Author: Syarofis Siayah & Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Abstract
This work
is to explains science education that is focused exclusively on ‘why’ and ‘how’
aspect.
Keywords:
learning method; science education;
A. Introduction
We have been
interesting in the problem of teaching science in Indonesia, that is equal with
less economically developed country, for a long time and would like to discuss
it here. The problem of teaching science in Indonesia is only part of the wider
problem of teaching science anywhere. In fact, it is part of the problem of
teaching anything anywhere—problem for which there is no known satisfactory
solution. There are many lesoon plans proposes in many countries for trying to
teach science, which shows that nobody is satisfied with any methods. It is
likely that many of the new lesson plans look good, for nobody has tried them
long enough to find out what is the matter with them, whereas all the old
methods have been with us long enough to show their faults clearly. The fact is
that nobody knows very well how to tell anybody else how to teach. So when we
try to figure out how to teach science we must he somewhat modest, because
nobody really knows how. It is at the same time a serious problem and an
opportunity for new discoveries.
The problem
of teaching science in Indonesia can also be generalized in another way, to
remind us of the problem of doing anything in Indonesia. We must get at least
partly involved in the special social, political, and economic problems that
exist here. All the problems come into sharper focus if there is before us a
clear picture of the reasons for teaching science in the first place. So we
will give few reasons why we believe that we should teach science. We can then
ask whether any particular educational plan is in fact satisfying any of the
reasons.
B.
Why We Should Teach
Science?
The first
reason is, of course, that science’s concept is a basic our activities, as such
is implements to solving our environmental problem, and has all kinds of
applications in technology. science is the understanding of nature, which human
includes there, that tells us how things work. In particular, we are stressing
here how devices of various kinds—invented by human in present and forthcoming
technology—work. Therefore, those who know science will be much more useful in
coping with the technical problems arising in local industry.
It might be
argued—and in practice it is argued—that in the earlier stages of industrial
development that we have in Indonesia especially on 1970’s when Militeristic
Era (1966-98), such talent is completely superfluous because it is so easy to
import good technically—trained personnel from more advanced countries outside.
Therefore, is it really necessary to develop highly-technically-trained people
locally like Tjia May On, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, and Pantur Silaban?
We do not
know enough economics like economist to answer correctly, but we will give an
opinion anyway. We think it is vitally important to improve the technical
ability of the peoples of Indonesia. By education, the man with higher
technical ability is able to produce more, and we believe that in the
improvement of the technical ability, and thus the productivity, of the people
of Indonesia lies the source of real economic advancement. Of cource it needs
long time to see that impact.
It is not
economically sound to continuously import technically-skilled people. If
Indonesian people were educated technically they would find positions in the
developing industries here; it would soon be realized by the people who now
import such workers that there is a supply of really able men and women in this
country, and that this local supply has many advantages. The local people would
not demand such high wages, would know the customs and ways of the country,
would be glad to take more permanent positions in occational’s context as well.
It is true
that Indonesian with the same degrees in science or engineering as their
foreign counterparts likes Singaporean seem to be very much less able. This, as
we shall explain, is because they have not really been taught any science. This
experience has probably conditioned industrialists to pay very little attention
to the local universities. If they were wise the industrialists would see the
problem quite the other way around and would be the first to clamor for a
meeting of the kind we are having today, to find out what is the matter with
the local product and how to teach science in a really satisfactory manner in
their countries. Yet none of them are here.
A secondary
reason for teaching science, or any experimental science, is that it
incidentally teaches how to do things with our hands. It teaches many
techniques for manipulating things as well as techniques of measurement and
calculation, for example, which have very much wider applications than the
particular field of study. It’s also reason my agreement to Queen when they
sang, “Galileo... Galileo ... Galileo figaro magnifico...” on their Bohemian
Rhapsody. Galileo Galilei is an amazing figure to show how to do things
with your hands, altought him’s work not so applicable in our daily like Thomas
Alfa Edison.
Thirdly,
another major reason for teaching science is for the science itself. Science is
a human activity; to many men and women it is a great pleasure and it should
not be denied to the people of a large part of the world simply because of a
fault or lack in the educational system. In other words, one of the reasons for
teaching science is to make scientists who will not just contribute to the
development of industry but also contribute to the development of understanding
of nature like Isaac Newton, joining others in this great journey of our times
like James Clerk Maxwell, and, of course, obtaining enormous pleasure in doing
so like ‘the queen for our time’ Lisa Randall.
Fourthly,
there is a good reason to study nature to appreciate its wonder and its beauty,
even though one may not be a actively working professional scientist. This
knowledge of nature also gives a feeling of stability and reality about the
world and drives out many fears and superstitions. Was we forgot Gabrielle
Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil’s contributed to the completion of the scientific
revolution in France and to its acceptance in Europe?
A fiveth
value in teaching science is to teach how things are found out. The value of
questioning, the value of free ideas, not only for the development of science,
but the value of free ideas in every field, becomes apparent. “Science is the
belief in the ignorance of experts.” said Richard Phillips Feynman at the
fifteenth annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, 1966 in
New York City. In science, at 1925, a yesterday afternoon boys at the time,
Werner Karl Heisenberg, should sliding tackle a great scientist Albert Einstein
to push ‘the father of photoelectric effect’ opinion away from the quantum
field.
Science is a
way to teach how something gets to be understand, what is not known, to what
extent things are known, for nothing is understand absolutely, how to handle
doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about
things so that judgments can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud,
show, and pseudo-science. These are certainly important secondary yields of
teaching science, and science in particular.
Finally, in
learning science you learn to handle trial and error, to develop a spirit of
invention and of free inquiry which is of tremendous value far beyond science.
One learns to ask oneself: “Is there a better way to do it?” And the answer to this is not the conditioned reflex: “Let's see
how they do it in Germany, United States, and Japan,” because there must certainly
be a better way than that!. we don’t implants social theories without
understand all reasons. We must understand context when receive ideas. We must
try to think of some new gimmick or idea, to find some improvement in the
technique in our reality. This question is the source of a great deal of free
independent thought, of invention, and of human progress of all kinds. This
ends my list of reasons for the teaching of science as a science. We will
continue our discussion on ‘how’ aspect.
C.
How to Teach
Science?
We
have chosen several terms in this work that beginner will likely encounter in
any exploration of science education. To provide a framework for how these
terms might connect together for educator, we have used the organizing
framework of scientific teaching, in which there is no prescribed or correct
way to teach, rather, educators are expected to apply scientific principles to
their classroom teaching efforts. Scientific teaching—also referred to as
scientific approach—is an intentional approach to teaching by educators that
focuses on the goal of student learning and involves iterative questioning,
evidence collection, and innovation (Handelsman, et al., 2004).
Scientific teaching is a pedagogical approach used in science classrooms
whereby teaching and learning is approached with the same rigor as science
itself.
Scientific
teaching involves active learning strategies to engage students in the process
of science and teaching methods that have been systematically tested and shown
to reach diverse students (Handelsman, et al., 2004).
The three major tenets of scientific teaching is:
a.
Active learning: A
process in which students are actively engaged in learning. It may include
inquiry-based learning, cooperative learning, or student-centered learning.
b.
Assessment: Tools
for measuring progress toward and achievement of the learning goals.
c.
Diversity: The
breadth of differences that make each student unique, each cohort of students
unique, and each teaching experience unique. Diversity includes everything in
the classroom: the students, the educators, the content, the teaching methods,
and the context.
These
elements should underlie educational and pedagogical decisions in the
classroom. In practice, scientific teaching employs a “backward design”
approach (Ebert-May & Hodder, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). The
educator first decides what the students should know and be able to do
(learning goals), then determines what would be evidence of student achievement
of the learning goals, then designs assessments to measure this achievement.
Finally, the educator plans the learning activities, which should facilitate
student learning through scientific discovery. There is science learning models
that can support educators in translating scientific teaching into practice.
1. Inquiry-Based Learning (Enquiry-Based Learning)
Inquiry-based
learning (enquiry-based learning in British English) is a form of active
learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios. Inquiry-based
Learning is often assisted by a facilitator rather than a lecturer. Inquirers
will identify and research issues and questions to develop knowledge or
solutions. Inquiry-based learning includes problem-based learning, and is
generally used in small scale investigations and projects, as well as research.
The inquiry-based instruction is principally very closely related to the
development and practice of thinking and problem solving skills (Dostál, 2015).
Inquiry
learning involves developing questions, making observations, doing research to
find out what information is already recorded, developing methods for
experiments, developing instruments for data collection, collecting, analyzing,
and interpreting data, outlining possible explanations and creating predictions
for future study. Specific learning processes that people engage in during
inquiry-learning include (Bell, et al., 2009):
a.
Creating questions
of their own;
b.
Obtaining supporting
evidence to answer the question(s);
c.
Explaining the
evidence collected;
d.
Connecting the
explanation to the knowledge obtained from the investigative process;
e.
Creating an argument
and justification for the explanation
There
are many different explanations for inquiry teaching and learning and the
various levels of inquiry that can exist within those contexts. There is
clearly outlines four levels of inquiry (Banchi & Bell, 2008):
a.
Level 1:
Confirmation Inquiry
The
teacher has taught a particular science theme or topic. The teacher then
develops questions and a procedure that guides students through an activity
where the results are already known. This method is great to reinforce concepts
taught and to introduce students into learning to follow procedures, collect
and record data correctly and to confirm and deepen understandings.
b.
Level 2: Structured
Inquiry
The
teacher provides the initial question and an outline of the procedure. Students
are to formulate explanations of their findings through evaluating and
analyzing the data that they collect.
c.
Level 3: Guided
Inquiry
The
teacher provides only the research question for the students. The students are
responsible for designing and following their own procedures to test that
question and then communicate their results and findings.
d.
Level 4: Open/True
Inquiry
Students
formulate their own research question(s), design and follow through with a
developed procedure, and communicate their findings and results. This type of
inquiry is often seen in science fair contexts where students drive their own
investigative questions.
Banchi
and Bell (2008)
explain that teachers should begin their inquiry instruction at the lower
levels and work their way to open inquiry in order to effectively develop students'
inquiry skills. Open inquiry activities are only successful if students are
motivated by intrinsic interests and if they are equipped with the skills to
conduct their own research study (Yoon, et al., 2011). An important aspect
of inquiry-based learning, however, is the use of open learning, as evidence
suggests that only utilizing lower level inquiry is not enough to develop
critical and scientific thinking to the full potential (Zion & Sadeh, 2010;
Berg, et al., 2010;
Yen & Hunang, 2001).
Open
learning has no prescribed target or result that people have to achieve. There
is an emphasis on the individual manipulating information and creating meaning
from a set of given materials or circumstances. Open learning has benefit that
students do not simply perform experiments in a routine like fashion, but
actually think about the results they collect and what they mean. In open
learning there are no wrong results—even when all students is men!, and
students have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the results they
collect themselves and decide their value.
2. Think–Pair–Share
The
term “think–pair–share” refers to a teaching method that expects students think
individually about a solution to a problem for a moment, then pair with a
neighbor to share their ideas, and sometimes eventually report out to the large
group (Smith, et al., 2009; Tanner, 2009). In three easy
steps, every student in a class of any size can be engaged in active learning
through a think–pair–share. After posing a question, the educator gives the
class a few minutes to think and jot down their thoughts.
This
think time is key, since different students may have different cognitive
processing times because our brains all work differently. This think taime also
giving students more time to just think has been shown to increase the quality
of comments later shared and the number of students willing to share. Then
comes the “pair” time, a few minutes for each student to say his or her ideas
out loud to another student in the class.
For
the vast majority of students who do not have the confidence to ask or answer
questions in front of the whole class, this pair time may be the first time
they have uttered a word in an undergraduate science classroom. Pair time
allows students to articulate their ideas in the presence of another person;
compare their ideas with those of a peer; and identify points of agreement,
disagreement, and confusion. Finally comes the “share” part, in which several
students are asked to share with the whole class ideas that emerged in their
pair discussions.
This
phase should be very familiar to most educators, since it is comparable to
posing a question to an entire class. Setting up a think–pair–share activity
can be as simple as posing a question or problem for students to think about
and discuss, such as “Predict the outcome of this experiment,” “Propose at
least two hypotheses to explain these observations,” or “Answer the
multiple-choice question posted on this slide.”
3. Clickers
Clickers
are devices that can be used in classrooms of any size to ask multiple-choice
questions with the goal of engaging students with the course material as part
of active-learning exercises (Smith, et al., 2009; Wood, 2004). It also referred to
as personal response systems. While a variety of clicker systems are available,
the iClicker system has become widespread, likely because these clickers do not
require integration with a particular software presentation system. While
clickers can be used to check attendance, more effective uses of clickers aim
to engage students in answering questions that check student understanding,
challenge common misconceptions, and provide immediate conceptual feedback for
both students and educators alike. While getting students to talk does not
require clickers, clicker questions can be the basis of multiple
think–pair–share activities during a single class period.
A
key added value of using clickers is that this technological tool can give the
educator an instant summary of the distribution of student responses to a
multiple-choice question. This information can immediately guide an educator in
deciding how to proceed, depending on the proportion of students who select the
most scientifically accurate response. Clicker questions can be especially
useful when asked a week or so before a section of the course is taught. Using
this evidence from students, educators can identify common misconceptions held
by those students, plan class activities to address these misconceptions, spend
less time on those ideas that students already seem to know, and, finally,
share this clicker evidence with students to explain why course time is being
spent on some particular topics more than others.
4. Minute Paper
A
minute paper is a brief active-learning strategy that provides a mechanism for
students to stop, think, and write during or at the end of a class period
(Allen & Tanner, 2005;
Cross & Angelo, 1993).
The goal is to provide a momentary break during which students can capture
their thoughts or questions. While referred to as a “minute” paper, these brief
writings can generally take one to several minutes, depending on the complexity
of the question being asked. Often, questions that are most effective at
challenging students’ ideas and promoting rich discussions are not multiple
choice, in which case clickers become less useful.
Minute
papers are often driven by these non–multiple choice questions. Example
minute-paper prompts might include: “What’s the most useful concept or idea you
learned in class today?,” or “What was the muddiest point in today’s class
session that was most confusing for you?,” or “ Push yourself to write down at
least two questions you have about the scientific evidence we explored in class
today.” Some educators require students to purchase a 100-pack of index cards
as part of their course materials to facilitate frequent use of minute papers.
Students are told that during each of their class meetings over the semester,
they will be asked to write down their ideas on these index cards. Most of the
time, educators will collect these cards, but sometimes they will not. A minute
paper can serve as one way to accomplish the “think” phase of a
think–pair–share, since it actively engages students in doing something to
drive their thinking.
5. Group Work (Cooperative Learning)
Group
work, also referred to as cooperative learning, is a term that refers to
activities that require students to engage in active learning with others,
during which they work together toward a common outcome and practice improving
their collaborative skills (Johnson, et al., 2010; Tanner, et al.,
2003). Science is, by
nature, a collaborative endeavor, and all scientific careers to which
undergraduate students aspire will require extensive skills in working
collaboratively.
To
be successful, group work requires several critical elements. First, the task
must be clear, with students understanding both the final goal of the activity,
as well as key milestones along the way. Second, the assignment must be
sufficiently complex that it necessitates collaboration. Students are clever;
they know that being told to work together on a simple task is not a good use
of time and will then perceive the task as busy work. As such, group sizes
should reflect the complexity of the assigned task. Third, students need to
know their role and the educator’s expectations of them as individuals. Roles
can be assigned by the educator, or in some special cases, students can be
charged with self-organizing. Roles can be divided multiple ways, depending on
the task. For example, roles can reflect group functions, such as facilitator,
timekeeper/recorder, reporter, or equity monitor (the person who makes sure all
group members’ ideas are heard). Roles can also reflect authentic perspectives
on a problem or issue, such as scientist, policy analyst, financial officer,
business owner, or citizen/parent. Finally, group work requires the
establishment of trust, grounded in a set of group norms, which are guidelines
for working together that may be set by the educator or students in the course.
Examples
of group norms are that everyone will contribute during discussions, ideas will
be respectfully shared, and work will be fairly divided among group members.
Group work and cooperative learning is often assumed to include more than two
students, but usually no more than six. Importantly, the larger the size of the
student group, the more care the educator must take to clearly define tasks and
roles to ensure no students are left out of the group process.
6. Peer Instruction (Peer-Led Team Learning)
The
practice of students teaching students is not new and has taken many forms over
the years, as teaching an idea to someone else is often an effective way to
learn. Peer instruction is defined by the act of students teaching or reviewing
one another. In some peer-instruction scenarios, one student becomes an
“expert” on some topic and is then tasked to teach what he or she knows to
other students who are novices with respect to that material.
This
approach is often used as an active-learning strategy for exploring large
amounts of complex material in single class periods. For example, four research
articles can be explored in a single class session in which one-quarter of the
class has become expert on each paper through a prior homework assignment.
During class time, student experts for each of the four papers then take turns
sharing their insights and entertaining questions from peers.
Peer
instruction also refers to opportunities in classrooms wherein students teach
one another without there necessarily being different levels of expertise
between students (Smith et al., 2009; Crouch & Mazur, 2001;
Mazur, 1997).
Research has shown that two students, neither of whom was able to correctly
answer a clicker question, could improve their understanding and correctly
answer similar clicker questions after engaging in a pair discussion, which is
another form of peer instruction (Smith et al., 2009).
Peer-led
team learning is a particular type of peer instruction, in which students who
have previously excelled in a course are invited back to serve as supplementary
course discussion leaders or in-class coaches for students currently taking the
course. Having most recently learned the concepts at hand, these
peers—sometimes called learning assistants—may be more socially accessible to
students and better able to remember the kinds of confusions students encounter
with the material.
7. Case-Based Learning and Problem-Based Learning
Case-based
and problem-based learning are teaching approaches that link course concepts to
real-world scenarios and problems with which students actively engage through
exploring and questioning and applying science content knowledge (Allen &
Tanner, 2003).
While the goal is similar for each, the approaches vary slightly. Problem-based
learning moves groups of students through a prescribed strategy of identifying
what they already know and what they need to know, then determining how to
access any additional information they need to solve a complex problem related
to biology, such as determining mechanisms of gene inheritance or designing an
experiment to distinguish between alternate hypotheses.
Case-based
learning evolved from the medical and business fields; the activities task
students with figuring out the underlying causes of a medical condition or a
business success. Similarly, in science instruction, case-based learning begins
with a situation or scenario that poses one or more issues the students need to
address. Depending on the goals of the case, students may be given more or less
structure in how to resolve it. Cases can range from fairly simple (one issue,
one solution) to complex, real-world scenarios that scientific researchers
themselves may not yet have been able to explain.
Importantly,
both case-based and problem-based learning usually involve students working in
structured groups in which they collaboratively identify questions and
confusions and seek out additional information to expand their understanding of
concepts related to the problem or case.
D.
A
Glance Discussion
As
a new educator, student resistance and the potential for poor student
evaluations at the end of the course can seem sufficient reason to avoid
attempting active learning and becoming more innovative in the classroom.
Student resistance is defined as unwillingness among one or more students to
comply with educator requests (Seidel & Tanner, 2017; Tanner, 2017). This resistance can
take the form of active resistance, including complaints to department heads or
vocal refusal to participate, as well as more passive forms of resistance, such
as just not following educator directions and doing something else. Student
resistance often seems to be rooted in students’ prior experiences in
classrooms and their expectations of what should be happening in an
undergraduate science course. If students have experienced lecture throughout
their school years, then their expectations may be unmet by this shift from
their normal experiences when they enter a course with extensive active
learning.
Student
evaluations, defined as information gathered about the course or the teaching
at some point during the semester, are a concern for most team teaching
members. For example, students may have previously experienced poorly
structured active learning or group work, resulting in generally unfavorable
opinions of these teaching approaches. This is where an educator’s transparency
about the reasons for choosing particular teaching strategies may be critical.
In addition to sharing their rationale for teaching choices, educators can also
collect student evaluations throughout the course, not just at the end. This
not only provides students a voice in the teaching and learning process but
also gives educators insight into how students are experiencing the course
midway, offering the opportunity for the educator to make adjustments.
Using
the minute-paper method described earlier, educators can ask each student
anonymously to share responses to: “So far, what aspects of the course are most
supporting your learning?” and “So far, what aspects of the course are least
supporting your learning?” Even the act of inviting student insights may go far
in quelling student resistance. Finally, it may be key for educators to be
quantitative in gauging the extent of student resistance and to be systematic
in hearing from all students. While a few students may express resistance, the
vast majority of students could deeply appreciate innovative teaching
approaches, and the educator would be unaware of this without inviting
midcourse student evaluation.
Educator
and researcher Benjamin Bloom conceives ‘bloom’s taxonomy’ by 1956. Bloom’s
taxonomy is a system with which educators can judge the nature of the
assessment questions they are asking their students (Bloom et al., 1956).
While many have argued about and revised the original categories of Bloom’s
taxonomy, the core ideas persist about how to judge the type of thinking that
may be elicited by an assessment question. Bloom proposed that learning could
be categorized into lower-order cognitive skills (such as knowing, remembering,
or describing) and higher-order cognitive skills (such as analyzing,
evaluating, inventing, or synthesizing).
Bloom’s
taxonomy is simple framework provides educators with a mechanism to evaluate
the extent to which their student learning objectives and their assessment
tools are targeting higher-order versus lower-order student thinking.
Importantly, educators can often judge the nature of their assessment questions
based on Bloom’s taxonomy by attending to the verbs used in the assessment.
Lower-order assessment questions are often those that ask students to: define,
list, describe, explain, summarize, or paraphrase. In contrast, higher-order
assessment questions are often those that ask students to: predict, design,
apply, defend, propose, or judge. Analysis of the verbs used in either course
student-learning outcomes or course assessments with reference to Bloom’s
taxonomy can be a useful exercise for educators who are re-evaluating their
approach to teaching.
Science
educators focus a great deal of time and energy on issues of “what” students
should be learning, as well as on the “how” of teaching. Yet the aspect of
classroom teaching that seems to be consistently underappreciated is the nature
of “whom” we are teaching. Undergraduate students often appear to be treated as
monolithic without attention to research on the pervasive influence that an
individual’s personal history and characteristics, culture, and prior
experiences in society and in classrooms all have on the teaching and learning
processes in our own classrooms. So I recommends in science education, the most
important aspect is understanding, communicating about, and gaining insight
into “whom” we are teaching and the efforts underway across the nation to make
science teaching and learning more fair. It is why I use different models, even
when I teach same content for guide students to one goal: achieving scientific
literacy.
E. Conclusion
We are
moslem, an asy’arits moslem, that believe in six axioms or postulates called arkān
al-īmān (Arabic: أركان الإيمان). So, as an analogues to our faith, we
will say that the six reason is arkān ta'līm al-ulūm al- ṫobi'īyyat (Arabic: تعليم العلوم الطبيعية) or basic principles to teaching science, these are:
1.
science’s concept is a basic our activities that implements to solving our
environment problem, and has all kinds of applications in technology.
2. Teaching science is incidentally
teaches how to do things with your hands.
3. To make scientists who will not just
contribute to the development of industry but also contribute to the
development of understanding of nature (which human includes there), joining
others in this great journey of our times, and obtaining enormous pleasure in
doing so.
4. To study nature to appreciate its
wonder and its beauty, that will gives a feeling of stability and reality about
the world and drives out many fears and superstitions.
5. Teach how things are found out, to
belief in the ignorance of experts.
6. Learn to handle trial and error, to develop
a spirit of invention and of free inquiry which is of tremendous value far
beyond science.
Based
on this highlights, it seem that the first cornerstone of scientific teaching
is active learning. All science educators has traditionally focused much of our
conversation about teaching and learning on issues of “what” exactly students
should be learning, however, attention is increasingly being paid to the “how”
of teaching. Multiple lines of research efforts in a variety of disciplines
have provided evidence that traditional lecture approaches to teaching are much
less effective than teaching approaches that actively engage students in the
learning process (Freeman, et al., 2014; Bransford, et al.,
2000;
Handelsman et al., 2004).
Active-learning approaches to teaching encompass a range of strategies—from
simple to complex, from activities that last just a few minutes to longer
projects, from inside class time to outside class time. Common to all these
active-learning strategies is the acknowledgment that learning is a phenomenon
of the human brain, and the individuals doing the learning must be actively
involved in constructing meaning, examining their prior ideas, and resolving
conceptual confusions, just as scientists do in their own efforts to learn how the
natural world works. Finally, the most important aspect is understanding,
communicating about, and gaining insight into “whom” we are teaching and the
efforts underway across the nation to make science teaching and learning more
fair.
This
essay don’t give descriptions of some of the major characteristics of science
education in Indonesia which appear to me to be of special concern for us.
Finally, sciences do not directly teach good and bad, love do. I don't trying
to fill my head with sciences, for to fill my heart with love is enough. So,
sciences is not the most important thing, love is. I don’t believe I can really
do anything without loving something. So, “How can I make students love
science?” or in general, “How can someone can falling in love?” I leave you all
with this question.
References
Allen, Deborah E., &
Tanner, Kimberly D. (2003,
Spring). Learning in context: problem-based learning. Cell Biology Education,
2: 73–81. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.03-04-0019
Allen, Deborah E., &
Tanner, Kimberly D. (2005,
Winter). Infusing active learning into the large enrollment biology class:
seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education,
4(4): 262–268. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.05-08-0113
Banchi, Heather, &
Bell, Randy. (2008,
October). The many levels of inquiry. Journal of Science and. Children,
15(4): 516–529. URL: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-187423616/the-many-levels-of-inquiry-inquiry-comes-in-various
Bell, Thorsten, et al.
(2009,
02 June). Collaborative inquiry learning: models, tools, and challenges. International
Journal of Science Education, 3 (1): 349–377. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F09500690802582241
Berg, C. Anders R., et
al. (2010,
26 November). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of
attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version to
the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (3):
351–372. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145738
Bloom, Benjamin S, et
al. (1956).
A taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: cognitive domain.
McKay. URL: https://www.uky.edu/~rsand1/china2018/texts/Bloom%20et%20al%20-Taxonomy%20of%20Educational%20Objectives.pdf
Bransford, John D., et
al. (2000).
How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National
Academies Press. URL: https://www.desu.edu/sites/flagship/files/document/16/how_people_learn_book.pdf
Cross, Patricia K., &
Angelo, Thomas A. (1988).
Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. The
National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED317097.pdf
Crouch, Catherine H.,
& Mazur, Eric. (2001,
March). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal
of Physics, 69: 970–977. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
Dostál, Jiří. (2015).
Inquiry-based instruction : concept, essence, importance and contribution.
Palacký University. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5507/pdf.15.24445076
Ebert-May, Diane, &
Hodder, Janet. (2008). Pathways to scientific teaching. W. H. Freeman.
Freeman, Scott, et al.
(2014, 12 May). Active
learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Handelsman, Jo, et al.
(2004,
23 April). Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–522. URL: http://scientificteaching.wisc.edu/documents/ScientificTeaching.pdf
Johnson, David W, et
al. (2010,
25 March). Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that
it works? Change, 4: 26–37. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
Mazur, Eric. (1997).
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall. URL: https://issuu.com/alobatnic/docs/preview_peer_instruction_a_user___s
Seidel Shannon B., &
Tanner Kimberly D. (2017,
13 October). What if students revolt?— considering student resistance: origins,
options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE—Life Sciences Education,
12(4): 586–595. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
Smith, M.K., et al.
(2009, 02 January). Why
peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science,
323: 122–124. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
Tanner, Kimberly D. (2009, Spring). Talking to
learn: why biology students should be talking in classrooms and how to make it
happen. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8: 89–94. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.09-03-0021
Tanner, Kimberly D. (2017, 13 October). Moving
theory into practice: a reflection on teaching a large introductory biology
course for majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2): 113–122. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0029
Tanner, Kimberly, et
al. (2003,
Spring). Cooperative learning in the science classroom: beyond students working
in groups. Cell Biology Education, 2: 1–5. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.03-03-0010
Wiggins, Grant, &
McTighe, Jay. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wood, William B. (2004). Clickers: a
teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7(6): 796–798. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2004.11.004
Yen, Chiung-Fen, &
Hunang, Shin-Chieh. (2001).
Authentic learning about tree frogs by preservice biology teachers in an
open-inquiry research settings. Proceedings of the National Science Council
Republic of China (D), 11: 1–10. URL: https://ejournal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/items/download?viId=3889B502-8692-48C1-A979-E28C893C9E80
Yoon, Hye-Gyoung, et
al. (2011,
22 March). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers
in elementary classrooms: difficulties on and under the scene. Research in
Science & Technological Education, 42(3): 589–608. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y
Zion, M.ichal, &
Sadeh, Irit. (2010,
13 December). Curiosity and open inquiry learning. Journal of Biological
Education, 41 (4): 162–168. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00219266.2007.9656092