Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT PEMBELAJARAN FISIKA SEKOLAH UNTUK MENINGKATKAN PEMAHAMAN KONSEP DAN KEMAMPUAN BERARGUMENTASI CALON GURU FISIKA

Muslim .

Abstract


This study aims to develop the tools of school physics learning to improve conceptual understanding and argumentation ability for prospective physics teachers. This study was done toward physics education students of LPTK Bandung in semester III by using the design of Research and Development modified using the mixed method design. The steps of this study involves introductory study, development study, limited implementation, analysis, and report phases. The set of school physics learning programs was developed using the generate-an-argument model. The results of this study shows the presence of an increase in conceptual understanding for the experiment class by 0.72 in a high category and for the controlled class by 0.41 in a medium category. The argumentation ability of students develop well in a medium category. The students responded very positively to the learning model developed.

Keyword :  School Physics, Conceptual Understanding, Argumentation Ability


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anderson, L.W. dan Krathwohl, D.R. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Abridged Edition. New York: Adisson Wesley Longman,Inc.

Dufresne, R.J and Gerace, W.J. 2001. Assessing – To – Learn : Formatif Assessment In Physics Instruction. Physics Teacher. 42, 428-434

Duschl, R. 2008. Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals. Review of Research in Education. 32, 268–291.

Engelhardt, P.V and Bechner, R.J. 2004. Students’ Understanding of Direc Current Resistive Electrical Circuits. American Journal Physics.72, (1), 98-115.

Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. 2008. Argumentation in Science Education. Florida State University-USA: Spinger.

Etkina, E. 2005. Preparing Tomorrow's Physics Teachers”. Forum on Education of The American Physical Society. [Online]. Tersedia: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. [3Mei 2010).

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. 2003. Educational Research an Intro-duction, Seventh Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gardner, H. (1999) . The dicipline mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.

McDermott, L. C. (1990). A Perspective on Teacher Preparation in Physics and Other Sciences : The Need for Special Science Course for Teacher. American Journal of Physics. 58 (6) 56-61.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. 2006. Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.

Norris, S., Philips, L. & Osborne, J. 2007. Scientific inquiry: the place of interpretation and argumentation. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.

Sampson, V., Gerbino, F. (2010). Two Instructional Models That Teachers Can Use to Promote & Support Scientific Argumentation in the Biology Classroom The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 72, No. 7, pages 427–431.

Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. 2002. Using the force concept inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37(1). 53-58.

Trent, R. (2009). Fostering Students’ Argumentation Skills in Geoscience Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 57, n. 4, September, 2009, p. 224-232

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumen-tation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.