Analisis kemampuan berpikir ilmiah siswa kelas XI IPA kawasan pegunungan Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta

Aisyah Ferra Anggraini, Maridi Maridi, Suciati Suciati

Abstract


Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis berpikir ilmiah siswa SMA Negeri  kelas XI IPA di kawasan pegunungan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY). Jenis penelitian adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Pengumpulan data dilakukan menggunakan tes kemampuan berpikir ilmiah yang terdiri dari 25 item soal yang mengandung aspek berpikir ilmiah yaitu: (1) inquiry; (2) analisis; (3) inferensi; dan (4) argumentasi dan pengambilan data lainnya dengan wawancara. Penelitian dilakukan di SMA Negeri 1 Pakem dan SMA Negeri 1 Girimulyo  kelas XI IPA kawasan pegunungan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Keseluruhan jumlah populasi yaitu 280 siswa dengan jumlah sampel 78 siswa. Pemilihan sampel menggunakan metode cluster random sampling. Data yang diperoleh selanjutnya diuji menggunakan statistik deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan perolehan pada masing-masing aspek yaitu: (1) inquiry: 43% ; (2) analisis: 44% ; (3) inferensi: 42% ; dan (5) argumentasi: 55%. Hasil persentase menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan berpikir ilmiah masih kurang optimal karena rata-rata perolehan masih di bawah 50%. Hal ini disebabkan sebagian besar kemampuan berpikir ilmiah siswa di kawasan pegunungan DIY masih kurang dioptimalkan. Daerah pegunungan merupakan faktor yang berpengaruh langsung terhadap kemampuan berpikir ilmiah siswa. 

 

Scientific thingking skill analyze of students' XI IPA at mountainous region of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. This study aims to analyze the scientific thinking of students of the eleventh grade of science class high school in the mountainous areas of Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY). This type of research is qualitative descriptive. Data collection was carried out using a scientific thinking ability test consisting of 25 items containing scientific thinking aspects: (1) inquiry; (2) analysis; (3) inference; and (4) argumentation and other data collection by interview. The research was conducted at SMA Negeri 1 Pakem and SMA Negeri 1 Giriulyo in 11th grade of science class in the mountainous areas of Special Region of Yogyakarta. The total population is 280 students with a total sample of 78 students. Sample selection using cluster random sampling method. The data obtained are then tested using descriptive qualitative statistics. The results of the study show that the acquisition of each aspect: (1) inquiry: 43%; (2) analysis: 44%; (3) inference: 42%; and (5) argumentation: 55%. The percentage results indicate that the scientific thinking ability is still less than optimal because the average acquisition is still below 50%. This is because most of the scientific thinking abilities of students in the DIY  mountainous areas are still not optimized. Mountainous areas are factors that directly influence the ability of students to think scientifically.


Keywords


Kemampuan Berpikir Ilmiah; Pegunungan DIY; Topografi Daerah

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.-M., & Ellis, R. A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1239–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.616584

Ahİ, B. (2017). Thinking about digestive system in early childhood : A comparative study about biological knowledge. AHI, Cogent Education, 4, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1278650

Akinoglu, O., & Eren, C. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ metaphors regarding the voncept of scientific thinking. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891752

Anggraini, A., & Suciati, S. (2018). The influence of inquiry learning model with scaffolding on cognitive learning outcomes in biology subjects of eleventh grade of science class in special region of yogyakarta mountain areas. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 2018 (ICTTE 2018) (hal. 28–34). Paris, France: Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictte-18.2018.6

Anggraini, Suciati, & Maridi. (2018). Identifikasi kemampuan berpikir ilmiah siswa kelas XI IPA di SMA Negeri 1 Turi, Sleman. In PROSIDING Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Fisika FITK UNSIQ (hal. 586–587). Diambil dari https://ojs.unsiq.ac.id/index.php/semnaspf/article/view/123/40

Aninda, B. O., & Suryadarma, I. G. P. (2017). Penerapan PBL dengan suplemen komik digital terhadap kemampuan pemecahan masalah dan sikap peduli lingkungan. JURNAL BIOEDUKATIKA, 5(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.26555/bioedukatika.v5i2.6499

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Buntoro, W. (2013). Pemetaan zona gerakan tanah di kecamatan girimulyo, kabupaten kulonprogo provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jurnal Ilmiah MTG, 6(2), 93–106. Diambil dari http://jurnal.upnyk.ac.id/index.php/mtg/article/view/260

Bunu, H. Y. (2014). Kesadaran masyarakat suku dayak terhadap pendidikan anak di pedalaman Kalimantan Tengah. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 3(3), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v3i3.2388

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the united states. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553–1623. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022

Dahar, R. W. (2011). Teori-teori belajar dan pembelajaran. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Deng, L., Wang, L., & Zhao, Y. (2016). How creativity was affected by environmental factors and individual characteristics: A cross-cultural comparison perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195615

Eysink, T. H. S., Gersen, L., & Gijlers, H. (2015). Inquiry learning for gifted children. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/

2015.1038379

Fatonah, S., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2014). Pembelajaran sains. Yogyakarta: Ombak.

Hargreaves, L., Kvalsund, R., & Galton, M. (2009). Reviews of research on rural schools and their communities in British and Nordic countries: Analytical perspectives and cultural meaning. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.05.002

Hillman, N. W. (2016). Geography of college opportunity. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 987–1021. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653204

Hornby, A. S. (2000). Oxford advanced learners of current english. New York: Oxford University Press.

Husamah, H., Fatmawati, D., & Setyawan, D. (2017). Model pembelajaran OIDDE pada matakuliah pengetahuan lingkungan untuk meningkatkan keterampilan berpikir kritis mahasiswa calon guru biologi. JURNAL BIOEDUKATIKA, 5(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.26555/bioedukatika.v5i2.7321

Johnson, K. (2015). Behavioral Education in the 21st Century. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(1–2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1036152

Juliyanto, E. (2017). Model pembelajaran IPA dengan pendekatan inkuiri berbasis proyek untuk menumbuhkan kompetensi menyelesaikan masalah. Indonesian Journal of Science and Education, 1(1), 36–42. Diambil dari http://jurnal.untidar.ac.id/index.php/ijose/article/view/419

Kagee, A., Allie, S., & Lesch, A. (2010). Effect of a course in research methods on scientific thinking among psychology students. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000306

Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., & Sodian, B. (2015). The development of scientific thinking in elementary school: A comprehensive inventory. Child Development, 86(1), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12298

Kremer, K., Specht, C., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2014). The relationship in biology between the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.788541

Kuhn, D. (2010). What is Scientific Thinking and How Does It Develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (hal. 371–393). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch17

Lawson, A. E. (2000). A learning cycle approach to introducing osmosis. The American Biology Teacher, 62(3), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450871

Meilinda, H., Prayitno, B. A., & Karyanto, P. (2017). Student’s environmental literacy profile Of adiwiyata green school in Surakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 11(3), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v11i3.6433

Mitasari, Z., & Prasetiyo, N. A. (2016). Penerapan model diskusi-presentasi dipadu analisis kritis artikel melalui lesson study untuk meningkatkan pemahaman konsep, kemampuan berpikir kritis, dan komunikasi. JURNAL BIOEDUKATIKA, 4(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.26555/bioedukatika.v4i1.4736

Moleong, L. (2002). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (3 ed.). Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Masnick, A. M., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). The emergence of scientifc reasoning. In H. Kloos, B. Morris, & J. Amaral (Ed.), Current Topics in Children’a Learning and Cognition (Vol. 53885). London: IntechOpen. Diambil dari https://www.intechopen.com/books/current-topics-in-children-s-learning-and-cognition

Mulasari, S. A., Sukesi, T. W., & Sulistyawati, S. (2017). Teenager attitude in globalization era in senior high school in Yogyakarta. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 11(4), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v11i4.5820

Mulyana, S., Rusdi, R., & Vivanti, D. (2018). The effect of guided inquiry learning model and scientific performance on student learning outcomes. Indonesian Journal of Science and Education, 2(1), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.31002/ijose.v2i1.596

Mulyono, Y. (2018). Improving creativity of the future physics teachers through general biology learning based on CTL with experimental method. Indonesian Journal of Science and Education, 2(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.31002/ijose.v2i1.621

Nnorom, N. R. (2013). The effect of reasoning skills on students achievement in biology in anambra state. International Journal of Scientifc & Enginering Research, 4(12), 2102–2104.