0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

Contextual Learning: Innovative Approach towards the Development of Students’ Scientific Attitude and Natural Science Performance

Evi Suryawati 1,  
 
1
University of Riau, INDONESIA
2
National University of Malaysia, MALAYSIA
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):61–76
Online publish date: 2017-10-27
Publish date: 2017-10-27
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
This study is specifically designed to measure the effectiveness of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) on the students’ scientific attitude and achievement in Natural Science among Junior school students in Pekanbaru, Indonesia. This quasi experiment involved some 215 Form VII students from three public schools, segregated based on their existing cognitive abilities. The CTL materials was developed by applying RANGKA strategy. Overall, the findings revealed that there is significant difference exist across experimental groups in terms of students’ achievement. However, there is no significant difference in terms of scientific attitude. These findings contribute significant implications for the enhancement of scientific thinking skills among various students’ capabilities and different categories of school. Contextual teaching strategy is found appropriate in achieving the above dimensions in heterogeneous schools. This is due to the fact that the RANGKA contextual learning strategy as developed in this study focuses on the right way for students to learn.
 
REFERENCES (64):
1. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Anderson, L. W. (1980). Assessing Affective & Characteristic in the Schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing, A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
4. Beyer, B. K. (1988). Helping children think better. The development lesson set approach. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(2), 97 – 105.
5. Blank, E., & Harwell, S. H. (2001). Promising Practices. Waco, Texas: CCI Publishing.
6. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
7. Bouillion, L. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Connecting school and community with science learning: real world problems and school–community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(8), 878-898.
8. Bricheno, P., Johnson, J., & Sears, J. (2000). Children’s attitudes to science: beyond the men in white coats. In issues in science teaching. Routledge: London.
9. Bruner, J. (1977). The Process of Education: A landmark in educational Theory. Harvard: University Press.
10. Carin A. A. (1993). Teaching Modern Science. 6th Ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
11. Carin, A. A., & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching Science as Inquiry. 9th Ed. New Jersey: Merril Prentice- Hall Inc.
12. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science Instruction in the Middle and Secondary Schools. 2nd Ed. New Jersey: Merril.
13. Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load - A Format assessment perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 332-344.
14. Costa, A. L., & O’Leary, P. W. (1992). Co-cognition: The cooperative development of the intellect. Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning, 41-65.
15. Crawford, M. L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques for improving student motivation and achievement in Mathematics and Science. Texas: CORD.
16. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddler River, New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
17. Daniels, H., & Bizar M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. Maine: Stenhouse.
18. Depdiknas. (2005). Standard Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Sains SMP. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum,Balitbang Depdiknas.
19. Depdiknas. (2008). Model Penyelenggaraan Sekolah Kategori Mandiri /Sekolah Standar Nasional. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
20. Depdiknas. (2013). Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran IPA SMP. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
21. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1994). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 153-156.
22. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
23. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. 5th edition, Singapore: Wadsworth Thomson Learning Inc.
24. Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying Educational Research: A practical Guide. 5th. ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
25. Gardner, P. L. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science: Unidimensionality and internal consistency revisited. Research in science education, 25(3), 283-289.
26. Harlen, W. (1996). Teaching and Learning Primary Science. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
27. Harwell, S. H. (1999). Why do I have to learn this? Workbook. Texas: CORD.
28. Hull, D., & Greveelk, J. H. (1998). Technical preparation: The Next Generation. Waco Texas: Center Occupational Research and Development.
29. Hung, D. W., & Wong, A. F. L. (2000). Activity Theory as a Framework for Project Work in Learning Environments. Educational Technology, 40(2), 33-37.
30. Hunkins, F. P., & Shapiro, P. (1967). Teaching critical thinking in elementary social studies. London: Macmillan Company.
31. Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: What it is and why it’s here to stay. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
32. Kamisah, O., Zanaton, H. I., & Lilia, H. (2007). Sikap terhadap sains dan sikap saintifik di kalangan pelajar sains. Jurnal Pendidikan, 32(3) 39-60.
33. Kemp, J. E., Morisson, G. R., & Steven, M. R. (1994). Designing Effective Instruction. New York: MacMillan College Publishing Company.
34. Kenyon, L. O. (2003). The effect of explicit, inquiry instruction on freshman college science majors’ understanding of the nature of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston.
35. Lynn, M. J., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education Terms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
36. Main, J. D., & Rowe, M. D. (1993). The relation of locus of control orientation and task structure to problem solving performance of sixth-grade student pairs, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 401-426.
37. Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2002). Teaching Science for All Children: Methods for constructing understanding. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
38. Marzano, R. J. (1992). A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning. Virginia: ASCD.
39. McCombs, B. L. (1998). Integrating metacognition, affect, and motivation in improving teacher education, 379 – 408.
40. Muhfahroyin, M. (2009). Memperdayakan kemampuan berfkir kritis siswa melalui pembelajaran konstruktivisme. Jurnal pendidikan dan pembelajaran. 16(1).
41. Nitko, A. J. (2004). Educational assessment of Students. 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril.
42. Oates, K. K. (2002). Inquiry Science: Case Study in Antibiotic Prospecting. The American Biology Teacher, 64(3), 184-187.
43. Oliva, P. (2004). Developing the Curriculum. 6th Ed. Boston: Pearson.
44. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival. A step-by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Window (version 10). New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
45. Parnell, D. (2001). Contextual Teaching Works. Waco Texas: Center for Occupational Research and Development.
46. Paul, R. W. (1993). Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
47. Pedrotti, L. S. (1997). An effective System of Education for Many Secondary and Postsecondary Students. Center for Occupational Research and Development, Waco, Texas.
48. Philips, J. (1996). Developing critical and creative thinking in children. Selangor: Lingua Publications.
49. Piaget, J. (1966). Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa New York: Littlefield and Adams.
50. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Application. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
51. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making Meaning in Classrooms: Social Processes in small-Group Discourse and Scientific Knowledge Building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
52. Rowntree, D. (1990). Teaching through self-instruction: How to develop open learning materials (Revised edition). Pentonville Road, London: Kogan Page, Ltd.
53. Rustaman, N. Y. (2008). Teaching Science to develop scientific abilities in Science Education. Proceeding of the 2nd International Seminar of Science Education, 94-99.
54. Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools an action plan for educational reform. New York: Jossey-Bass.
55. Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a Science of Science Teaching. London: Heineman Educational.
56. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Educational Psychology: Theory into Practice. Englewoods Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
57. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching Critical Thinking: Eight ways to fail before you begin. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(6), 456-459.
58. Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel. M. I. (1974). Instructional Development for training Teachers of Exceptional Children. Source book. Bloomingtoon: Center for Innovation on Teaching the Handicapped.
59. Triyanto. (2010). Pengantar Penelitian Pendidikan bagi Pengembangan Profesi Pendidikan dan Tenaga Kependidikan, Jakarta, Kharisma Putra Utama.
60. Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting Educational Research, 5th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
61. Von Glasserfeld, E. (1992). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 80,121-140.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
63. Wolfensberger, B., Piniel, J., Canella, C., & Kyburz-Graber, R. (2010). The Challenge of involvement in reflective teaching: Three case studies from a teacher education project on conducting classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 714-721.
64. Zemelman, S., Daniel, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best Practice: New Standards for teaching and learning in America’s School. 2nd Ed. New Hampshire: Heinemann.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215