Sma Negeri 1 Gandapura化学材料基本定律中基于问题的学习(Pbl)模式与思维对与分享(Tps)模式的学生化学学习效果比较研究

Iing Lukman, Ratna Unaida, Sri Setiawaty
{"title":"Sma Negeri 1 Gandapura化学材料基本定律中基于问题的学习(Pbl)模式与思维对与分享(Tps)模式的学生化学学习效果比较研究","authors":"Iing Lukman, Ratna Unaida, Sri Setiawaty","doi":"10.55529/jcpp.22.6.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to see the comparison of learning outcomes between PBL and TPS models. The type of research is quasi experimental research with non equivalent group pretest and posttest design. Sampling techniques in this study using purposive sampling. Sampel in this study is class X IPA1 as experimental class 1 that applies PBL learning model and X IPA2 as an experimental class 2 that applies TPS model which each class numbered 25 students. based on the results of data analysis, the average cognitive learning outcomes obtained in pretest-psttest in experimental class 1 were 24.28 and 71.72 while the average cognitive learning outcomes in Pretest-Posttest in experiment class 2 were 21.00 and 58.00. T-test is conducted by independent sample test using SPSS Software 18.0. significant value (2-tailed) is 0.00 < 0.05 which means H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted. Based on the research, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between students taught with PBL and TPS models on basic chemical legal materials.","PeriodicalId":16825,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Community Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Study of Student Chemistry Learning Results Using Problem Based Learning (Pbl) Model and Think Pair and Share (Tps) On Basic Law of Chemistry Materials At Sma Negeri 1 Gandapura\",\"authors\":\"Iing Lukman, Ratna Unaida, Sri Setiawaty\",\"doi\":\"10.55529/jcpp.22.6.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to see the comparison of learning outcomes between PBL and TPS models. The type of research is quasi experimental research with non equivalent group pretest and posttest design. Sampling techniques in this study using purposive sampling. Sampel in this study is class X IPA1 as experimental class 1 that applies PBL learning model and X IPA2 as an experimental class 2 that applies TPS model which each class numbered 25 students. based on the results of data analysis, the average cognitive learning outcomes obtained in pretest-psttest in experimental class 1 were 24.28 and 71.72 while the average cognitive learning outcomes in Pretest-Posttest in experiment class 2 were 21.00 and 58.00. T-test is conducted by independent sample test using SPSS Software 18.0. significant value (2-tailed) is 0.00 < 0.05 which means H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted. Based on the research, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between students taught with PBL and TPS models on basic chemical legal materials.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Community Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Community Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55529/jcpp.22.6.15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Community Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55529/jcpp.22.6.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究旨在比较PBL模式与TPS模式的学习效果。研究类型为准实验研究,采用非等效组前测和后测设计。本研究采用目的性抽样的抽样技术。本研究的样本为X IPA1班作为实验1班,采用PBL学习模式,X IPA2班作为实验2班,采用TPS模式,每班25人。从数据分析结果来看,实验1班学生前测后测的平均认知学习成绩为24.28分和71.72分,实验2班学生前测后测的平均认知学习成绩为21.00分和58.00分。t检验采用SPSS 18.0软件进行独立样本检验。显著值(双尾)为0.00 < 0.05,即拒绝H0,接受Ha。通过研究发现,PBL和TPS模式教学的学生在化学法律基础材料方面存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Study of Student Chemistry Learning Results Using Problem Based Learning (Pbl) Model and Think Pair and Share (Tps) On Basic Law of Chemistry Materials At Sma Negeri 1 Gandapura
This study aims to see the comparison of learning outcomes between PBL and TPS models. The type of research is quasi experimental research with non equivalent group pretest and posttest design. Sampling techniques in this study using purposive sampling. Sampel in this study is class X IPA1 as experimental class 1 that applies PBL learning model and X IPA2 as an experimental class 2 that applies TPS model which each class numbered 25 students. based on the results of data analysis, the average cognitive learning outcomes obtained in pretest-psttest in experimental class 1 were 24.28 and 71.72 while the average cognitive learning outcomes in Pretest-Posttest in experiment class 2 were 21.00 and 58.00. T-test is conducted by independent sample test using SPSS Software 18.0. significant value (2-tailed) is 0.00 < 0.05 which means H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted. Based on the research, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between students taught with PBL and TPS models on basic chemical legal materials.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信