Teaching and Learning of Indonesian by Constructivism Model with Inquiry Approach
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine (1) students’ misconceptions about object and complement, (2) the effectiveness of a conception modification strategy, (3) students’ mastery of concepts of object and complement, and (4) students’ comments about a constructivism model with an inquiry approach in learning concepts of object and complement. The study subjects consisted of teachers and students from class VII at Junior High School (SMPN) 3 Singaraja. The data were analyzed descriptively and via a t-test. The results demonstrated that the students who were taught using a constructivism model with an inquiry approach learned the concepts of object and complement better than those who were taught using a conventional model.
Keywords: constructivism, inquiry, object
References
[1] Ministry of Education: Kurikulum 2006. Jakarta: Ministry of Education; 2006.
[2] Putrayasa IB: Penerapan Model Konstruktivisme Berpendekatan Inkuiri dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran UNDIKSHA. 2010; 43(1): 36-46.
[3] Wahab A: Improving Learning through Strengthening the Organizational Culture of the Academic Colleges as a Key into the Third Millennium. (Scientific Oration). Presented in Order Anniversary and Graduation STKIP Pasundan Cimahi; 2000.
[4] Bodner GM: Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education. 1986; 63(10): 873-878.
[5] Putrayasa IB: Penelusuran Miskonsepsi dalam Pembelajaran Tata Kalimat dengan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme Berbasis Inkuiri pada Siswa Kelas 1 SMP Laboratorium UNDIKSHA Singaraja. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia. 2013; 2(2): 236-243).
[6] Hasan SH: Pendidikan Ilmu-ilmu Sosial. Bandung: Rineka Cipta; 1996.
[7] Fosnot CT: Equiring Teachers Equiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach to Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press; 1989.
[8] Shymansky JA, Keyle WC: Establishing a Research Agenda: Critical Issues of Science Curriculum Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1992; 29(8): 749-778.
[9] Tasker R: Effective Teaching: What Can a Constructivist View of Learning Offer? The Australian Science Teachers Journal. 1992; 38(1). 25-34.
[10] Sukadi: Praktik Belajar Kewarganegaraan Berbasis Kebijakan Publik dan Peningkatan Kecakapan Kewarganegaraan Mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran UNDIKSHA. 1999; 40(5): 737-757.
[11] Sadia IW: Pengembangan Model Mengajar Konstruktivisme dalam Pembelajaran IPA di SMP (Suatu Studi Eksperimental Pembelajaran Konsep Energi, Usaha, danSuhu di SMP Negeri Singaraja). Doctoral Dissertation. PPS Teachers’ Training College Bandung; 1996.
[12] Sund RB, Trowbridge LW: Teaching science by inquiry in the secondary school. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company; 1973.
[13] Eltinge EM: Linguistic Content Analysis: A Method to Measure Science as Inquiry in Textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1993; 30(1): 65-83.
[14] Kuslan L, Stone AH: Teaching Children Science: An Inquiry Approaches. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc; 1969.
[15] Bruce WC, Bruce JK: Teaching with the inquiry. Maryland: Alpha Publishing Company, Inc; 1992.
[16] Cleaf DWV: Action in Elementary Social Studies. Singapore: Allyn and Bacon. 1991.
[17] Murray T, Winship L, Woolf B, Bruno M, Stillings N: Two Approaches to Supporting Scientific Inquiry Skills in Post-Secondary Education: Simulation-Based Inquiry and Coached Hypothesis Investigation. Poster Presentation for AACU 2003 – Technology, Learning, and Intellectual Development Conference; 2003.
[18] Suparno P: Miskonsepsi & Perubahan Konsep dalam Pendidikan Fisika. Jakarta: PT Gramedia; 2005.
[19] Cook WA: Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1971.
[20] Elson BF, Pickett V: An Introduction to Morphology and Syntax. California: Summer Institute of Linguistics; 1969.