The Effect of the Scientific Approach with Comic Intelligent Media Support on Students’ Science Competencies

Nandang Hidayat; Teti Rostikawati

doi:10.26737/jerr.v1i1.507

The Effect of the Scientific Approach with Comic Intelligent Media Support on Students’ Science Competencies

Nandang Hidayat, Teti Rostikawati

Abstract

This study aims to test the effectiveness of the use of intelligent comic media combined with the process of learning with scientific approach onstudents’ science competence. The research method used is quasi experimental method with 2x2 factorial design. The study involved four teachers and 112 students of grade 4 from SDN Pertiwi, SDN Polisi 1, SDN Kebon Pedes 1, and SDN Kebon Pedes 5 in Bogor city. The study was conducted in the first half of the academic year 2014/2015. This study concludes that the use of intelligent comics combinedunitedly in the learning process with scientific approach significantly influence the science competence of grade 4 elementary school students on the aspects of knowledge and scientific attitude, but does not significantly affect the competence of science for the aspects of science process skills. This study also concludes that there is no interaction between the learning process as the treatment variable and the involvement of the students in the out-of-school learning guidance (tutorial) as the moderator variable. That is, the influence of the learning process on the students’competence of science on aspects of knowledge and scientific attitudes are not contaminated by the involvement of the students in the guidance of learning.

Keywords

science competence, scientific approach, comic media, learning process

Full Text:

PDF

References

-------------------, Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan. (2013). Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar Mata Pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam untuk Sekolah Dasar /Madrasah Ibtidaiyah kelas 1 s.d kelas 6 Jakarta.

Alseweed, M. A. (2013). Students’ achievement and attitudes toward using traditional learning, blended learning, and virtual classes learning in teaching and learning at the university level. Studies in Literature and Language, 6(1), 65-73.

Alzahrani1, Majed G & O’Toole, John M. (2017). The Impact of Internet Experience and Attitude on Student Preference for Blended Learning. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching. Vol. 6, No. 1.

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408-415.

Arnold, B. (2015). The Double-Helix Model: Proactive Learning Environmrnt Design. 5th Annual International conference on Education and e-learning. ISSN: 2251-1814. Doi: 10.5176/2251-1814_Eel 15.40. 109-116.

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher. 72(7), 30-33.

Bhattacharyya, S., Mead, Tim P., Junot, M., & Welch, Adam. (2013). Effectiveness of Science Method Teaching in Teacher Education: A longitudinal case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education. Vol. 17, No. 2. 2-23.

Bruner, J. (1965). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carin, Arthur A. and Robert B. Sund. (1975). Teaching Science Trought Discovery. Columbus, Ohio: Charless E. Merrill Publishing Co.

Celikler, D., Gunes M. H., & Sendil, K. (2006). The effect of constructivist method on achivement of student in metal and nonmetal topics. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 7(2), 51–59.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routeledge and Kegan Paul.

Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62, 63-66.

Conant,James B. (1951). Science and Common Sense (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Daşdemir, İkramettin. The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model Enriched with Cooperative Learning and Animations on Seventh-Grade Students’ Academic Achievement and Scientific Attitudes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, September 2016, 9(1), 21-38.

Dorph, Rena, Cannady, Matthew A. & Schunn, Christian. (2016) How Science Learning Activation Enables Success for Youth in Science Learning. Electronic Journal of Science Education.Vol. 20, No. 8. 49-85.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology-Educational Technology, 31(5), 7–12.

Fernando, Sithara YJN & Marikar, Faiz MMT. (2017). Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and Participatory Teaching Methods. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching. Vol. 6, No. 1.

Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. School engagement. 74(1), 59-109.

Funk, H. James, et al. (1979). Learning Science Process Skills. Kerper Boulevard: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Ja’ashan, M. H. (2015). Perceptions and attitudes towards blended learning for English courses: A case study of students at University of Bisha. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 40-50.

Kadir. (2016). Statistik Terapan: Contoh dan Analisis Data dengan Program SPSS/Lisrel dalam Penelitian. Ed. Kedua. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. (2013). Buku Tematik Terpadu Kurikulum 2013: Buku Siswa SD/MI Kelas IV.Jakarta: Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. (2013). Buku Tematik Terpadu Kurikulum 2013: Buku Guru SD/MI Kelas IV.Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Kurikulum 2013 untuk Sekolah Dasar.

Koseoglu, F., & Tumay, H., (2010). The effects of learning cycle method in general chemistry laboratory on students’ conceptual change, attitude and perception. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty,11(1), 279–295.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research. 61(2), 179.

Lemos, Marina S. & Veríssimo, Lurdes V. (2014). The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and achievement, along elementary school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112. 930-938.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. Sixth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Newman, W, Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education,15(4), 257-279.

Novak, D. J. Learning Science and The Science of Learning, Studies in Science Education, (1988). 15, 77–101.

Perrin, Michele. (2004). Inquiry-Based Pre-Engineering Activities For K4-Students. Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 5. Issue 3 and 4. July-December 2004. 29-34.

Smith, P.I. & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional Design. (3rd. ed.), Hoboken. N.J: Wiley. p. 244.

Tatli, Z.& Ayas, A. (2011). Effect of a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory on Students’ Achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159–170.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87, 112– 143.

You, S., & Sharkey, J. (2009).Testing a developmental-ecological model of student engagement: A multilevel latent growth curve analysis. Educational Psychology, 29(6). 659-684.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jerr.v1i1.507

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Publisher:

Institute of Managing and Publishing of Scientific Journals STKIP Singkawang

Address : STKIP Singkawang, Jalan STKIP - Kelurahan Naram, Singkawang, Kalimantan Barat, INDONESIA, 79251
No. Telp. : +62562 420 0344
No. Fax. : +62562 420 0584

Journal of Educational Review and Research

e-ISSN : 2597-9760

p-ISSN : 2597-9752