THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY
LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT
ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
By:
Wika Prayogi
Reg. Number 4103332028
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
i
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Wika Prayogi, raised in Medan, Indonesia, was born on July 13th, 1992 in
Percut Sei Tuan, Deli Serdang, Sumatera Utara. He is second of two siblings. His
mother’s name is Sutanti and father’s name is Muhammad Ramli. He was
graduated from SD Negeri 104209 Saentis, Deli Serdang in 2004; SMP Swasta
PAB-3 Saentis, Deli Serdang in 2007; and SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, Deli
Serdang in 2010. He entered Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) in 2010 as
Chemistry major, with an emphasis on Chemistry Education Bilingual and
International Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. During the
time in UNIMED, he actively followed a lot of competitions and won some of
that. He was the winner of UNIMED Chemistry Olympiade in 2012, second
runner up in 46th Dies Natalis of UNIMED English Debate Competition in 2013,
finalist of UNIMED English Debate Competition in 2014, FMIPA delegation in
American Chemical Society (ACS)/ HKI Skill Workshop for Young Indonesian
Scientist and Engineers in 2013, and second runner up in MTQ FMIPA UNIMED
in 2012. The writer was also active in International and National Seminar and
Training to be participant, MC, or committee.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to devote my greatest gratitude to Allah SWT The
Almighty, He is The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful for His blessing,
guidance, strength, health, and favor which have been being given to me so that I
could go with this life and finally finish this thesis especially.
I would like to extend thanks to the many people, in many countries, who so
generously contributed to the work presented in this thesis.
Special mention goes to my enthusiastic supervisor, Dr. Zainuddin Muchtar,
M.Si. This degree has been an amazing experience and I thank Mr. Zai
wholeheartedly, not only for his tremendous academic support, but also for giving
me so many wonderful opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Similar, profound gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Albinus Silalahi, M.S., Dr. Ajat
Sudrajat, M.Si., and Dr. Mahmud, M.Sc who have been truly dedicated
examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant faith, advices,
suggestions, guidance, and constructive critics in perfecting this thesis.
I am also hugely appreciative to Prof. Dr. Ramlan Silaban, M.Si., Dr. Retno Dwi
Suyanti, M.Si., and Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si who have been truly dedicated
validators for this thesis instruments. I’m so thankful to them for their times,
advices, and suggestions in developing my research instruments. Huge gratitude is
also delivered to the late Prof. Dr. Suharta, M.Si who had been my first academic
supervisor and instrument validator. I’m so glad walking under his supervisions in
achieving all prestigious achievements in university. He was gone too soon yet
leaving all great dedications to this university. Al-Fatihah. Similar, great thanks
are delivered as well to my second academic supervisor Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si
who has given great motivations repeatedly in last minutes of my education in this
university.
Special mention also goes to Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si as the
head of Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED), Prof. Drs. Motlan, Ph.D as the
dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, Prof. Dr. rer. nat Binari
Manurung, M.Si and Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as the coordinator and secretary of
v
Bilingual and International Program respectively, Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si as
the head of Chemistry Department, and last but not least, Mr. Sam as the assistant
of Bilingual and International Program. I’m so hugely appreciative to them for
their times, especially for sharing their experiences so willingly, and for being so
dedicated to their roles in supporting me completing this thesis.
Special mention goes to Widiya Ningsih, S.Pd., M.Si as my observer and
home teacher of my research school SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, the school at
which I had graduated from as well.
Special mention goes to all my colleagues who have been involved in
supporting me to complete my education and color my college life. A million
thanks are delivered to Debby, Rabiah, and Yasir as my ‘Solid’, Lina, Melisa,
Fenny, Rudi, Andre, Cici, Indra, Fery, and all CESP students of 2010 for all
unforgettable moments. I find it so difficult to choose which one not best of our
moments but one thing must be totally crazy is that not many S.Pds involve daily
hangouts and weekly playing badminton during thesis deadline just to get
refreshing. I also thank all seniors and juniors in FMIPA for supporting my
education and my PPL colleagues in SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan for all great
experiences. Great thanks are also addressed to SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan
especially batch of 18, 19, and 20 for being always in my mind.
Finally, but by no means least, thanks go to my mum Tanti, my dad Ramli,
my sister Widya Prayasti, my adorable nephews Alil and Arka and all my families
for almost unbelievable supports. They are the most important people in my world
and I dedicate this thesis to them.
Medan, July, 2014
The Writer
Wika Prayogi
Reg. No. 4103332028
iii
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY
LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT
ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
Wika Prayogi (Reg. No. 4103332028)
ABSTRACT
The implementation of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
learning model in improving senior high school students’ achievement and
activeness, cooperation, and responsibility development on the topic of Solubility
and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum were investigated in this
study by comparing the result to Direct Instruction learning model. This study
involved 60 homogeneous students of 11th grade in SMAN 1 Percut Sei Tuan
which were equally divided into 2 classes; those were 30 students treated by
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson as experimental class sample and
30 remaining students treated by Direct Instruction as control class sample.
Students’ achievement (measured by posttest scores) of experimental class sample
gained (78.8±1.28) % of improving to be averagely 84.167±1.019, while control
class sample gained (61.8±1.67) % only to be averagely 72.667±1.216. By
comparing those values, there was significant difference between students’
achievement in both classes with associated significance value of ttable. Students’ characters development was also measured. The average of
students’ activeness, cooperation, and responsibility scores in experimental class
sample was successively 91.554±0.407; 90.222±0.498; and 87.407±0.450 while in
control class sample was only 67.815±0.520; 74.889±0.510; and 77.222±0.602
respectively. By comparing each character score, there was significant difference
between students’ characters development in both classes with associated
significance value of ttable for each. The improvement of
students’ achievement and characters development had been obtained. By
comparing overall result in both classes, the researcher examined the correlation
of students’ achievement to each character development of activeness,
cooperation, and responsibility in each class sample. The correlation test was also
statistically studied, where there was positive and significant correlation between
those two variables in each class sample with associated significance value of
ttable for each. But the correlation of students’ achievement to
characters development in experimental class sample was totally higher than the
control one. Thus, guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson learning model was
statistically proven to be able to improve students’ achievement and characters
development and statistically better than direct instruction on the teaching of
solubility and solubility product based on the 2013 curriculum but it was still
recommended to investigate this kind of learning model to other subject matters
and enlarges the variables to be studied.
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
LEGALIZATION PAGE
i
BIOGRAPHY
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
ACKNOWLEDMENT
iv
LIST OF CENTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
x
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FORMULAS
xii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Background
1
1.2
Problems Identification
7
1.3
Scopes of Research
7
1.4
Problem Statements
8
1.5
Research Objectives
9
1.6
Research Significances
10
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
11
2.1
11
Definition of Teaching and Learning
2.1.1 Definition of Teaching
11
2.1.2 Definition of Learning
11
2.2
Learning Chemistry and the Outcomes
12
2.3
Students’ Achievement
14
2.4
Characters of Education
16
2.4.1 Character of Activeness
17
2.4.2 Character of Cooperation
18
2.4.3 Character of Responsibility
19
vii
2.5
The 2013 Curriculum
19
2.5.1 The Wisdom of Implementation of the 2013 Curriculum
20
2.5.2 The Characteristics of the 2013 Curriculum
21
2.6
23
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning Model
2.6.1 Discovery-Inquiry Learning
24
2.6.2 Discovery-Inquiry Learning Objectives
26
2.6.3 Pros and Cons of Discovery-Inquiry Learning
26
2.6.4 Syntax or Learning Steps of Discovery-Inquiry Learning
27
2.6.5 Types of Discovery-Inquiry Learning Model
28
2.6.6 Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
29
2.7
Direct Instruction Learning Model
32
2.8
Solubility and Solubility Product
33
2.8.1 The Definition of Solubility
34
2.8.2 The Solubility Product (Ksp)
35
2.8.3 The Relationship of Solubility and Solubility Product (Ksp)
37
2.8.4 The Effect of a Common Ion and pH on Solubility
37
2.8.5 The Relationship of Solubility Product (Ksp) and Precipitation
40
2.9
40
Applicability of Learning Model to Topic
2.10 Mutual Research about Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
41
2.11 Hypotheses
43
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
46
3.1
Research Location and Object
46
3.2
Population and Sample
46
3.3
Research Variables
46
3.3.1 Independent Variable
46
3.3.2 Dependent Variable
47
3.3.3 Control Variable
47
3.4
48
Research Instruments
3.4.1 Test Instrument
48
3.4.2 Observation Sheet
49
viii
3.5
Research Type and Design
49
3.5.1 Research Type
50
3.5.2 Research Design
50
3.5.3 Research Procedures
51
3.5.4 Research Design Flowchart
53
3.6
54
Data Collection Technique and Research Instrument Preparation
3.6.1 Validity Test
54
3.6.2 Difficulty Level Test
55
3.6.3 Discriminations Index Test
56
3.6.4 Distracter Index Test
56
3.6.5 Reliability Test
57
3.7
58
Data Analysis of Research Results
3.7.1 Normalized Gain
58
3.7.2 Normality Test
59
3.7.3 Homogeneity Test
59
3.7.4 Hypotheses Test
59
3.7.5 Correlation Analysis
62
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
65
4.1
Research Results
65
4.2
Research Instrument Preparation Results
65
4.2.1 Validity Test Result
66
4.2.2 Difficulty Level Test Result
66
4.2.3 Discriminations Index Test Result
66
4.2.4 Distracter Index Test Result
66
4.2.5 Reliability Test Result
67
4.3
67
Data of Research Results
4.3.1 Data of Students’ Achievement
68
4.3.2 Data of Students’ Characters Development
69
4.4
70
Data Analysis of Research Results
4.4.1 Normality Test Result
70
ix
4.4.2 Homogeneity Test Result
71
4.4.3 Hypotheses Test Result
72
4.4.4 Correlation Result of Students’ Achievement to Students’ Characters
Development
4.5
Discussions
74
76
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
78
5.1
Conclusions
78
5.2
Suggestions
80
REFERENCES
81
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 The changing of paradigm and mindset on curriculum 2013
21
Table 2.2 Syntax of the direct instruction learning model
33
Table 2.3 Solubility product constants for several insoluble salts and
bases at 25oC
36
Table 2.4 Applicability of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson to
solubility and solubility product
41
Table 3.1 Independent and dependent variable based on hypothesis
48
Table 3.2 Research design
51
Table 4.1 Students’ cognitive scores
68
Table 4.2 Students’ characters scores
69
Table 4.3 Normality test of research data
71
Table 4.4 Homogeneity test of research data
71
Table 4.5 Hypotheses test result
72
Table 4.6 The correlation of students’ achievement to students’
characters scores
75
xii
LIST OF FORMULAS
Page
Formula 3.1
Validity Test
56
Formula 3.2
Difficulty Level Test
56
Formula 3.3
Discriminations Index Test
57
Formula 3.4
Distracter Index Test
57
Formula 3.5
Reliability Test
58
Formula 3.6
Normalized Gain
59
Formula 3.7
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
63
Formula 3.8
tcount for Significance Test
63
Formula 3.9
Determinant Coefficient
63
`
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 The effect of adding a common ion, Cl- on the solubility of AgCl
37
Figure 2.2 The effect of pH change on the solubility of Mg(OH) 2
38
Figure 2.3 The effect of pH change on the solubility of BaCO 3
39
Figure 3.1 Research Design Flowchart
54
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Students’ Characters Scores
69
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix 1
Chemistry Subject Syllabus
86
Appendix 2
Core Competence and Basic Competence For Chemistry
Subject Grade XI for Senior High School/Madrasah Aliyah
Base on the 2013 Curriculum
Appendix 3
90
Invalidated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
Product
93
Appendix 4
The Tabulation of Invalidated Questions Distribution
Appendix 5
Validated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
102
Product
103
Appendix 6
The Tabulation of Validated Questions Distribution
108
Appendix 7
Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Invalidated Multiple
Choices Questions
Appendix 8
109
Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Validated Multiple
Choices Questions
Appendix 9
117
Lesson Plan of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson
121
Appendix 10 Lesson Plan of Direct Instruction
Appendix 11 Laboratory
Activities
of
Guided
156
Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson
188
Appendix 12 Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters
200
Appendix 13 Validity Test Result
206
Appendix 14 Difficulty Level Test Result
208
Appendix 15 Discriminations Index Test Result
210
Appendix 16 Distracter Index Test Result
212
Appendix 17 Final Result of Multiple Choices Questions Selection
214
Appendix 18 Reliability Test Result
215
Appendix 19 Pretest and Posttest Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
217
xiv
Appendix 20 Normalized Gain of Experimental and Control Class
Appendix 21 Statistical
Descriptives
of
Pretest
and
Posttest
218
in
Experimental and Control Class
220
Appendix 22 Tabulation of Students’ Characters Scores in Experimental
and Control Class
222
Appendix 23 Students’ Characters Total Scores of Experimental and
Control Class
232
Appendix 24 Statistical Descriptives of Students’ Characters Scores in
Experimental and Control Class
233
Appendix 25 Normality Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and
Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
235
Appendix 26 Homogeneity Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and
Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
Appendix 27 Hypotheses Test Result
249
251
Appendix 28 Correlation between Students’ Achievement and Students’
Characters Development
258
Appendix 29 Documentations
259
Appendix 30 Letter of Confirmation To Be Thesis Supervisor
264
Appendix 31 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from FMIPA
Unimed
265
Appendix 32 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from Dinas
Pendidikan, Pemuda, dan Olahraga Kabupaten Deli Serdang
266
Appendix 33 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
from SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan
267
Appendix 34 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
Instrument Validation from SMA Negeri 5 Binjai
268
Appendix 35 Letter of Recommendation for Students’ Characters
Observation
Appendix 36 Letter of Recommendation for Content Validation
269
270
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Today's education reformations are required to be done. Reformation efforts
in the field of education are basically aimed at businesses include: mastery of
materials, media, and learning models used. Learning model is aimed at
increasing student activity in the learning process so that the process will take
place in an optimal teaching and learning activities between teachers and students.
Several factors are seen as the causes of the global problems in education
are: (1) instructional methods used by teachers are often monotonous. Lecturing
method is a method that is consistently used by teachers in the order of explaining
and then giving examples, exercises, and homework. There is no variation in
learning methods/ models based on the characteristics of the material to be
studied, (2) Teachers rarely give students the opportunities to interact with their
friends or teachers in developing an understanding of the concepts and principles.
(3) Teaching process conducted by the teacher more emphasize on mathematical
manipulations; they start with the definition of the concept, and then put it
mathematically. (4) Teachers do not understand the method of resolving the
problems systematically. Teachers only see the final result of the assignments or
tasks that the students do. (5) Teachers are more interested in the students whose
the correct answer without analyzing the mistakes of the student and completion
procedures. (6) Teachers generally assume that all subject matters of sciences are
enough taught by lecturing or giving complete theories without considering that
some also need additional activity such as laboratory and outside activity to get
deeper understanding. (7) Teachers focus only on giving materials without
inviting students to do some projects to discover something which absolutely can
improve students’ discovery ability (Slavin, 2004).
In addition to the factors above, learning strategies and models are really
important to be used by teachers to determine the quality of processes and student
learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers should be good at choosing and using
2
learning strategies and modes that can involve all components optimally so that
students can learn actively and develop all their competences.
There are so many learning models/ strategies prepared to get more
interactive learning. Some models/ strategies focus on cooperative interaction
among students, others focus on the stages of conducting experiment (scientific
method), and many others. Due to the variation of innovative learning models/
strategies, the selection of suitable models/ strategies is very important to be main
priority before teaching activities; it is considering that there are lots of kind of
topics such as the topic which is full of theory, calculation, demonstration, and
others. So that it must have been well-prepared in matching the models/ strategies
used to the topics being taught. As the limitation of options, curriculum can be
used as a reference to match model/ strategy to the topic. It will give
recommendation about models/ strategies which are nowadays effective to be
implemented based on the aims of today’s curriculum.
In terms of improving the quality of education in Indonesia, the government
also has made several attempts, one of them is changing the curriculum. For now,
the government changed the curriculum of KTSP into the 2013 curriculum based
on the idea of the future challenges, public perception, development of
pedagogical knowledge, future competence, and negative phenomena which arise.
Based on the 2013 curriculum that aims to prepare Indonesian people that
have the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are productive, creative,
innovative, and affective and able to contribute to society, nation, state, and
civilization of the world, so that students are required to develop a balance
between spiritual attitudes and social development, curiosity, creativity,
cooperation with intellectual and psychomotor abilities (Regulation of Ministry of
Education and Culture No. 69 of 2013).
Learning is related to the success of the learning process that the outcome
will determine the students’ achievement will be achieved. Therefore, in choosing
learning methods, a teacher must pay attention to several things; conformity with
the purpose of learning methods and teaching materials, teaching methods and
conformance with environmental education. The selection of models/ methods of
3
learning based on the 2013 curriculum also focuses on the character of students
that can be developed from the subject matter that teachers teach. Learning model
which are suitable on content of the 2013 curriculum among others namely the
model of Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery Learning, and Project-Based
Learning (PJBL). According Suradijono (in Warmada), Problem Based Learning
is a teaching approach that uses problems as a first step in collecting and
integrating new knowledge. PBL learning model is student-centere learning and
put the teacher as a motivator and facilitator. According to the Sofa (2008),
Discovery Learning is learning that requires discovery mental processes, such as
observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining, and making decisions.
While Project-Based Learning is an innovative approach to learning that enable
students to learn and work autonomously to construct their knowledge related to
real life, so as to produce a product of student work.
Based on the condition stated above, it will be absolutely the best way to put
learning model of PBL, Discovery Learning, or PJBL to the subject matter
(especially sciences) rather than using conventional method of teaching.
Discovery Learning is highly possible to give the best result in teaching and
learning sciences especially chemistry.
Chemistry is one of science subjects that has a very close relationship
between the concepts with their application in everyday life. This means that the
learning is not enough by teaching conceptually, but enhancing the understanding
of students to use the concept significantly in their daily life. According to
Tanjung (2007) there are some factors that are suspectinged to be the causes of the
lack of mastery of chemistry in senior high school, those include: students often
learn by rote without understanding the subject matter, material that is taught
often float so that students do not find the key to understand the material, and
teachers can’t give the concept to master the material being taught. One of the
problems that lower the students’ achievement in learning chemistry is that many
students’ pre-assumption that consider chemistry is difficult subject so they are
indirectly intimidated with that assumption and have a feeling that they will never
get it. This case may be caused by the presentation of topics which are less
4
interesting and boring because the lack of innovative strategies/ models of
teaching by teachers. Considering the fact that chemistry is daily applicative
subject matter, students must be mastered in not only theory but also their
capability of doing experiment or discovering concepts by experiment. One of
chemistry topics which need understanding in both concepts and experiments is
Solubility and Solubility Product. It is expected that Discovery Learning will be
effectively applied in this topic.
The topic of Solubility and Solubility Product is one of topics in senior high
school chemistry of grade XI. The scope of this topic based on the 2013
curriculum includes (1) The definition of solubility, (2) Solubility product (Ksp),
(3) The relationship of solubility (s) and solubility product (Ksp), (4) The effect of
a common ion and pH on solubility, and (5) The relationship of solubility product
(Ksp) to precipitation. Solubility and solubility product is a concept that adequately
represent the abstract of chemistry lesson so that this subject is difficult to
understand. So that to fulfill the competences need to be achieved, there must be
conceptual understanding obtained from doing experiment or discovering the
concepts through the experimental activities. Here, students are obligated to have
high analysis ability of observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining,
and making decisions. If the students have low quality of analysis, there will be a
big possibility of getting misunderstanding about the concepts and experiments.
To avoid misunderstanding, researcher choose one of the Discovery Learning type
which focus on students’ analysis ability in experiment
but still under the
guidance of teacher as facilitator, motivator, and role model. This type of
Discovery Learning is Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson.
One of capabilities development of discovery-inquiry on students through
science can be implemented by the activities of guided discovery-inquiry
laboratory lesson. According to Amin (1979: 15), the term guided discoveryinquiry laboratory lesson is used when teacher provides wide guidance and clear
instruction to the students in the activities of discovery-inquiry. Most of the
planning is made by the teacher. From the definition, it can be concluded that
5
guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson is Discovery Learning where the
cases/ problems are given by teacher.
Students do not formulate problems. Complete clues about how to compose
and record are given by the teacher. According to Amin (1979: 15-16) In general,
guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson consists of: 1) Statement of problems:
problems for each activity can be expressed as a question or statement plain; 2)
The principle or concept being taught: principles and/ or concepts must be
discovered by the students through the activities/ experiments, should be written
clearly and precisely; 3) Equipment/ materials: equipments/ materials must be
provided in accordance with the needs of each student to undertake activities; 4)
Directives Discussion: in the form of the questions presented to students (class) to
be discussed before the students do activities/ experiments; 5) Discovery-inquiry
activities: activity method of discovery-inquiry by the students is in the form of
experimental activity/ investigation conducted by the students to discover
concepts and/ or the principles set by the teacher; 6) The thought process of
students: critical thinking and the scientific process must be owned by students
during the activity; 7) Open-ended question: it should be a question that leads to
the development of additional investigation activities that can be undertaken by
students; 8) Notes of teachers: an explanation of things or tough parts of the
activity/ lessons, content/ subject matter that is relevant to the activity, variable
factors which can affect the result.
Guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson invites the students to learn
actively. Students will be involved in a lot of activities which definitely need
activeness, cooperation, and responsibility in conducting the activities to get the
best result of learning. As the process going, another advantage will be obtained
where there will be characters development earned by students. If the students
have no that characters, learning activity will be hard to be well-done. Characters
development had been a big problem of Indonesian education. Individualistic
attitudes, selfishness, indifference, lack of sense of responsibility, and lack of
empathy are the phenomenons that shows the lack of social values or characters in
daily life. By these conditions, education can actually provide a substantial
6
contribution to overcome those big problems. Education can contribute in
overcoming social problems because education has the function and role in
improving human resources. But what does actually make the characters
development in schools has not yielded the expected results yet? Many factors are
indicated as the causes behind these. Factors could be from the curriculum,
design, or implementation of the supporting factors of learning (Syaodih, 2009).
Thus, the 2013 curriculum is expected to bring new solutions to fix those all
problems by not only focusing on students’ achievement of cognitive aspects but
students’ characters development as well.
As the beginning effort
in implementing the learning models
recommended by the 2013 curriculum, the prevention of using conventional
method must be running in a row with it. Many conventional learning methods
which are used by teacher are just to present a subject matter that makes the
students tend to be lazy to think and just listen to the explanation without
understanding what was said by the teacher, just say that one of the conventional
learning method is mostly covered by Direct Instruction learning model. This
model brings one direction communication where teacher dominates teaching and
learning process without paying attention to what students actually needs and
wants, this makes the students get bored and sleepy easily. But actually the case is
that a teacher is expected to be able to present the subject matter as interesting as
possible, so that the students are going to be interested in being creative and active
in learning activities (Roestiyah, 2001).
This objective is very suitable on the 2013 curriculum goal as described
above. So that it is absolutely effective to use this kind of learning model on the
teaching and learning activities. Therefore, due to the condition described above,
the researcher was interested to intently conduct the research entitled The
Implementation of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning
Model in Improving Senior High School Students’ Achievement and
Characters Development on the Topic of Solubility and Solubility Product
7
1.2
Problems Identification
Based on the background described above, problems can be identified as
follows:
1. Teaching and learning processes are generally running by conventional way
where the processes tend to be dominated by teacher’s activity
2. The unsuitable selections on the models or the lacks of proper learning
methods conducted by teacher.
3. The lack of theoretical and practical understanding about science especially
chemistry.
4. The lack of students’ characters development through teaching and learning
process.
1.3
Scopes of Research
In order to keep this research more focused and directed; research was
limited as follows:
1. The research was conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, Deli
Serdang Regency, North Sumatera and limited to the grade XI even semester
of academic year of 2013/ 2014
2. The topic was limited to the unit of chemistry of Solubility and Solubility
Product based on the 2013 curriculum
3. Teaching method used in this research was limited to the learning model of
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson and Direct Instruction as a
control
4. In this research, this study was limited to the investigation of students’
character of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility
5. Students’ learning outcomes to be measured in this research were students’
achievement by cognitive aspect of the level C1, C2, C3, and C4 and
characters development as affective aspects by observation sheet
8
1.4
Problem Statements
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this research
were formulated as follows:
1. Is there any significant difference between students’ achievement obtained
by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
compared to Direct Instruction?
2. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of activeness
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
3. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of
cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
4. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of
responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
5. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness
to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson?
6. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness
to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
7. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson?
8. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
9. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson?
10. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
9
1.5
Research Objectives
The general objective of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of
implementing Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson learning model in
improving senior high school students’ learning outcomes on the teaching of
Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum. The specific
objectives of this research were to investigate:
1. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’
achievement obtained by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
2. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of activeness developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
3. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
4. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
5. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson
6. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
7. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson
8. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
9. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
10. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
10
1.6
Research Significances
This research was expected to:
1. Provide guidelines for science teachers especially chemistry teachers to
implement Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of
chemistry topics
2. Give reference of best teaching model (Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson) which can improve the students’ achievement on the
teaching of Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
3. Establish both basic and advanced knowledge of students about Solubility
and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
4. Give motivation to teachers to conduct similar and better research examining
learning models to chemistry topics
5. Provide inputs for next reseachers to do similar research in the future
78
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1
Conclusions
The objectives of this research had been transformed to be problem
statements which were then hypothesized. The supporting data were found and
analyzed by Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) version 16.0 to reveal
all the hypotheses. The null hypotheses had been all rejected by significant
statistical evidences and so hadn’t been alternative hypotheses which were
automatically accepted. The data analysis and the result of this study have
provided a basis for the following conclusions:
1.
There is significant difference between students’ achievement obtained by
learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared
to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
gives better result rather than Direct Instruction, with associated significance
value of ttable
2.
There is significant difference between students’ character of activeness
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
3.
There is significant difference between students’ character of cooperation
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
4.
There is significant difference between students’ character of responsibility
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
79
5.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
very highly correlated
6.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction, with
associated significance value of ttable, but unfortunately
its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite correlated
7.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
highly correlated
8.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable, but
unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite
correlated
9.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
highly correlated
10.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable, but
unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite
correlated
80
5.2
Suggestions
The outcomes of this research recommend chemistry teachers to implement
this kind of learning model due to its effectiveness and significances compared to
direct instruction one on the teaching of solubility and solubility product based on
the 2013 curriculum. The overall results of this study offer implications for future
researchers who may be interested in studying the effectiveness of Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of chemistry topics or other
subjects. This study could be replicated among a larger population in North
Sumatera, Indonesia and even across the nation.
Because this study limited the scope of research to senior high school
students; selected characters of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility; and
cognitive aspects of level C1-C4 only, so that future researchers could enlarge the
scope of this research by examining this kind of learning model to elementary,
junior high school, or even university students; analyze other characters
development such as critical thinking, creative, etc; and enhance the students’
achievement standard up to level C5 and C6 of Bloom’s taxonomy as well.
For perfection of this research, future researchers could include additional
variables which may give contribution to students’ cognitive and affective aspects
such as examining the effectiveness of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson
in improving the students’ achievement and characters development based on sex
(gender), family background, etc.
Furthermore, investigating the similar and different researches about guided
discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson are really required to develop this own
learning model especially and science education quality in Indonesia globally.
LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT
ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
By:
Wika Prayogi
Reg. Number 4103332028
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN
2014
i
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Wika Prayogi, raised in Medan, Indonesia, was born on July 13th, 1992 in
Percut Sei Tuan, Deli Serdang, Sumatera Utara. He is second of two siblings. His
mother’s name is Sutanti and father’s name is Muhammad Ramli. He was
graduated from SD Negeri 104209 Saentis, Deli Serdang in 2004; SMP Swasta
PAB-3 Saentis, Deli Serdang in 2007; and SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, Deli
Serdang in 2010. He entered Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) in 2010 as
Chemistry major, with an emphasis on Chemistry Education Bilingual and
International Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. During the
time in UNIMED, he actively followed a lot of competitions and won some of
that. He was the winner of UNIMED Chemistry Olympiade in 2012, second
runner up in 46th Dies Natalis of UNIMED English Debate Competition in 2013,
finalist of UNIMED English Debate Competition in 2014, FMIPA delegation in
American Chemical Society (ACS)/ HKI Skill Workshop for Young Indonesian
Scientist and Engineers in 2013, and second runner up in MTQ FMIPA UNIMED
in 2012. The writer was also active in International and National Seminar and
Training to be participant, MC, or committee.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to devote my greatest gratitude to Allah SWT The
Almighty, He is The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful for His blessing,
guidance, strength, health, and favor which have been being given to me so that I
could go with this life and finally finish this thesis especially.
I would like to extend thanks to the many people, in many countries, who so
generously contributed to the work presented in this thesis.
Special mention goes to my enthusiastic supervisor, Dr. Zainuddin Muchtar,
M.Si. This degree has been an amazing experience and I thank Mr. Zai
wholeheartedly, not only for his tremendous academic support, but also for giving
me so many wonderful opportunities, guidance, and motivations.
Similar, profound gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Albinus Silalahi, M.S., Dr. Ajat
Sudrajat, M.Si., and Dr. Mahmud, M.Sc who have been truly dedicated
examiners. I am particularly indebted to them for their constant faith, advices,
suggestions, guidance, and constructive critics in perfecting this thesis.
I am also hugely appreciative to Prof. Dr. Ramlan Silaban, M.Si., Dr. Retno Dwi
Suyanti, M.Si., and Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si who have been truly dedicated
validators for this thesis instruments. I’m so thankful to them for their times,
advices, and suggestions in developing my research instruments. Huge gratitude is
also delivered to the late Prof. Dr. Suharta, M.Si who had been my first academic
supervisor and instrument validator. I’m so glad walking under his supervisions in
achieving all prestigious achievements in university. He was gone too soon yet
leaving all great dedications to this university. Al-Fatihah. Similar, great thanks
are delivered as well to my second academic supervisor Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si
who has given great motivations repeatedly in last minutes of my education in this
university.
Special mention also goes to Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si as the
head of Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED), Prof. Drs. Motlan, Ph.D as the
dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, Prof. Dr. rer. nat Binari
Manurung, M.Si and Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as the coordinator and secretary of
v
Bilingual and International Program respectively, Drs. Jamalum Purba, M.Si as
the head of Chemistry Department, and last but not least, Mr. Sam as the assistant
of Bilingual and International Program. I’m so hugely appreciative to them for
their times, especially for sharing their experiences so willingly, and for being so
dedicated to their roles in supporting me completing this thesis.
Special mention goes to Widiya Ningsih, S.Pd., M.Si as my observer and
home teacher of my research school SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, the school at
which I had graduated from as well.
Special mention goes to all my colleagues who have been involved in
supporting me to complete my education and color my college life. A million
thanks are delivered to Debby, Rabiah, and Yasir as my ‘Solid’, Lina, Melisa,
Fenny, Rudi, Andre, Cici, Indra, Fery, and all CESP students of 2010 for all
unforgettable moments. I find it so difficult to choose which one not best of our
moments but one thing must be totally crazy is that not many S.Pds involve daily
hangouts and weekly playing badminton during thesis deadline just to get
refreshing. I also thank all seniors and juniors in FMIPA for supporting my
education and my PPL colleagues in SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan for all great
experiences. Great thanks are also addressed to SMA Negeri 1 Matauli Pandan
especially batch of 18, 19, and 20 for being always in my mind.
Finally, but by no means least, thanks go to my mum Tanti, my dad Ramli,
my sister Widya Prayasti, my adorable nephews Alil and Arka and all my families
for almost unbelievable supports. They are the most important people in my world
and I dedicate this thesis to them.
Medan, July, 2014
The Writer
Wika Prayogi
Reg. No. 4103332028
iii
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDED DISCOVERY-INQUIRY LABORATORY
LESSON LEARNING MODEL IN IMPROVING SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND CHARACTERS DEVELOPMENT
ON THE TOPIC OF SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY PRODUCT
Wika Prayogi (Reg. No. 4103332028)
ABSTRACT
The implementation of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
learning model in improving senior high school students’ achievement and
activeness, cooperation, and responsibility development on the topic of Solubility
and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum were investigated in this
study by comparing the result to Direct Instruction learning model. This study
involved 60 homogeneous students of 11th grade in SMAN 1 Percut Sei Tuan
which were equally divided into 2 classes; those were 30 students treated by
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson as experimental class sample and
30 remaining students treated by Direct Instruction as control class sample.
Students’ achievement (measured by posttest scores) of experimental class sample
gained (78.8±1.28) % of improving to be averagely 84.167±1.019, while control
class sample gained (61.8±1.67) % only to be averagely 72.667±1.216. By
comparing those values, there was significant difference between students’
achievement in both classes with associated significance value of ttable. Students’ characters development was also measured. The average of
students’ activeness, cooperation, and responsibility scores in experimental class
sample was successively 91.554±0.407; 90.222±0.498; and 87.407±0.450 while in
control class sample was only 67.815±0.520; 74.889±0.510; and 77.222±0.602
respectively. By comparing each character score, there was significant difference
between students’ characters development in both classes with associated
significance value of ttable for each. The improvement of
students’ achievement and characters development had been obtained. By
comparing overall result in both classes, the researcher examined the correlation
of students’ achievement to each character development of activeness,
cooperation, and responsibility in each class sample. The correlation test was also
statistically studied, where there was positive and significant correlation between
those two variables in each class sample with associated significance value of
ttable for each. But the correlation of students’ achievement to
characters development in experimental class sample was totally higher than the
control one. Thus, guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson learning model was
statistically proven to be able to improve students’ achievement and characters
development and statistically better than direct instruction on the teaching of
solubility and solubility product based on the 2013 curriculum but it was still
recommended to investigate this kind of learning model to other subject matters
and enlarges the variables to be studied.
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
LEGALIZATION PAGE
i
BIOGRAPHY
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
ACKNOWLEDMENT
iv
LIST OF CENTENTS
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
x
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FORMULAS
xii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Background
1
1.2
Problems Identification
7
1.3
Scopes of Research
7
1.4
Problem Statements
8
1.5
Research Objectives
9
1.6
Research Significances
10
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
11
2.1
11
Definition of Teaching and Learning
2.1.1 Definition of Teaching
11
2.1.2 Definition of Learning
11
2.2
Learning Chemistry and the Outcomes
12
2.3
Students’ Achievement
14
2.4
Characters of Education
16
2.4.1 Character of Activeness
17
2.4.2 Character of Cooperation
18
2.4.3 Character of Responsibility
19
vii
2.5
The 2013 Curriculum
19
2.5.1 The Wisdom of Implementation of the 2013 Curriculum
20
2.5.2 The Characteristics of the 2013 Curriculum
21
2.6
23
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning Model
2.6.1 Discovery-Inquiry Learning
24
2.6.2 Discovery-Inquiry Learning Objectives
26
2.6.3 Pros and Cons of Discovery-Inquiry Learning
26
2.6.4 Syntax or Learning Steps of Discovery-Inquiry Learning
27
2.6.5 Types of Discovery-Inquiry Learning Model
28
2.6.6 Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
29
2.7
Direct Instruction Learning Model
32
2.8
Solubility and Solubility Product
33
2.8.1 The Definition of Solubility
34
2.8.2 The Solubility Product (Ksp)
35
2.8.3 The Relationship of Solubility and Solubility Product (Ksp)
37
2.8.4 The Effect of a Common Ion and pH on Solubility
37
2.8.5 The Relationship of Solubility Product (Ksp) and Precipitation
40
2.9
40
Applicability of Learning Model to Topic
2.10 Mutual Research about Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
41
2.11 Hypotheses
43
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
46
3.1
Research Location and Object
46
3.2
Population and Sample
46
3.3
Research Variables
46
3.3.1 Independent Variable
46
3.3.2 Dependent Variable
47
3.3.3 Control Variable
47
3.4
48
Research Instruments
3.4.1 Test Instrument
48
3.4.2 Observation Sheet
49
viii
3.5
Research Type and Design
49
3.5.1 Research Type
50
3.5.2 Research Design
50
3.5.3 Research Procedures
51
3.5.4 Research Design Flowchart
53
3.6
54
Data Collection Technique and Research Instrument Preparation
3.6.1 Validity Test
54
3.6.2 Difficulty Level Test
55
3.6.3 Discriminations Index Test
56
3.6.4 Distracter Index Test
56
3.6.5 Reliability Test
57
3.7
58
Data Analysis of Research Results
3.7.1 Normalized Gain
58
3.7.2 Normality Test
59
3.7.3 Homogeneity Test
59
3.7.4 Hypotheses Test
59
3.7.5 Correlation Analysis
62
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
65
4.1
Research Results
65
4.2
Research Instrument Preparation Results
65
4.2.1 Validity Test Result
66
4.2.2 Difficulty Level Test Result
66
4.2.3 Discriminations Index Test Result
66
4.2.4 Distracter Index Test Result
66
4.2.5 Reliability Test Result
67
4.3
67
Data of Research Results
4.3.1 Data of Students’ Achievement
68
4.3.2 Data of Students’ Characters Development
69
4.4
70
Data Analysis of Research Results
4.4.1 Normality Test Result
70
ix
4.4.2 Homogeneity Test Result
71
4.4.3 Hypotheses Test Result
72
4.4.4 Correlation Result of Students’ Achievement to Students’ Characters
Development
4.5
Discussions
74
76
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
78
5.1
Conclusions
78
5.2
Suggestions
80
REFERENCES
81
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 The changing of paradigm and mindset on curriculum 2013
21
Table 2.2 Syntax of the direct instruction learning model
33
Table 2.3 Solubility product constants for several insoluble salts and
bases at 25oC
36
Table 2.4 Applicability of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson to
solubility and solubility product
41
Table 3.1 Independent and dependent variable based on hypothesis
48
Table 3.2 Research design
51
Table 4.1 Students’ cognitive scores
68
Table 4.2 Students’ characters scores
69
Table 4.3 Normality test of research data
71
Table 4.4 Homogeneity test of research data
71
Table 4.5 Hypotheses test result
72
Table 4.6 The correlation of students’ achievement to students’
characters scores
75
xii
LIST OF FORMULAS
Page
Formula 3.1
Validity Test
56
Formula 3.2
Difficulty Level Test
56
Formula 3.3
Discriminations Index Test
57
Formula 3.4
Distracter Index Test
57
Formula 3.5
Reliability Test
58
Formula 3.6
Normalized Gain
59
Formula 3.7
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
63
Formula 3.8
tcount for Significance Test
63
Formula 3.9
Determinant Coefficient
63
`
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 The effect of adding a common ion, Cl- on the solubility of AgCl
37
Figure 2.2 The effect of pH change on the solubility of Mg(OH) 2
38
Figure 2.3 The effect of pH change on the solubility of BaCO 3
39
Figure 3.1 Research Design Flowchart
54
Figure 4.1 Diagram of Students’ Characters Scores
69
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix 1
Chemistry Subject Syllabus
86
Appendix 2
Core Competence and Basic Competence For Chemistry
Subject Grade XI for Senior High School/Madrasah Aliyah
Base on the 2013 Curriculum
Appendix 3
90
Invalidated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
Product
93
Appendix 4
The Tabulation of Invalidated Questions Distribution
Appendix 5
Validated Test Categories of Solubility and Solubility
102
Product
103
Appendix 6
The Tabulation of Validated Questions Distribution
108
Appendix 7
Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Invalidated Multiple
Choices Questions
Appendix 8
109
Research Instrument (in Bahasa) of Validated Multiple
Choices Questions
Appendix 9
117
Lesson Plan of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson
121
Appendix 10 Lesson Plan of Direct Instruction
Appendix 11 Laboratory
Activities
of
Guided
156
Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson
188
Appendix 12 Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters
200
Appendix 13 Validity Test Result
206
Appendix 14 Difficulty Level Test Result
208
Appendix 15 Discriminations Index Test Result
210
Appendix 16 Distracter Index Test Result
212
Appendix 17 Final Result of Multiple Choices Questions Selection
214
Appendix 18 Reliability Test Result
215
Appendix 19 Pretest and Posttest Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
217
xiv
Appendix 20 Normalized Gain of Experimental and Control Class
Appendix 21 Statistical
Descriptives
of
Pretest
and
Posttest
218
in
Experimental and Control Class
220
Appendix 22 Tabulation of Students’ Characters Scores in Experimental
and Control Class
222
Appendix 23 Students’ Characters Total Scores of Experimental and
Control Class
232
Appendix 24 Statistical Descriptives of Students’ Characters Scores in
Experimental and Control Class
233
Appendix 25 Normality Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and
Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
235
Appendix 26 Homogeneity Test Result of Pretest, Posttest, Gain, and
Students Characters Scores of Experimental and Control
Class
Appendix 27 Hypotheses Test Result
249
251
Appendix 28 Correlation between Students’ Achievement and Students’
Characters Development
258
Appendix 29 Documentations
259
Appendix 30 Letter of Confirmation To Be Thesis Supervisor
264
Appendix 31 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from FMIPA
Unimed
265
Appendix 32 Letter of Approval for Conducting Research from Dinas
Pendidikan, Pemuda, dan Olahraga Kabupaten Deli Serdang
266
Appendix 33 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
from SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan
267
Appendix 34 Letter of Confirmation for Having Conducted Research
Instrument Validation from SMA Negeri 5 Binjai
268
Appendix 35 Letter of Recommendation for Students’ Characters
Observation
Appendix 36 Letter of Recommendation for Content Validation
269
270
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Today's education reformations are required to be done. Reformation efforts
in the field of education are basically aimed at businesses include: mastery of
materials, media, and learning models used. Learning model is aimed at
increasing student activity in the learning process so that the process will take
place in an optimal teaching and learning activities between teachers and students.
Several factors are seen as the causes of the global problems in education
are: (1) instructional methods used by teachers are often monotonous. Lecturing
method is a method that is consistently used by teachers in the order of explaining
and then giving examples, exercises, and homework. There is no variation in
learning methods/ models based on the characteristics of the material to be
studied, (2) Teachers rarely give students the opportunities to interact with their
friends or teachers in developing an understanding of the concepts and principles.
(3) Teaching process conducted by the teacher more emphasize on mathematical
manipulations; they start with the definition of the concept, and then put it
mathematically. (4) Teachers do not understand the method of resolving the
problems systematically. Teachers only see the final result of the assignments or
tasks that the students do. (5) Teachers are more interested in the students whose
the correct answer without analyzing the mistakes of the student and completion
procedures. (6) Teachers generally assume that all subject matters of sciences are
enough taught by lecturing or giving complete theories without considering that
some also need additional activity such as laboratory and outside activity to get
deeper understanding. (7) Teachers focus only on giving materials without
inviting students to do some projects to discover something which absolutely can
improve students’ discovery ability (Slavin, 2004).
In addition to the factors above, learning strategies and models are really
important to be used by teachers to determine the quality of processes and student
learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers should be good at choosing and using
2
learning strategies and modes that can involve all components optimally so that
students can learn actively and develop all their competences.
There are so many learning models/ strategies prepared to get more
interactive learning. Some models/ strategies focus on cooperative interaction
among students, others focus on the stages of conducting experiment (scientific
method), and many others. Due to the variation of innovative learning models/
strategies, the selection of suitable models/ strategies is very important to be main
priority before teaching activities; it is considering that there are lots of kind of
topics such as the topic which is full of theory, calculation, demonstration, and
others. So that it must have been well-prepared in matching the models/ strategies
used to the topics being taught. As the limitation of options, curriculum can be
used as a reference to match model/ strategy to the topic. It will give
recommendation about models/ strategies which are nowadays effective to be
implemented based on the aims of today’s curriculum.
In terms of improving the quality of education in Indonesia, the government
also has made several attempts, one of them is changing the curriculum. For now,
the government changed the curriculum of KTSP into the 2013 curriculum based
on the idea of the future challenges, public perception, development of
pedagogical knowledge, future competence, and negative phenomena which arise.
Based on the 2013 curriculum that aims to prepare Indonesian people that
have the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are productive, creative,
innovative, and affective and able to contribute to society, nation, state, and
civilization of the world, so that students are required to develop a balance
between spiritual attitudes and social development, curiosity, creativity,
cooperation with intellectual and psychomotor abilities (Regulation of Ministry of
Education and Culture No. 69 of 2013).
Learning is related to the success of the learning process that the outcome
will determine the students’ achievement will be achieved. Therefore, in choosing
learning methods, a teacher must pay attention to several things; conformity with
the purpose of learning methods and teaching materials, teaching methods and
conformance with environmental education. The selection of models/ methods of
3
learning based on the 2013 curriculum also focuses on the character of students
that can be developed from the subject matter that teachers teach. Learning model
which are suitable on content of the 2013 curriculum among others namely the
model of Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery Learning, and Project-Based
Learning (PJBL). According Suradijono (in Warmada), Problem Based Learning
is a teaching approach that uses problems as a first step in collecting and
integrating new knowledge. PBL learning model is student-centere learning and
put the teacher as a motivator and facilitator. According to the Sofa (2008),
Discovery Learning is learning that requires discovery mental processes, such as
observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining, and making decisions.
While Project-Based Learning is an innovative approach to learning that enable
students to learn and work autonomously to construct their knowledge related to
real life, so as to produce a product of student work.
Based on the condition stated above, it will be absolutely the best way to put
learning model of PBL, Discovery Learning, or PJBL to the subject matter
(especially sciences) rather than using conventional method of teaching.
Discovery Learning is highly possible to give the best result in teaching and
learning sciences especially chemistry.
Chemistry is one of science subjects that has a very close relationship
between the concepts with their application in everyday life. This means that the
learning is not enough by teaching conceptually, but enhancing the understanding
of students to use the concept significantly in their daily life. According to
Tanjung (2007) there are some factors that are suspectinged to be the causes of the
lack of mastery of chemistry in senior high school, those include: students often
learn by rote without understanding the subject matter, material that is taught
often float so that students do not find the key to understand the material, and
teachers can’t give the concept to master the material being taught. One of the
problems that lower the students’ achievement in learning chemistry is that many
students’ pre-assumption that consider chemistry is difficult subject so they are
indirectly intimidated with that assumption and have a feeling that they will never
get it. This case may be caused by the presentation of topics which are less
4
interesting and boring because the lack of innovative strategies/ models of
teaching by teachers. Considering the fact that chemistry is daily applicative
subject matter, students must be mastered in not only theory but also their
capability of doing experiment or discovering concepts by experiment. One of
chemistry topics which need understanding in both concepts and experiments is
Solubility and Solubility Product. It is expected that Discovery Learning will be
effectively applied in this topic.
The topic of Solubility and Solubility Product is one of topics in senior high
school chemistry of grade XI. The scope of this topic based on the 2013
curriculum includes (1) The definition of solubility, (2) Solubility product (Ksp),
(3) The relationship of solubility (s) and solubility product (Ksp), (4) The effect of
a common ion and pH on solubility, and (5) The relationship of solubility product
(Ksp) to precipitation. Solubility and solubility product is a concept that adequately
represent the abstract of chemistry lesson so that this subject is difficult to
understand. So that to fulfill the competences need to be achieved, there must be
conceptual understanding obtained from doing experiment or discovering the
concepts through the experimental activities. Here, students are obligated to have
high analysis ability of observing, measuring, classifying, suspecting, explaining,
and making decisions. If the students have low quality of analysis, there will be a
big possibility of getting misunderstanding about the concepts and experiments.
To avoid misunderstanding, researcher choose one of the Discovery Learning type
which focus on students’ analysis ability in experiment
but still under the
guidance of teacher as facilitator, motivator, and role model. This type of
Discovery Learning is Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson.
One of capabilities development of discovery-inquiry on students through
science can be implemented by the activities of guided discovery-inquiry
laboratory lesson. According to Amin (1979: 15), the term guided discoveryinquiry laboratory lesson is used when teacher provides wide guidance and clear
instruction to the students in the activities of discovery-inquiry. Most of the
planning is made by the teacher. From the definition, it can be concluded that
5
guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson is Discovery Learning where the
cases/ problems are given by teacher.
Students do not formulate problems. Complete clues about how to compose
and record are given by the teacher. According to Amin (1979: 15-16) In general,
guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson consists of: 1) Statement of problems:
problems for each activity can be expressed as a question or statement plain; 2)
The principle or concept being taught: principles and/ or concepts must be
discovered by the students through the activities/ experiments, should be written
clearly and precisely; 3) Equipment/ materials: equipments/ materials must be
provided in accordance with the needs of each student to undertake activities; 4)
Directives Discussion: in the form of the questions presented to students (class) to
be discussed before the students do activities/ experiments; 5) Discovery-inquiry
activities: activity method of discovery-inquiry by the students is in the form of
experimental activity/ investigation conducted by the students to discover
concepts and/ or the principles set by the teacher; 6) The thought process of
students: critical thinking and the scientific process must be owned by students
during the activity; 7) Open-ended question: it should be a question that leads to
the development of additional investigation activities that can be undertaken by
students; 8) Notes of teachers: an explanation of things or tough parts of the
activity/ lessons, content/ subject matter that is relevant to the activity, variable
factors which can affect the result.
Guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson invites the students to learn
actively. Students will be involved in a lot of activities which definitely need
activeness, cooperation, and responsibility in conducting the activities to get the
best result of learning. As the process going, another advantage will be obtained
where there will be characters development earned by students. If the students
have no that characters, learning activity will be hard to be well-done. Characters
development had been a big problem of Indonesian education. Individualistic
attitudes, selfishness, indifference, lack of sense of responsibility, and lack of
empathy are the phenomenons that shows the lack of social values or characters in
daily life. By these conditions, education can actually provide a substantial
6
contribution to overcome those big problems. Education can contribute in
overcoming social problems because education has the function and role in
improving human resources. But what does actually make the characters
development in schools has not yielded the expected results yet? Many factors are
indicated as the causes behind these. Factors could be from the curriculum,
design, or implementation of the supporting factors of learning (Syaodih, 2009).
Thus, the 2013 curriculum is expected to bring new solutions to fix those all
problems by not only focusing on students’ achievement of cognitive aspects but
students’ characters development as well.
As the beginning effort
in implementing the learning models
recommended by the 2013 curriculum, the prevention of using conventional
method must be running in a row with it. Many conventional learning methods
which are used by teacher are just to present a subject matter that makes the
students tend to be lazy to think and just listen to the explanation without
understanding what was said by the teacher, just say that one of the conventional
learning method is mostly covered by Direct Instruction learning model. This
model brings one direction communication where teacher dominates teaching and
learning process without paying attention to what students actually needs and
wants, this makes the students get bored and sleepy easily. But actually the case is
that a teacher is expected to be able to present the subject matter as interesting as
possible, so that the students are going to be interested in being creative and active
in learning activities (Roestiyah, 2001).
This objective is very suitable on the 2013 curriculum goal as described
above. So that it is absolutely effective to use this kind of learning model on the
teaching and learning activities. Therefore, due to the condition described above,
the researcher was interested to intently conduct the research entitled The
Implementation of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson Learning
Model in Improving Senior High School Students’ Achievement and
Characters Development on the Topic of Solubility and Solubility Product
7
1.2
Problems Identification
Based on the background described above, problems can be identified as
follows:
1. Teaching and learning processes are generally running by conventional way
where the processes tend to be dominated by teacher’s activity
2. The unsuitable selections on the models or the lacks of proper learning
methods conducted by teacher.
3. The lack of theoretical and practical understanding about science especially
chemistry.
4. The lack of students’ characters development through teaching and learning
process.
1.3
Scopes of Research
In order to keep this research more focused and directed; research was
limited as follows:
1. The research was conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Percut Sei Tuan, Deli
Serdang Regency, North Sumatera and limited to the grade XI even semester
of academic year of 2013/ 2014
2. The topic was limited to the unit of chemistry of Solubility and Solubility
Product based on the 2013 curriculum
3. Teaching method used in this research was limited to the learning model of
Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson and Direct Instruction as a
control
4. In this research, this study was limited to the investigation of students’
character of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility
5. Students’ learning outcomes to be measured in this research were students’
achievement by cognitive aspect of the level C1, C2, C3, and C4 and
characters development as affective aspects by observation sheet
8
1.4
Problem Statements
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this research
were formulated as follows:
1. Is there any significant difference between students’ achievement obtained
by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
compared to Direct Instruction?
2. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of activeness
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
3. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of
cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
4. Is there any significant difference between students’ character of
responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction?
5. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness
to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson?
6. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of activeness
to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
7. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson?
8. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
9. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson?
10. Is there any significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction?
9
1.5
Research Objectives
The general objective of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of
implementing Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson learning model in
improving senior high school students’ learning outcomes on the teaching of
Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum. The specific
objectives of this research were to investigate:
1. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’
achievement obtained by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
2. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of activeness developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
3. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of cooperation developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
4. Whether or not there was significant difference between students’ character
of responsibility developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson compared to Direct Instruction
5. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson
6. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
7. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson
8. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
9. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
10. Whether or not there was significant correlation between students’ character
of responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction
10
1.6
Research Significances
This research was expected to:
1. Provide guidelines for science teachers especially chemistry teachers to
implement Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of
chemistry topics
2. Give reference of best teaching model (Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson) which can improve the students’ achievement on the
teaching of Solubility and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
3. Establish both basic and advanced knowledge of students about Solubility
and Solubility Product based on the 2013 curriculum
4. Give motivation to teachers to conduct similar and better research examining
learning models to chemistry topics
5. Provide inputs for next reseachers to do similar research in the future
78
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1
Conclusions
The objectives of this research had been transformed to be problem
statements which were then hypothesized. The supporting data were found and
analyzed by Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) version 16.0 to reveal
all the hypotheses. The null hypotheses had been all rejected by significant
statistical evidences and so hadn’t been alternative hypotheses which were
automatically accepted. The data analysis and the result of this study have
provided a basis for the following conclusions:
1.
There is significant difference between students’ achievement obtained by
learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson compared
to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson
gives better result rather than Direct Instruction, with associated significance
value of ttable
2.
There is significant difference between students’ character of activeness
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
3.
There is significant difference between students’ character of cooperation
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
4.
There is significant difference between students’ character of responsibility
developed by learning model of Guided Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory
Lesson compared to Direct Instruction where Guided Discovery-Inquiry
Laboratory Lesson gives better development rather than Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable
79
5.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
very highly correlated
6.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
activeness to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction, with
associated significance value of ttable, but unfortunately
its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite correlated
7.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
highly correlated
8.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
cooperation to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable, but
unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite
correlated
9.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Guided DiscoveryInquiry Laboratory Lesson, with associated significance value of ttable perfected by r-value which indicates those two variables are
highly correlated
10.
There is a positive and significant correlation between students’ character of
responsibility to the students’ achievement obtained by Direct Instruction,
with associated significance value of ttable, but
unfortunately its r-value indicates those two variables are only quite
correlated
80
5.2
Suggestions
The outcomes of this research recommend chemistry teachers to implement
this kind of learning model due to its effectiveness and significances compared to
direct instruction one on the teaching of solubility and solubility product based on
the 2013 curriculum. The overall results of this study offer implications for future
researchers who may be interested in studying the effectiveness of Guided
Discovery-Inquiry Laboratory Lesson on the teaching of chemistry topics or other
subjects. This study could be replicated among a larger population in North
Sumatera, Indonesia and even across the nation.
Because this study limited the scope of research to senior high school
students; selected characters of activeness, cooperation, and responsibility; and
cognitive aspects of level C1-C4 only, so that future researchers could enlarge the
scope of this research by examining this kind of learning model to elementary,
junior high school, or even university students; analyze other characters
development such as critical thinking, creative, etc; and enhance the students’
achievement standard up to level C5 and C6 of Bloom’s taxonomy as well.
For perfection of this research, future researchers could include additional
variables which may give contribution to students’ cognitive and affective aspects
such as examining the effectiveness of guided discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson
in improving the students’ achievement and characters development based on sex
(gender), family background, etc.
Furthermore, investigating the similar and different researches about guided
discovery-inquiry laboratory lesson are really required to develop this own
learning model especially and science education quality in Indonesia globally.