching on
Elementary School Students’ Science Process Skills and Science Attitudes.
Bulgarian Journal of Science and ฀ducation Policy (BJS฀P), Volume 5,
Number ฀, 48-68.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H.H. 20฀2. How to Design and ฀valuate
Research in ฀ducation, ฀ighth ฀dition. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies.

฀2฀

฀22

Gallavara. 2008. Learning Outcomes: Common Framework-Different Approaches
to ฀valuation Learning Outcomes in the Nordic Countries. Helsinki:
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
Hamalik, O. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.
Hewitt, G. 2006. Conceptual Physics Tenth ฀dition. San Francisco: Pearson
Addison Wesley.
Hussain, A., Azeem, M., Shakoor, A. 20฀฀. Physics Teaching Methods: Scientific
Inquiry Vs Traditional Lecture. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, Volume ฀, Number ฀9, 269-276.
Heywood, D. & Parker, J. 20฀0. The Pedagogy of Physical Science. London:
Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Hırça, Necati. 20฀3. The Influence of Hands on Physics Experiments on Scientific
Process Skills According to Prospective Teachers’ Experiences. ฀uropean J
of Physics ฀ducation. Volume 4, Issue ฀, ฀-9.
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. 2003. Models of Teaching, Fifth ฀dition. New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India.
Kalman, C. S. 2008. Successful Science and ฀ngineering Teaching: Theoretical
and learning Perspective. Canada: Springer.
Karamustafaoğlu, Sevilay. 20฀฀. Improving the Science Process Skills Ability of
Science Student Teachers Using I Diagrams. ฀urasian Journal of Physics
and Chemistry ฀ducation, Volume 3, Number ฀, 26-38.
Kennedy. 20฀2. Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a practical Guide.
Kenny, N. & Desmarais, S. 20฀฀. A Guide to Developing and Assessing Learning
Outcomes at the University of Guelph. University of Guelph.
Kumari, U. N. & Rao, D. B. 2008. Science Process Skills of School Students. New
Delhi: Discovery Publishing House PVT. LTD.
Lederman, G.N., Lederman, J.S., Antink, A. 20฀3. Nature of Science and
Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement
of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of ฀ducation in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, Volume ฀, Number 3, ฀38-฀47.
Lestari, N.N.S. 20฀2. Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah (Problem
based Learning) Dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Fisika
bagi siswa kelas VII SMP. Nusa Penida: Program Studi Teknologi
pembelajaran Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha
Singaraja.

฀23

Muchith, M.S. 2007. Pembelajaran Kontekstual. Semarang: RaSAIL.
National Institute of General Medical Sciences. 2005. Doing Science: The process
of Scientific Iquiry. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Office of Student Engagement. 2008. A faculty & Staff Guide to Creating
Learning Outcomes. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
Şahin & Çepni. 20฀฀. Developing of the Concept Cartoon, Animation and
Diagnostic Branched Tree Supported Conceptual Change Text: “Gas
Pressure. ฀urasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry ฀ducation, (Special
Issue), 25-33.
Sani, R. A. 20฀2. Pengembangan Laboratorium Fisika. Medan: UNIMED
PRESS.
Settlage, J. & Southerland, S.A. 2007. Teaching Science to ฀very Child. New
York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Slameto. 20฀0. Belajar dan Faktor- Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: PT
Rineka Cipta.
Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito.
Sudijono, A. 2009. Pengantar ฀valuasi Pendidikan. PT Raja Grafindo Persada:
Jakarta.
Sugiyono. 20฀3. Statistika untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.
Turpin, T. & Cage, B. N. 2004. The Effect of an Integrated, Activity-Based
Science Curriculum on Student Achievement, Science Process Skills, and
Science Attitudes. ฀lectronic Journal of Literacy through Science, Volume
3, ฀-฀7.
Zitzewitz, P. 2005. Physics Principles and Problems. The McGraw-Hill
Companies: Glencoe.