EFFECTIVENESS OF 5E LEARNING CYCLE IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY KELAS X SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN.
EFFECTIVENESS OF 5E LEARNING CYCLE MODEL
IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY KELAS X
SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN
By:
Carolina Nainggolan
409322001
Physics Bilingual Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to fulfill requirement for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2013
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer. For His help in writer life, hopefully God Blessing will
abundant.
This thesis which titled is “Effectiveness of 5e Learning Cycle in Dynamic
Electricity for Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan. Thank you so much to Drs.
Eidi Sihombing,M.S as thesis supervisor who has guide and give suggestion to
writer from initial research until finished this research. Thank you so much also to
Prof.Dr.Sahyar,M.S.,M.M, Drs.Rahmatsyah,M.Si,and Drs.Abdul Hakim,M.Si
who have gave critics and suggestions to writer. Thank you so much to Drs.Juniar
Huthaean, M.Si as academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan
Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan and to all Mr.
and Mrs. Lecturer and staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of
Medan who have encouraged writer.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Ronaulina Sibarani and Beloved father
Polman Nainggolan for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special thank you
for my love my brother Dindo Armando Nainggolan and Tedy Setiadi Nainggolan
and all my family.
Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in Boarding House (for Kak
Enny Pratiwi Munthe, Kak Indah Panjaitan, Kak Trivai Ningsih, Kak Lista
Lumban Raja, Kak Christina Panjaitan, Elly Sihombing and Bang Morris) for all
of your support to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot to Padus IKBKF. My
memories will never die with you. You always in my heart
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009.Astrid Pasadena Harahap,
Agnesia M Damanik, Avolen B Siahaan, Debora Betty Sitanggang, Dewi Sari
Situmorang, Evi Valentina Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk,Gita Ravhani Anugrah
Bangun,Hanna Monika Hutabarat,Henrico Hutabarat,Janiar S Gultom,Jefri S
Waruwu, Lucius Marbun, Mas Andi Marbun, Prety T.M.Ambarita, Rani SN.
v
Damanik, Ribka M Tambunan, , Rika Yulia Fitri, Riris M. Rumahorbo, Rita
Situmorang and Tionar Mellisa Malau. I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused
by my literature or knowledge. That’s why, author hope constructivism’s advice
and suggestion in order to make this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, July 2013
Carolina Nainggolan
ID. Number: 409322001
vi
CONTENT
Page
Validation Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Content
vi
Figure List
ix
Table List
x
Appendix List
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
1
1.2.
Problem Identification
4
1.3.
Limitation Problem
4
1.4.
Formulation of Problem
4
1.5.
Objective of Research
5
1.6.
Benefit of Research
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW REFERENCESS
2.1.
Theoretical Review
6
2.1.1.
Learning Definition
6
2.1.2.
Learning Outcomes
6
2.1.3.
Effectiveness
9
2.1.4.
Learning Theory of Constructivism
11
2.1.5.
5E Learning Cycle
12
2.1.6.
Direct Instruction Learning Model
17
vii
2.2.
Learning Material
18
2.2.1.
Electric Current
18
2.2.2.
Measuring the Electric Current and Voltage
18
2.2.3.
The Ohm’s Law and Electric Resistance
20
2.2.4.
Series and Parallel Resistance Circuit
22
2.2.5.
Kirchhoff First Law
24
2.3.
Relevant Research
25
2.4.
Framework Conceptual
26
2.5.
Hypothesis
27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1.
Time and Place of Research
28
3.2.
Population and Sample Research
28
3.2.1.
Population
28
3.2.2.
Sample
28
3.3.
Variable of Research
28
3.3.1.
Independent Variable
28
3.3.2.
Dependent Variable
28
3.4.
Method and Design of Research
29
3.4.1.
Method of Research
29
3.4.2.
Design of Research
29
3.5.
Research Procedure
30
3.6.
Techniques of Data Collecting
32
3.6.1.
Pre-test
32
3.6.2.
Post-test
32
3.7.
Instrument of Research
32
3.7.1.
First Instrument Cognitive Domain
32
3.7.2.
Non-test Instrument
34
3.8.
Technique of Data Analysis
36
3.8.1.
Determine the Mean
36
3.8.2.
Determine the Standard Deviation
37
viii
3.8.3.
Normality Test
37
3.8.4.
Homogeneity Test
38
3.8.5.
Hypothesis Test
39
3.9.
Data Analysis Techniques of Effectiveness
41
3.9.1.
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
41
3.9.2.
Learning Mastery
41
3.9.3.
Activities Observation Result
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Research Result
44
4.1.1.
Data of Pretest Score
44
4.1.2.
Data of Postest Score
44
4.2
Data Analysis
47
4.2.1.
Normality Test
47
4.2.2.
Homogeneity Test
48
4.2.3.
Hypothesis Testing
48
4.2.4.
Affective Domain
49
4.2.5.
Psychomotor Domain
50
4.3.
Data Analysis of Effectiveness
51
4.3.1.
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
51
4.3.2.
Learning Mastery
52
4.3.3.
Activities Observation Result
53
4.4.
Discussion
56
ix
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
67
5.2
Suggestion
67
REFERENCES
69
vi
List of Table
Page
Table 2.1
Comparison of Model SCSI BSCS 5E Model
13
Table 2.2
Syntax Constructivism 5E Learning Model
14
Table 2.3
Advantages and Disadvantages Constructivist 5E Model
16
Table 2.4
Difference 5E Learning Cycle Model and Direct Instruction
17
Table 3.1
Two Pre-test –Post-Test Design
29
Table 3.2
Learning Outcomes Specification
32
Table 3.3
Categories Student’s Learning Outcomes
33
Table 3.4
Criteria of Value Percentage of Content
34
Table 3.5
Guideline of Affective Domain
34
Table 3.6
Guideline of Psychomotor Domain
35
Table 3.7
Criterion of Affective and Psychomotor Domain
36
Table 3.8
Criterion of Activity Observation Result
42
Table 4.1
Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Pretest
45
Table 4.2
Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Post Test
46
Table 4.3
Normality Test for Pretest Score
47
Table 4.4
Normality Test for Posttest Score
47
Table 4.5
Homogeneity Test in Experiment and Control Class
48
Table 4.6
Calculation of Hypothesis Test
49
Table 4.7
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity of Student
54
Table 4.8
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 1
57
Table 4.9
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 2
58
Table 4.10
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 3
58
vii
Table 4.11
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 4
59
Table 4.12
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 5
59
Table 4.13
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 6
60
Table 4.14
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 7
60
viii
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
71
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
91
Appendix 3
Worksheet
109
Appendix 4
Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test
116
Appendix 5
Research Instrument Pre-Test
130
Appendix 6
Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class
138
Appendix 7
Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class
139
Appendix 8
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class
140
Appendix 9
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class
142
Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class
145
Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class
148
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
150
in Experiment Class
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
152
in Control Class
Appendix 14 Normality Test
154
Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test
158
Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test
160
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class
164
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class
169
Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class
177
Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument
182
Appendix 22 Learning Mastery
185
ix
Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class
190
Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class
198
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
208
Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution
209
Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
210
Appendix 30 Research Documentation
211
vi
FIGURES LIST
Page
Figure 2.1
Phase Learning Constructivist 5E Learning Cycle
13
Figure 2.2
Measuring Current with Amperemeter
18
Figure 2.3
Simple of Circuit Schema With DC Current
19
Figure 2.4
Circuit Using Amperemeter
19
Figure 2.5
Measuring The Voltages With Voltmeter
20
Figure 2.6
Measuring The Voltages
20
Figure 2.7
A Series Circuit of Three Resistors
22
Figure 2.8
Parallel Circuits of Three Resistors
23
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment and Control
44
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experiment and Control Class
45
Figure 4.3
Chart of Cognitive of Student in Pre-Test
46
Figure 4.4
Chart of Cognitive of Student in Post-Test
46
Figure 4.5
Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
50
Affective Domain
Figure 4.6
Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
51
Psychomotor Domain
Figure 4.7
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
51
Figure 4.8
Learning Mastery in Experiment and Control Class
52
Figure 4.9
Observation Result of Teacher Activity
53
Figure 4.10 Observation Result of Student Activity
54
Figure 4.11 Category Pretest, Activity and Posttest
56
Figure 4.12 The graph relation the value of pretest, activity and posttest
61
In experiment class in individual
Figure 4.13 The graph relation the value of pre test, activity and posttest in
experiment class in group
61
vi
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
71
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
91
Appendix 3
Worksheet
109
Appendix 4
Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test
116
Appendix 5
Research Instrument Pre-Test
130
Appendix 6
Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class
138
Appendix 7
Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class
139
Appendix 8
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class
140
Appendix 9
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class
142
Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class
145
Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class
148
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
150
in Experiment Class
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
152
in Control Class
Appendix 14 Normality Test
154
Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test
158
Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test
160
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class
164
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class
169
Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class
177
Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument
182
Appendix 22 Learning Mastery
185
vii
Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class
190
Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class
198
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
208
Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution
209
Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
210
Appendix 30 Research Documentation
211
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Physics is one of the important sciences in improving the quality of human
resources, in addition physics is a branch of natural science which emphasizes the
provision of direct experience to develop competencies to enable students to
explore and understand the concepts of physics. Basically physics as a science is
interest, in which studied natural phenomena and try to reveal all the secrets of the
universe and the laws that occur in our daily life. Still, learning physics is
considered to be a difficult subject.
Interviews with Physics teacher Class X-1 SMA Negeri 3 Medan Sehat
Anakampu said that the average value of student learning outcomes in the year
2012/2013 which is 60 while the minimum completeness criteria (KKM) learning
outcomes will achieve is 70 . It can be concluded student’s learning outcomes less
optimal. Also said that active students are lacking when the course of study. It
was seen, when the results orally at the end of learning, only a small percentage of
students who raised their hands to answer questions.
The low value of the average student’s learning outcomes because teachers
do not use a variety of learning model. It can be concluded that during the
learning process is still using lectures, notes, and work on the problems. These
facts reinforce that learning is still dominated by the teacher centered, which
focuses on the mastery of the learning outcomes of knowledge products aimed at
students considering factual information.
One solution for this problem is to prepare student’s to become good
adaptive learners. That is students should be able to apply what they learn in
school to the various situation in real life. Obviously, the traditional teacher as
information giver, textbook guided classroom has failed to bring about desired
outcome of product thinking students. An alternative is to change the focus of the
classroom from teacher –centered to student-centered using a constructivist
approach. With the emphasis on the learning, we see that learning is an active
process occurring within and influenced by the learner as by the instructor and the
2
school. From this perspective, learning outcomes do not depend on what the
teacher present. Rather, they are interactive
result of what information is
encountered and how the student process it base on perceive notion and existing
personal knowledge (Kilavuz,2005:15)
Learning cycle which is an inquiry –based teaching model is useful to
teacher is designing curriculum material and instructional strategies in science.
The model is derived from constructivist ideas of the nature of science, developer
by Robert Karplus with the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) in
1964. The learning cycle of Karplus has three phases. These are exploration, term
introduction and concept application. Over the years the learning cycle is revised
and added several phases. So, 5E learning cycle is formed. It is developed by the
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). It consists of the following
phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. The 5E
learning cycle has been shown to be an extremely effective approach to learning
(Kilavuz, 2005:15).
This is evident from several researchers who have conducted research
about 5E Learning Cycle Model, including; According to Nazila Ramadhani
(2011:71) in the” Influence Of Constructivism 5E on Student’s Learning
Outcomes in SMA Laksamana Martadinata in Academic Year 2011/2012”
(Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Constructivism 5E Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa
DI SMA Laksamana Martadinata T.P 2011/2012) conducted research as quasi
experimental. Researcher’s research shows that using the 5E Learning Cycle
Model can provide the improvement of student learning outcomes and activities ,
this can be seen from result student’s activity increase 74.4 using 5E Learning
Cycle Model and with Conventional Model Learning is result student’s activity is
61.5 with active category. In addition student learning outcomes which have
increased from 33.5 to 66.3 and difference effect 5E learning cycle model and
conventional model of student learning outcomes is 21.26%.
According to Satria Tinambunan (2012:54) in the “Influence of Learning
Cycle Model Using Mind Mapping on Student’s Learning Outcomes in Dynamic
Electricity in Class X Semester II SMA Swasta Parulian 1 Medan Academic Year
3
2011/2012 ” (Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle Berbasis Peta
Konsep Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Listrik Dinamis di
Kelas X Semester II SMA Swasta Parulian 1 Medan T.P 2011/2012)conducted
research as quasi experimental method by designing with pre-test and post-test
and observe how the activities of student during the learning model was applied.
Researcher shows that using the learning cycle model can provide the
improvement of student’s learning outcomes and activity, this can be seen from
student’s learning outcomes which have increased from 40.28 to 64.42 In addition
student’s learning activity higher than student less active this learning
According to Meghann A. Campbell (2012:67) in the “The Effect of The
5E Learning Cycle Model on Students’ Understanding of Force and Motion
Concepts” conducted research as quasi experimental.
Researcher shows that
using the Learning Cycle Model can provide the improvement of student learning
outcomes and activities. This can be seen from result student learning outcomes
which have increased was increased as 70.3 and difference effect learning cycle
model and conventional model of student learning outcomes is 14.8%.
According to Yeliz Kilavuz (2005) in the “The Effect of 5E Learning
Cycle Model Based on The Constructivist Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s
Understanding of Acid –Based Concept” conducted research as quasi experiment.
The
results showed that there was no significant difference at the beginning of
treatment between the two groups in terms of achievement of acid base concepts
(t=-1.134, p>00.5) and attitudes toward chemistry as school subject (t=0.015
p>0.05) before treatment. The 5E learning cycle model based instruction caused a
significantly better acquisition of scientific conception related to acid-base
concept than traditionally designed chemistry instruction and The pre and post test
scores of Acid –Base Concept Achievement Test shows that experiment class
achievement was increased. Thus, it can be concluded that the growth in
understanding of acid –base concept is statically significant.
Here will conduct quasi experimental to increase student’s learning outcomes
whether it from cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains in Dynamic
Electricity material and also effectiveness of 5E Learning cycle model.
4
Based on the above researcher are interested in conducting research
entitled "Effectiveness of 5E Learning Cycle Model in Dynamic Electricity for
Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan".
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background presented above, can be identified several issues
as follow:
1. Learning model that is often used direct instruction learning model
2. Lack of student involvement in teaching and learning activities
3. The low of student learning outcomes in Physics
1.3. Limitation Problem
The Limitation problems in this research are as follows:
1. The model applied in this research is 5E Learning Cycle Model
2. Learning in this research topic is Dynamic electricity
3. The research is conducted in SMA Negeri 3 Medan grade X semester 2
academic year 2012/2013.
1.4. Formulation of Problem
Limitation Based on the problem, so the problem formulation contained in
this research is as follows:
1. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle model and direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electric
2. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct instruction
learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity?
3. How the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle on student’s learning outcomes
in dynamic electricity?
5
1.5. Objective of Research
Referring to the problem formulation, then the objectives to be achieved in
this research as follows:
1. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity
2. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct
instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on
student learning outcomes in dynamic electricity
3. To examine the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity
1.6. Benefits of Research
The benefit of this research as follows:
1. For School: it can provide good information and donations in order to
improve the learning process through Increased quality school student's
achievement and professionalism of teachers working
2. For Teacher: for consideration in selecting or integrating a variety of
appropriate learning model class, especially in physics learning.
3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during
the learning process takes place, so it can improve learning outcomes and
provide a fun learning experience
4. Researcher: As an input and increase of knowledge for the researcher as a
candidate for future teacher in the implementation of 5E learning cycle
model
69
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based the analysis of result of research, it was concluded:
1. There was significant effect difference of 5e learning cycle model and
direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s
learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. 5 e learning cycle model was
better than direct instruction learning model.
2. There was no significant effect difference of 5 e learning cycle model and
direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains
on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. Both 5e learning
cycle model and direct instruction learning model were included in good
category.
3. The effectiveness of 5 e learning cycle model was high than direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity. Furthermore, 5e learning cycle model
was more effective than direct instruction learning model on student’s
learning outcomes. It was obtained by fulfilling the three requirements of
the learning effectiveness, namely index sensitivity of instrument, learning
mastery and activities observation result.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the results and conclusions in this research, there were some
suggestions, namely:
1. Researcher who want to conduct research using 5e learning cycle model is
suggested that better monitor the activities of students in the group by
observing and guiding students for working in groups by asking questions
70
to each student about what he/she had done in group and constraints faced
by students during discussion.
2. For further researcher is suggested to be more creative in managing the
classroom and to be more efficient in time
3. For further researcher who want to find out about affective and
psychomotor domains is suggested to find out the more appropriate
indicators that will be used to student’s learning outcomes in order obtain
the appropriate result accurately.
4. For further researcher is suggested to find out the other requirements of the
effectiveness learning in order obtain more accurate result.
5. For further researcher is suggested to be wise in the management of stage
in 5e learning cycle model by giving attention to the steps in learning to
achieve the improvement of learning outcomes because some stage can be
more consumed time than target.
71
REFERENCES
Arends,R.2009.Learning to Teach. Mc.Graw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.
Arikunto, S.2009. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi.Penerbit Bumi
Aksara: Jakarta.
Bybee, R.W.Taylor, J.A., Gardner,A.Van Scotter, P.Powell,J.C.,Webstrook,A.,&
Landes, N.,2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Origin and
effectiveness. http://science.education.nih.gov/housefreps.nsf/.pdf
(accessed January 25 th 2012).
Cronbach, L. 2006.Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Djamarah, B.2004.Strategi Belajar Mengajar.PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Ergin, I.2006. Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability
Instructional Physics. Journal Physics Education Vo. 6 No.1 Page 16.
Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences: Ankara
http://www.lajpe.org (accessed January 25 th 2012).
Gredler, E. 2002. Learning and Teaching. PAUT-UT and CV.Rajawali Press :
Jakarta.
Kamajaya. 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo
Media Pratama: Bandung.
Kanginan,M. 2007.Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X Semester 2.Erlangga: Jakarta
Kilavuz,Y. 2005. The effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on Constructivist
Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid –Base Concepts.
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accesed January 25 th 2012).
Kurnaz,A.M. & Calik,M.2008.Using Different Conceptual Change Methods
Embedded Within The 5E Model: A Sample Teaching For Heat and
Temperature. Journal Physics Teacher Education Online Vol. 5, No.1 page
4. .http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accessed January 28 th 2012).
Macomber, F. 2009.Principles of Teaching in the Elementary School. American
Book Company: New York.
Mayer, R.E.2003.Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W.Wilson Company.
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating _outcome /documents/Krathwold.pdf.
(accessed March 15th2013).
David. 2008. Effective Teaching: Theory and Application. Sage Publication:
London.
72
Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statistika.PT Tarsito: Bandung.
Sunardi. 2007.Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2.Yrama
Widya: Bandung.
Suryosubroto,B. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta:
Jakarta.
Soomro,Q.A., Qaisrani,N.M.,Rawat.J.A.,& Mughal,H.S.2010. Teaching Physics
through Learning Cycle Model:An Experimental Study. Journal of
Educational Research Vol.13 No.2 page 6. Department of Education the
Islamic University of Bahawalpur: Pakistan.
Trianto. 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif- Progresif. Kencana
Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Turney,C. 2009. Anatomy of Teaching. Jan Novak Publishing Co: Sydney
67
REFERENCES
Arends,R.2009.Learning to Teach. Mc.Graw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.
Arikunto, S.2009. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi.Penerbit Bumi
Aksara: Jakarta.
Bybee, R.W.Taylor, J.A., Gardner,A.Van Scotter, P.Powell,J.C.,Webstrook,A.,&
Landes, N.,2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Origin and
effectiveness. http://science.education.nih.gov/housefreps.nsf/.pdf
(accessed January 25 th 2012).
Cronbach, L. 2006.Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Djamarah, B.2004.Strategi Belajar Mengajar.PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Ergin, I.2006. Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability
Instructional Physics. Journal Physics Education Vo. 6 No.1 Page 16.
Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences: Ankara
http://www.lajpe.org (accessed January 25 th 2012).
Gredler, E. 2002. Learning and Teaching. PAUT-UT and CV.Rajawali Press :
Jakarta.
Kamajaya. 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo
Media Pratama: Bandung.
Kanginan,M. 2007.Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X Semester 2.Erlangga: Jakarta
Kilavuz,Y. 2005. The effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on Constructivist
Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid –Base Concepts.
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accesed January 25 th 2012).
Kurnaz,A.M. & Calik,M.2008.Using Different Conceptual Change Methods
Embedded Within The 5E Model: A Sample Teaching For Heat and
Temperature. Journal Physics Teacher Education Online Vol. 5, No.1 page
4. .http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accessed January 28 th 2012).
Macomber, F. 2009.Principles of Teaching in the Elementary School. American
Book Company: New York.
Mayer, R.E.2003.Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W.Wilson Company.
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating _outcome /documents/Krathwold.pdf.
(accessed March 15th2013).
David. 2008. Effective Teaching: Theory and Application. Sage Publication:
London.
68
Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statistika.PT Tarsito: Bandung.
Sunardi. 2007.Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2.Yrama
Widya: Bandung.
Suryosubroto,B. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta:
Jakarta.
Soomro,Q.A., Qaisrani,N.M.,Rawat.J.A.,& Mughal,H.S.2010. Teaching Physics
through Learning Cycle Model:An Experimental Study. Journal of
Educational Research Vol.13 No.2 page 6. Department of Education the
Islamic University of Bahawalpur: Pakistan.
Trianto. 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif- Progresif. Kencana
Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Turney,C. 2009. Anatomy of Teaching. Jan Novak Publishing Co: Sydney
IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY KELAS X
SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN
By:
Carolina Nainggolan
409322001
Physics Bilingual Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to fulfill requirement for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2013
iv
PREFACE
Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and
guidance to writer. For His help in writer life, hopefully God Blessing will
abundant.
This thesis which titled is “Effectiveness of 5e Learning Cycle in Dynamic
Electricity for Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan. Thank you so much to Drs.
Eidi Sihombing,M.S as thesis supervisor who has guide and give suggestion to
writer from initial research until finished this research. Thank you so much also to
Prof.Dr.Sahyar,M.S.,M.M, Drs.Rahmatsyah,M.Si,and Drs.Abdul Hakim,M.Si
who have gave critics and suggestions to writer. Thank you so much to Drs.Juniar
Huthaean, M.Si as academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan
Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan and to all Mr.
and Mrs. Lecturer and staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of
Medan who have encouraged writer.
Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Ronaulina Sibarani and Beloved father
Polman Nainggolan for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special thank you
for my love my brother Dindo Armando Nainggolan and Tedy Setiadi Nainggolan
and all my family.
Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in Boarding House (for Kak
Enny Pratiwi Munthe, Kak Indah Panjaitan, Kak Trivai Ningsih, Kak Lista
Lumban Raja, Kak Christina Panjaitan, Elly Sihombing and Bang Morris) for all
of your support to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot to Padus IKBKF. My
memories will never die with you. You always in my heart
To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,
especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009.Astrid Pasadena Harahap,
Agnesia M Damanik, Avolen B Siahaan, Debora Betty Sitanggang, Dewi Sari
Situmorang, Evi Valentina Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk,Gita Ravhani Anugrah
Bangun,Hanna Monika Hutabarat,Henrico Hutabarat,Janiar S Gultom,Jefri S
Waruwu, Lucius Marbun, Mas Andi Marbun, Prety T.M.Ambarita, Rani SN.
v
Damanik, Ribka M Tambunan, , Rika Yulia Fitri, Riris M. Rumahorbo, Rita
Situmorang and Tionar Mellisa Malau. I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused
by my literature or knowledge. That’s why, author hope constructivism’s advice
and suggestion in order to make this thesis is useful for all of us.
Medan, July 2013
Carolina Nainggolan
ID. Number: 409322001
vi
CONTENT
Page
Validation Sheet
i
Biography
ii
Abstract
iii
Preface
iv
Content
vi
Figure List
ix
Table List
x
Appendix List
xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Background
1
1.2.
Problem Identification
4
1.3.
Limitation Problem
4
1.4.
Formulation of Problem
4
1.5.
Objective of Research
5
1.6.
Benefit of Research
5
CHAPTER II REVIEW REFERENCESS
2.1.
Theoretical Review
6
2.1.1.
Learning Definition
6
2.1.2.
Learning Outcomes
6
2.1.3.
Effectiveness
9
2.1.4.
Learning Theory of Constructivism
11
2.1.5.
5E Learning Cycle
12
2.1.6.
Direct Instruction Learning Model
17
vii
2.2.
Learning Material
18
2.2.1.
Electric Current
18
2.2.2.
Measuring the Electric Current and Voltage
18
2.2.3.
The Ohm’s Law and Electric Resistance
20
2.2.4.
Series and Parallel Resistance Circuit
22
2.2.5.
Kirchhoff First Law
24
2.3.
Relevant Research
25
2.4.
Framework Conceptual
26
2.5.
Hypothesis
27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1.
Time and Place of Research
28
3.2.
Population and Sample Research
28
3.2.1.
Population
28
3.2.2.
Sample
28
3.3.
Variable of Research
28
3.3.1.
Independent Variable
28
3.3.2.
Dependent Variable
28
3.4.
Method and Design of Research
29
3.4.1.
Method of Research
29
3.4.2.
Design of Research
29
3.5.
Research Procedure
30
3.6.
Techniques of Data Collecting
32
3.6.1.
Pre-test
32
3.6.2.
Post-test
32
3.7.
Instrument of Research
32
3.7.1.
First Instrument Cognitive Domain
32
3.7.2.
Non-test Instrument
34
3.8.
Technique of Data Analysis
36
3.8.1.
Determine the Mean
36
3.8.2.
Determine the Standard Deviation
37
viii
3.8.3.
Normality Test
37
3.8.4.
Homogeneity Test
38
3.8.5.
Hypothesis Test
39
3.9.
Data Analysis Techniques of Effectiveness
41
3.9.1.
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
41
3.9.2.
Learning Mastery
41
3.9.3.
Activities Observation Result
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Research Result
44
4.1.1.
Data of Pretest Score
44
4.1.2.
Data of Postest Score
44
4.2
Data Analysis
47
4.2.1.
Normality Test
47
4.2.2.
Homogeneity Test
48
4.2.3.
Hypothesis Testing
48
4.2.4.
Affective Domain
49
4.2.5.
Psychomotor Domain
50
4.3.
Data Analysis of Effectiveness
51
4.3.1.
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
51
4.3.2.
Learning Mastery
52
4.3.3.
Activities Observation Result
53
4.4.
Discussion
56
ix
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusion
67
5.2
Suggestion
67
REFERENCES
69
vi
List of Table
Page
Table 2.1
Comparison of Model SCSI BSCS 5E Model
13
Table 2.2
Syntax Constructivism 5E Learning Model
14
Table 2.3
Advantages and Disadvantages Constructivist 5E Model
16
Table 2.4
Difference 5E Learning Cycle Model and Direct Instruction
17
Table 3.1
Two Pre-test –Post-Test Design
29
Table 3.2
Learning Outcomes Specification
32
Table 3.3
Categories Student’s Learning Outcomes
33
Table 3.4
Criteria of Value Percentage of Content
34
Table 3.5
Guideline of Affective Domain
34
Table 3.6
Guideline of Psychomotor Domain
35
Table 3.7
Criterion of Affective and Psychomotor Domain
36
Table 3.8
Criterion of Activity Observation Result
42
Table 4.1
Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Pretest
45
Table 4.2
Average Score Taxonomy Bloom in Post Test
46
Table 4.3
Normality Test for Pretest Score
47
Table 4.4
Normality Test for Posttest Score
47
Table 4.5
Homogeneity Test in Experiment and Control Class
48
Table 4.6
Calculation of Hypothesis Test
49
Table 4.7
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity of Student
54
Table 4.8
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 1
57
Table 4.9
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 2
58
Table 4.10
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 3
58
vii
Table 4.11
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 4
59
Table 4.12
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 5
59
Table 4.13
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 6
60
Table 4.14
The Value of Pretest, Posttest and Activity Group 7
60
viii
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
71
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
91
Appendix 3
Worksheet
109
Appendix 4
Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test
116
Appendix 5
Research Instrument Pre-Test
130
Appendix 6
Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class
138
Appendix 7
Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class
139
Appendix 8
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class
140
Appendix 9
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class
142
Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class
145
Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class
148
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
150
in Experiment Class
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
152
in Control Class
Appendix 14 Normality Test
154
Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test
158
Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test
160
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class
164
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class
169
Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class
177
Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument
182
Appendix 22 Learning Mastery
185
ix
Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class
190
Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class
198
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
208
Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution
209
Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
210
Appendix 30 Research Documentation
211
vi
FIGURES LIST
Page
Figure 2.1
Phase Learning Constructivist 5E Learning Cycle
13
Figure 2.2
Measuring Current with Amperemeter
18
Figure 2.3
Simple of Circuit Schema With DC Current
19
Figure 2.4
Circuit Using Amperemeter
19
Figure 2.5
Measuring The Voltages With Voltmeter
20
Figure 2.6
Measuring The Voltages
20
Figure 2.7
A Series Circuit of Three Resistors
22
Figure 2.8
Parallel Circuits of Three Resistors
23
Figure 4.1
Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment and Control
44
Figure 4.2
Bar Chart of Post-test Data in Experiment and Control Class
45
Figure 4.3
Chart of Cognitive of Student in Pre-Test
46
Figure 4.4
Chart of Cognitive of Student in Post-Test
46
Figure 4.5
Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
50
Affective Domain
Figure 4.6
Development of Student’s Learning Outcomes in
51
Psychomotor Domain
Figure 4.7
Sensitivity Index of Instrument
51
Figure 4.8
Learning Mastery in Experiment and Control Class
52
Figure 4.9
Observation Result of Teacher Activity
53
Figure 4.10 Observation Result of Student Activity
54
Figure 4.11 Category Pretest, Activity and Posttest
56
Figure 4.12 The graph relation the value of pretest, activity and posttest
61
In experiment class in individual
Figure 4.13 The graph relation the value of pre test, activity and posttest in
experiment class in group
61
vi
List of Appendix
Page
Appendix 1
Lesson Plan 1
71
Appendix 2
Lesson Plan 2
91
Appendix 3
Worksheet
109
Appendix 4
Specification Table of Learning Outcomes Test
116
Appendix 5
Research Instrument Pre-Test
130
Appendix 6
Pre-test and Post-test of Control Class
138
Appendix 7
Pre-test and Post-test of Experiment Class
139
Appendix 8
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Control Class
140
Appendix 9
Mark Tabulation of Pre-test in Experiment Class
142
Appendix 10 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Experiment Class
145
Appendix 11 Mark Tabulation of Post-test in Control Class
148
Appendix 12 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
150
in Experiment Class
Appendix 13 Calculation of Mean value and Standard Deviation
152
in Control Class
Appendix 14 Normality Test
154
Appendix 15 Homogeneity Test
158
Appendix 16 Hypothesis Test
160
Appendix 17 Affective Assessment of Experiment Class
164
Appendix 18 Affective Assessment of Control Class
169
Appendix 19 Psychomotor Assessment of Experiment Class
172
Appendix 20 Psychomotor Assessment of Control Class
177
Appendix 21 Sensitivity Index of Instrument
182
Appendix 22 Learning Mastery
185
vii
Appendix 23 Activity Teacher in Experiment and Control Class
190
Appendix 24 Activity Student in Experiment and Control Class
198
Appendix 25 List of Critical Value for Liliefors
208
Appendix 26 List of Percentile Value of t Distribution
209
Appendix 27 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z
210
Appendix 30 Research Documentation
211
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Physics is one of the important sciences in improving the quality of human
resources, in addition physics is a branch of natural science which emphasizes the
provision of direct experience to develop competencies to enable students to
explore and understand the concepts of physics. Basically physics as a science is
interest, in which studied natural phenomena and try to reveal all the secrets of the
universe and the laws that occur in our daily life. Still, learning physics is
considered to be a difficult subject.
Interviews with Physics teacher Class X-1 SMA Negeri 3 Medan Sehat
Anakampu said that the average value of student learning outcomes in the year
2012/2013 which is 60 while the minimum completeness criteria (KKM) learning
outcomes will achieve is 70 . It can be concluded student’s learning outcomes less
optimal. Also said that active students are lacking when the course of study. It
was seen, when the results orally at the end of learning, only a small percentage of
students who raised their hands to answer questions.
The low value of the average student’s learning outcomes because teachers
do not use a variety of learning model. It can be concluded that during the
learning process is still using lectures, notes, and work on the problems. These
facts reinforce that learning is still dominated by the teacher centered, which
focuses on the mastery of the learning outcomes of knowledge products aimed at
students considering factual information.
One solution for this problem is to prepare student’s to become good
adaptive learners. That is students should be able to apply what they learn in
school to the various situation in real life. Obviously, the traditional teacher as
information giver, textbook guided classroom has failed to bring about desired
outcome of product thinking students. An alternative is to change the focus of the
classroom from teacher –centered to student-centered using a constructivist
approach. With the emphasis on the learning, we see that learning is an active
process occurring within and influenced by the learner as by the instructor and the
2
school. From this perspective, learning outcomes do not depend on what the
teacher present. Rather, they are interactive
result of what information is
encountered and how the student process it base on perceive notion and existing
personal knowledge (Kilavuz,2005:15)
Learning cycle which is an inquiry –based teaching model is useful to
teacher is designing curriculum material and instructional strategies in science.
The model is derived from constructivist ideas of the nature of science, developer
by Robert Karplus with the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) in
1964. The learning cycle of Karplus has three phases. These are exploration, term
introduction and concept application. Over the years the learning cycle is revised
and added several phases. So, 5E learning cycle is formed. It is developed by the
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). It consists of the following
phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. The 5E
learning cycle has been shown to be an extremely effective approach to learning
(Kilavuz, 2005:15).
This is evident from several researchers who have conducted research
about 5E Learning Cycle Model, including; According to Nazila Ramadhani
(2011:71) in the” Influence Of Constructivism 5E on Student’s Learning
Outcomes in SMA Laksamana Martadinata in Academic Year 2011/2012”
(Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Constructivism 5E Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa
DI SMA Laksamana Martadinata T.P 2011/2012) conducted research as quasi
experimental. Researcher’s research shows that using the 5E Learning Cycle
Model can provide the improvement of student learning outcomes and activities ,
this can be seen from result student’s activity increase 74.4 using 5E Learning
Cycle Model and with Conventional Model Learning is result student’s activity is
61.5 with active category. In addition student learning outcomes which have
increased from 33.5 to 66.3 and difference effect 5E learning cycle model and
conventional model of student learning outcomes is 21.26%.
According to Satria Tinambunan (2012:54) in the “Influence of Learning
Cycle Model Using Mind Mapping on Student’s Learning Outcomes in Dynamic
Electricity in Class X Semester II SMA Swasta Parulian 1 Medan Academic Year
3
2011/2012 ” (Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle Berbasis Peta
Konsep Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Listrik Dinamis di
Kelas X Semester II SMA Swasta Parulian 1 Medan T.P 2011/2012)conducted
research as quasi experimental method by designing with pre-test and post-test
and observe how the activities of student during the learning model was applied.
Researcher shows that using the learning cycle model can provide the
improvement of student’s learning outcomes and activity, this can be seen from
student’s learning outcomes which have increased from 40.28 to 64.42 In addition
student’s learning activity higher than student less active this learning
According to Meghann A. Campbell (2012:67) in the “The Effect of The
5E Learning Cycle Model on Students’ Understanding of Force and Motion
Concepts” conducted research as quasi experimental.
Researcher shows that
using the Learning Cycle Model can provide the improvement of student learning
outcomes and activities. This can be seen from result student learning outcomes
which have increased was increased as 70.3 and difference effect learning cycle
model and conventional model of student learning outcomes is 14.8%.
According to Yeliz Kilavuz (2005) in the “The Effect of 5E Learning
Cycle Model Based on The Constructivist Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s
Understanding of Acid –Based Concept” conducted research as quasi experiment.
The
results showed that there was no significant difference at the beginning of
treatment between the two groups in terms of achievement of acid base concepts
(t=-1.134, p>00.5) and attitudes toward chemistry as school subject (t=0.015
p>0.05) before treatment. The 5E learning cycle model based instruction caused a
significantly better acquisition of scientific conception related to acid-base
concept than traditionally designed chemistry instruction and The pre and post test
scores of Acid –Base Concept Achievement Test shows that experiment class
achievement was increased. Thus, it can be concluded that the growth in
understanding of acid –base concept is statically significant.
Here will conduct quasi experimental to increase student’s learning outcomes
whether it from cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains in Dynamic
Electricity material and also effectiveness of 5E Learning cycle model.
4
Based on the above researcher are interested in conducting research
entitled "Effectiveness of 5E Learning Cycle Model in Dynamic Electricity for
Tenth Grade SMA Negeri 3 Medan".
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background presented above, can be identified several issues
as follow:
1. Learning model that is often used direct instruction learning model
2. Lack of student involvement in teaching and learning activities
3. The low of student learning outcomes in Physics
1.3. Limitation Problem
The Limitation problems in this research are as follows:
1. The model applied in this research is 5E Learning Cycle Model
2. Learning in this research topic is Dynamic electricity
3. The research is conducted in SMA Negeri 3 Medan grade X semester 2
academic year 2012/2013.
1.4. Formulation of Problem
Limitation Based on the problem, so the problem formulation contained in
this research is as follows:
1. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle model and direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electric
2. Is there any effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct instruction
learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on student learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity?
3. How the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle on student’s learning outcomes
in dynamic electricity?
5
1.5. Objective of Research
Referring to the problem formulation, then the objectives to be achieved in
this research as follows:
1. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity
2. To examine the effect difference of 5E learning cycle and direct
instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains on
student learning outcomes in dynamic electricity
3. To examine the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity
1.6. Benefits of Research
The benefit of this research as follows:
1. For School: it can provide good information and donations in order to
improve the learning process through Increased quality school student's
achievement and professionalism of teachers working
2. For Teacher: for consideration in selecting or integrating a variety of
appropriate learning model class, especially in physics learning.
3. For Students: students are more motivated and continue to be active during
the learning process takes place, so it can improve learning outcomes and
provide a fun learning experience
4. Researcher: As an input and increase of knowledge for the researcher as a
candidate for future teacher in the implementation of 5E learning cycle
model
69
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based the analysis of result of research, it was concluded:
1. There was significant effect difference of 5e learning cycle model and
direct instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s
learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. 5 e learning cycle model was
better than direct instruction learning model.
2. There was no significant effect difference of 5 e learning cycle model and
direct instruction learning model for affective and psychomotor domains
on student’s learning outcomes in dynamic electricity. Both 5e learning
cycle model and direct instruction learning model were included in good
category.
3. The effectiveness of 5 e learning cycle model was high than direct
instruction learning model for cognitive domain on student’s learning
outcomes in dynamic electricity. Furthermore, 5e learning cycle model
was more effective than direct instruction learning model on student’s
learning outcomes. It was obtained by fulfilling the three requirements of
the learning effectiveness, namely index sensitivity of instrument, learning
mastery and activities observation result.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the results and conclusions in this research, there were some
suggestions, namely:
1. Researcher who want to conduct research using 5e learning cycle model is
suggested that better monitor the activities of students in the group by
observing and guiding students for working in groups by asking questions
70
to each student about what he/she had done in group and constraints faced
by students during discussion.
2. For further researcher is suggested to be more creative in managing the
classroom and to be more efficient in time
3. For further researcher who want to find out about affective and
psychomotor domains is suggested to find out the more appropriate
indicators that will be used to student’s learning outcomes in order obtain
the appropriate result accurately.
4. For further researcher is suggested to find out the other requirements of the
effectiveness learning in order obtain more accurate result.
5. For further researcher is suggested to be wise in the management of stage
in 5e learning cycle model by giving attention to the steps in learning to
achieve the improvement of learning outcomes because some stage can be
more consumed time than target.
71
REFERENCES
Arends,R.2009.Learning to Teach. Mc.Graw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.
Arikunto, S.2009. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi.Penerbit Bumi
Aksara: Jakarta.
Bybee, R.W.Taylor, J.A., Gardner,A.Van Scotter, P.Powell,J.C.,Webstrook,A.,&
Landes, N.,2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Origin and
effectiveness. http://science.education.nih.gov/housefreps.nsf/.pdf
(accessed January 25 th 2012).
Cronbach, L. 2006.Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Djamarah, B.2004.Strategi Belajar Mengajar.PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Ergin, I.2006. Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability
Instructional Physics. Journal Physics Education Vo. 6 No.1 Page 16.
Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences: Ankara
http://www.lajpe.org (accessed January 25 th 2012).
Gredler, E. 2002. Learning and Teaching. PAUT-UT and CV.Rajawali Press :
Jakarta.
Kamajaya. 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo
Media Pratama: Bandung.
Kanginan,M. 2007.Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X Semester 2.Erlangga: Jakarta
Kilavuz,Y. 2005. The effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on Constructivist
Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid –Base Concepts.
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accesed January 25 th 2012).
Kurnaz,A.M. & Calik,M.2008.Using Different Conceptual Change Methods
Embedded Within The 5E Model: A Sample Teaching For Heat and
Temperature. Journal Physics Teacher Education Online Vol. 5, No.1 page
4. .http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accessed January 28 th 2012).
Macomber, F. 2009.Principles of Teaching in the Elementary School. American
Book Company: New York.
Mayer, R.E.2003.Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W.Wilson Company.
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating _outcome /documents/Krathwold.pdf.
(accessed March 15th2013).
David. 2008. Effective Teaching: Theory and Application. Sage Publication:
London.
72
Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statistika.PT Tarsito: Bandung.
Sunardi. 2007.Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2.Yrama
Widya: Bandung.
Suryosubroto,B. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta:
Jakarta.
Soomro,Q.A., Qaisrani,N.M.,Rawat.J.A.,& Mughal,H.S.2010. Teaching Physics
through Learning Cycle Model:An Experimental Study. Journal of
Educational Research Vol.13 No.2 page 6. Department of Education the
Islamic University of Bahawalpur: Pakistan.
Trianto. 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif- Progresif. Kencana
Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Turney,C. 2009. Anatomy of Teaching. Jan Novak Publishing Co: Sydney
67
REFERENCES
Arends,R.2009.Learning to Teach. Mc.Graw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York.
Arikunto, S.2009. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi.Penerbit Bumi
Aksara: Jakarta.
Bybee, R.W.Taylor, J.A., Gardner,A.Van Scotter, P.Powell,J.C.,Webstrook,A.,&
Landes, N.,2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional model: Origin and
effectiveness. http://science.education.nih.gov/housefreps.nsf/.pdf
(accessed January 25 th 2012).
Cronbach, L. 2006.Educational Psychology. New Harcourt: Grace.
Djamarah, B.2004.Strategi Belajar Mengajar.PT Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Ergin, I.2006. Constructivist Approach Based 5E Model and Usability
Instructional Physics. Journal Physics Education Vo. 6 No.1 Page 16.
Gazi University Institute of Education Sciences: Ankara
http://www.lajpe.org (accessed January 25 th 2012).
Gredler, E. 2002. Learning and Teaching. PAUT-UT and CV.Rajawali Press :
Jakarta.
Kamajaya. 2004. Fisika untuk SMA Kelas 1 (Kelas X) Semester 2. Grafindo
Media Pratama: Bandung.
Kanginan,M. 2007.Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X Semester 2.Erlangga: Jakarta
Kilavuz,Y. 2005. The effect of 5E Learning Cycle Model Based on Constructivist
Theory on Tenth Grade Student’s Understanding of Acid –Base Concepts.
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accesed January 25 th 2012).
Kurnaz,A.M. & Calik,M.2008.Using Different Conceptual Change Methods
Embedded Within The 5E Model: A Sample Teaching For Heat and
Temperature. Journal Physics Teacher Education Online Vol. 5, No.1 page
4. .http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo/pdf (accessed January 28 th 2012).
Macomber, F. 2009.Principles of Teaching in the Elementary School. American
Book Company: New York.
Mayer, R.E.2003.Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. The H.W.Wilson Company.
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating _outcome /documents/Krathwold.pdf.
(accessed March 15th2013).
David. 2008. Effective Teaching: Theory and Application. Sage Publication:
London.
68
Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statistika.PT Tarsito: Bandung.
Sunardi. 2007.Fisika Bilingual Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X Semester 1 dan 2.Yrama
Widya: Bandung.
Suryosubroto,B. 2009. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah. PT Rineka Cipta:
Jakarta.
Soomro,Q.A., Qaisrani,N.M.,Rawat.J.A.,& Mughal,H.S.2010. Teaching Physics
through Learning Cycle Model:An Experimental Study. Journal of
Educational Research Vol.13 No.2 page 6. Department of Education the
Islamic University of Bahawalpur: Pakistan.
Trianto. 2010. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif- Progresif. Kencana
Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Turney,C. 2009. Anatomy of Teaching. Jan Novak Publishing Co: Sydney