Perbandingan Keefektifan康奈尔笔记方法,思维导图,自我效能

N. Iman
{"title":"Perbandingan Keefektifan康奈尔笔记方法,思维导图,自我效能","authors":"N. Iman","doi":"10.37541/cer.v1i2.238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to examine the comparison of the effectiveness of note taking styles of students who use the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of student self-efficacy. This type of research is a quasi-experimental study with a pretets-posttest nonequivalent comparison-group design. The population in this study were all eighth grade students of SMPN 1 Sungguminasa. The sample is class VIIIE and VIIIB as the experimental class. Class VIIIE is treated in the form of a note-taking style using cornell notes, while class VIIIB is treated as a note-taking style by mind maps. To test the effectiveness of learning using a paired sample t test. To test the difference in effectiveness using the independent sample t-test. The results of this study are: 1) the cornell notes method is not effective if viewed from the students' self efficacy, 2) mind maps is effective if it is reviewed by students' self-efficacy. 3) There is a difference in effectiveness between the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of students' self-efficacy where students who record by mind maps get better efficacy scores than students who record by cornell notes method.","PeriodicalId":146475,"journal":{"name":"Celebes Education Review","volume":"6 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perbandingan Keefektifan Cornell Notes Method Dan Mind Maps Ditinjau Dari Self Efficacy\",\"authors\":\"N. Iman\",\"doi\":\"10.37541/cer.v1i2.238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to examine the comparison of the effectiveness of note taking styles of students who use the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of student self-efficacy. This type of research is a quasi-experimental study with a pretets-posttest nonequivalent comparison-group design. The population in this study were all eighth grade students of SMPN 1 Sungguminasa. The sample is class VIIIE and VIIIB as the experimental class. Class VIIIE is treated in the form of a note-taking style using cornell notes, while class VIIIB is treated as a note-taking style by mind maps. To test the effectiveness of learning using a paired sample t test. To test the difference in effectiveness using the independent sample t-test. The results of this study are: 1) the cornell notes method is not effective if viewed from the students' self efficacy, 2) mind maps is effective if it is reviewed by students' self-efficacy. 3) There is a difference in effectiveness between the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of students' self-efficacy where students who record by mind maps get better efficacy scores than students who record by cornell notes method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":146475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Celebes Education Review\",\"volume\":\"6 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Celebes Education Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37541/cer.v1i2.238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Celebes Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37541/cer.v1i2.238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较使用康奈尔笔记法和思维导图的学生在自我效能方面的笔记风格的有效性。这种类型的研究是一种准实验研究,采用前测后测非等效比较组设计。本研究人群均为Sungguminasa SMPN 1的八年级学生。样本为VIIIE和VIIIB班作为实验班。第viii课采用康奈尔笔记的形式进行笔记,第viii课采用思维导图的形式进行笔记。使用配对样本t检验来检验学习的有效性。使用独立样本t检验检验有效性差异。本研究的结果是:1)从学生的自我效能感来看,康奈尔笔记法是无效的;2)从学生的自我效能感来看,思维导图法是有效的。3)思维导图法和康奈尔笔记法在学生自我效能感的有效性上存在差异,使用思维导图进行记录的学生效能感得分高于使用康奈尔笔记进行记录的学生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perbandingan Keefektifan Cornell Notes Method Dan Mind Maps Ditinjau Dari Self Efficacy
This study aims to examine the comparison of the effectiveness of note taking styles of students who use the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of student self-efficacy. This type of research is a quasi-experimental study with a pretets-posttest nonequivalent comparison-group design. The population in this study were all eighth grade students of SMPN 1 Sungguminasa. The sample is class VIIIE and VIIIB as the experimental class. Class VIIIE is treated in the form of a note-taking style using cornell notes, while class VIIIB is treated as a note-taking style by mind maps. To test the effectiveness of learning using a paired sample t test. To test the difference in effectiveness using the independent sample t-test. The results of this study are: 1) the cornell notes method is not effective if viewed from the students' self efficacy, 2) mind maps is effective if it is reviewed by students' self-efficacy. 3) There is a difference in effectiveness between the cornell notes method and mind maps in terms of students' self-efficacy where students who record by mind maps get better efficacy scores than students who record by cornell notes method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信