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.
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.
Beyer, B. K. (1988). Helping children think better. The development lesson set approach. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(2), 97 – 105.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Costa, A. L., & O’Leary, P. W. (1992). Co-cognition: The cooperative development of the intellect. Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning, 41-65.
Crawford, M. L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques for improving student motivation and achievement in Mathematics and Science. Texas: CORD.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddler River, New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall.
Depdiknas. (2008). Model Penyelenggaraan Sekolah Kategori Mandiri /Sekolah Standar Nasional. Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of Instructional Design. 5th edition, Singapore: Wadsworth Thomson Learning Inc.
Gardner, P. L. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science: Unidimensionality and internal consistency revisited. Research in science education, 25(3), 283-289.
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.
Lynn, M. J., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to Education Terms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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.
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.
Pedrotti, L. S. (1997). An effective System of Education for Many Secondary and Postsecondary Students. Center for Occupational Research and Development, Waco, Texas.
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.
Rowntree, D. (1990). Teaching through self-instruction: How to develop open learning materials (Revised edition). Pentonville Road, London: Kogan Page, Ltd.
Rustaman, N. Y. (2008). Teaching Science to develop scientific abilities in Science Education. Proceeding of the 2nd International Seminar of Science Education, 94-99.
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.
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.
Zemelman, S., Daniel, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best Practice: New Standards for teaching and learning in America’s School. 2nd Ed. New Hampshire: Heinemann.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.