Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract. This study aimed to produce valid, practical CPS (Collaborative Problem Solving) model
science learning materials to enhance science literacy skill of prospective MI teachers. The tryout of
the materials was implemented to students of MI teacher education of Unipdu Jombang at an
academic year of 2016/2017 semesters six since March-May 2017 using One Group Pre test Posttest
Design. The data collections were done using observation, testing, and questionnaires. Data were
analyzed using descriptive analysis of quantitative, qualitative and non-parametric statistical tests.
The findings of the research were: 1) the learning materials were valid; 2) Practicality of the materia ls
was tested through the implementation of lesson plans, while the learners’ activity was appropriate to
the CPS (Collaborative Problem-Solving) model; and 3) The effectiveness of the learning materials in
terms of improvement of learning outcomes of students was seen from the n gain with high category
and increasing mastery of science literacy skills of learners also scored n gain and the response of
students to the device and the implementation of learning is very positive. It was concluded that the
materials were valid, practical to enhance science literacy skills of prospective MI teachers.
Keywords: Learning Material, Collaborative Problem Solving, Science literacy Skill
1.Introduction
The low literacy of science learners in Indonesia can be one of the illustrations that science learning
in Indonesia still needs improvement. Science literacy of teacher candidate students in Turkey is also
low [1]. The interpretation that can be concluded from the results of PISA study, only one that is what
we teach differently from the demands of the times. When we look at the facts in the field the learners
we are very good at memorizing but less skilled in applying the knowledge that is owned in problem-
solving. This may be related to the propensity to use rote as a vehicle for mastering science, not
thinking ability. Therefore scientific literacy is a must for everyone. Scientific literacy is very important
for a person because of the development level of a nation is determined by the quality of human
resources that possess science and technology awareness [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Science education is
expected to be able to implant scientific literacy, which in turn support Indonesia development. Science
literacy has now become the widespread concern for scientists, professors and politic’s stakeholders [2]
[9].
The development of literacy is needed to help prospective teachers understand the science literacy
material and its elements, and be able to use appropriate learning methods to develop science literacy in
the classroom [2] [10] [11]. In the development of science literacy it should be noted that prospective
teachers should be given innovative learning so that the taught material can be understood meaningfully
for everyday life [2].
The results of research [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] states that learning and
assessment of collaborative problem-solving skills are indispensable and driven by the need for students
at school and career levels that require the ability to work in groups and apply their problem-solving
skills have in a real social situation. The function and advantages of collaborative problem-solving
skills are 1) as the provision of learners in the face of globalization competition in the world of work, 2)
as an alternative solution to individual problem-solving difficulties in learning, and 3) improving social
skills in solving problems in life everyday [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
The results of the TIMSS and PISA study of Indonesian student problem-solving skills are listed
below [31] [32] [33] [34] Indonesia gets lower level does not mean students do not have the intelligence
60
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
to compete with other countries, but the learning process is not by the standard tests used by PISA and
TIMSS. It needs to be a joint evaluation material in the process of improving learning in the field of
education comprehensively.
The CPS learning model as an alternative is developed to improve science literacy skills. The CPS
learning model consists of six phases: (a) sharing perspectives, (b) defining problems, (c) identifying
interests, (d) making choices, (e) determining objective criteria, and (f) evaluating options, choice and
reach agreement [35] [36].
Based on the above explanations, the CPS model is selected to improve science literacy skills of MI
teacher candidates. Researchers will design and conduct research entitled "Development of learning
tools of IPA CPS model to improve science literacy skills of MI teacher candidates.”
2. Method
This study was developing science teaching materials with CPS model to develop science literacy
skill to prospective MI teachers. The research was carried during March-May 2017. Subjects were 35
learners of PGMI (MI Teacher Education) 6th semester who took science subject in the academic
year of 2016/2017.
The design of the research is One–Group Pretest Postest design. [37]
Table 1. One–Group Pretest Postest design
Pre - test Treatment Post - test
O1 X O2
61
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
Phases Define
possible interests on problem-solving.
(Source: [35] [36])
Learning is basically an educator's effort to help learners learn to gain knowledge [40] [41] [42] [43]
[44] [45] Educators as innovative change agents are required to have the ability to guide learners in
scientific investigation activities [46] [47].
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) learning has some of the following empirical studies. The
results of research [15] with a sample of 179 students (88 men and 91 women all aged 14 years), ie 1)
the chances of conflict in CPS activities in human-to-human CPS (CPS activities emphasized on
interaction between students with other students) are higher when compared to human-to-agent CPS
(interaction between students with existing agents in the computer (software) in CPS activities, namely:
to propose solutions, confirm solutions, solve solutions, and disagree with solutions proposed people
etc.), 2) assessment tasks should be designed in such a way that to achieve success in performance on
task completion requires cooperation and interdependence between participants [15]. The results of
research [16] study provide recommendations for further research on Collaborative Problem Solving
(CPS), namely: 1) advanced research may consider exploring communication methods, and 2) further
research may consider exploring differences in student achievement in various problems and
collaborative methods [16]
2. Learners work together in groups with 2. Learners are required to work together in
emphasis on social skills groups with emphasis on social skills.
II Difference Difference
1. Learners receive social skills training in 1. There is a belief that students already have
small groups. the necessary social skills and they will build
on existing skills to achieve their goals.
2. Structured problem-solving activities
with each Learner have a particular role. 2. Students in groups (at least two people)
jointly organize and negotiate in solving
3. Educators observe, listen and intervene problems that are more open and complex.
in groups when needed.
3.Collaborative activities should not always
4. Cooperative learning is described as an be monitored by instructors/ teachers. When
"order" in a community process that helps the question is directed toward the educator,
each other and is interconnected to meet the educator-only guides Learners for the
achieve a goal with closed-ended tasks. information they need.
62
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
(Source: [14] [22] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]
Scientific collaboration is a scientific activity carried out by more than one individual using
interdependence, including scientific activities conducted by small teams and larger groups [59]. Social
interaction in collaboration skills is an important component. Collaborative skills can be assessed on
individual, and group contributions [53] [60] [61] and the advantages of collaborative activities show
better problem-solving skills compared to individuals [53].
Table 3. Level Science Literacy Skill (Rubrics)
No Science literacy skill Level
1 Learners can describe and Beginner
apply the inquiry inquiry a. Students cannot identify scientific problem.
scientific method in b. Students do not understand the problem solving.
investiga- tion, questioning, c. Students cannot identify hypothesis.
and solving problems.
Middle
a. Students can identify scientific problem.
b. Students choose a solution for problem.
c. Students can define a hypothesis.
Advanced
a. Students can repeat research questions.
b. Students can predict one or more solutions.
c. Students can construct hypothesis.
Expert
a. Students can develop research questions.
b. Students can evaluate various alternative solutions.
c. Students can propose how to evaluate hypothesis
correctly.
63
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
Advance
a. Students can rephrase the research purposes with their
words.
b. Students can designate the materials for experiment.
c. Students can differentiate control and free variables.
d. Students can explain the relation between steps in
experiment.
Expert
a. Students can rephrase the research purposes with their
words.
b. Students can designate the materials for experiment.
c. Students can filter free and control variables.
d. Students can manipulate free and control variables.
e. Students can modify the research design.
64
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
65
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
Expert
Table 3 shows that there are 6 skills of scientific literacy which have multiple levels that have been
developed by the researchers based on [18] [19] that the skills of scientific literacy will be owned by a
person in different levels after varied learning process depending on the previous understanding, the
current understanding of the learning process and the ability of learners in associating their
understanding with the concept or other situations.
66
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
Student activity in Teaching and Learning process was observed by using a percentage of
agreement technique and observation was done by 2 observers.
Collaborative is the process of participation of multiple people or groups who coordinate and
cooperate collectively to plan, implement and evaluate programs to achieve goals and solve together
with high positive dependence [18] [19] [21] [22] [25] [53] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69].
67
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
68
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
Special thanks to Prof. Mundilarto, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Rudiana Agustini, Prof. Dr. Muslimin Ibrahim,
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Nur, Dr. Wasis, Z. A. Imam Supardi, Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. Ismet Basuki, M.Pd.,
for reviewing and giving feedback during the writing of this paper. I am very grateful for support.
References
[1]Akengin, H & Sirin, A. (2013). A Comparative study upon determination of scientific literacy level
of teacher candidates. Academic journals, Vol. 8(19), 1882-1886.
[2]Putra, M. I. S., Widodo, W. and Jatmiko, B. (2016). The development of CPS science learning
materials to improve science literacy skill of prospective mi teacher. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA
Indonesia, JPII 5 (1) (2016) 83-93
[3]Genc, Murrat. (2015). The Effect of Scientific Studies on Students’ Scientific
Literacy and Attitude. OMU Journal Fac. Educ. 2015, 34(1), 141-152.
[4]Jurecki, K. &Wander, M. C.V. (2012). Science Litera- cy, Critical Thinking, And Scientific
Literature: Guidelines For Evaluating Scientific Literature In The Classroom. Journal Of
Geoscience Educa- tion, 60, 100–105.
[5]Holbrook, J.; Rannikmäe, M. (2009).The Meaning of Scientific Literacy.International Journal of
Envi- ronmental and Science Education, 4(3),275 - 288
[6]UNESCO. (2008). Science education policy-making eleven emerging issues. UNESCO
[7]Turgut, H., (2007). Scientific literacy for all, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2),
233-256.
[8]Turgut, H., (2005). The effect of constructivist design application on prospective science teachers'
scientific literacy competence improvement at the dimensions of "nature of science "and"
science-technology-society interaction". Unpublished Doctoral Disertation, Yıldız Teknik
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü: Ġstanbul.
[9]Impey, C. (2013). Science literacy of undergraduates in the united states. Orgazations People and
Strategies in Astronomy 2 (OPSA 2). Departement of Astronomy, University of Arizona.
[10]Udompong, L. & Wongmanich, S. (2014). Diagnosis of the scientific literacy characteristics of
primary students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5091 – 5096.
[11]Udompong, L., Traiwicitkhun, D. and Wongwanich, S. (2014). Causal model of research
competency via scientific literacy of teacher and student. Procedia-Sosial and Behavioral
Science, 116, 1581-1586
[12]Harding, E. S. M. and Griffin, E. P. (2016). Rasch measurement of collaborative problem solving
in an online environment. Journal of Applied Measurement. Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
[13]Griffin, P. & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and
approach. Dordrecht: Springer.
[14] Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable
collaborative problem solving skills. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching
of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Dordrecht: Springer
[15]Rosen, Y & Mosharraf, M. (2014). New methods in online assessment of collaborative problem
solving and global competency. International Association for Educational Assessment
(IAEA) 2014 Conference Singapore. pp. 1-18.
[16]Rosen, Y. (2014). Comparability of conflict opportunities in human-to-human and human-to-agent
online collaborative problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 18 (3).
[17]Greiff, S., Holt, V. D., and Funke, J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving in educational
assessment: Analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. The Journal of
Problem Solving. Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 71-91.
[18]OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life
problems (Volume V), PISA. Publishing: OECD.
[19]OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 collaborative problem solving framework. OECD Publishing.
[20]Greiff, S. (2012). From interactive to collaborative problem solving: Current issues in the
programmed for international student assessment. Review of Psychology. Vol. 19 No. 2, pp.
111-121.
69
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
70
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
[43] Lin, Y. S., Henderson, C., Mamudi, W., Singh, C., and Yerushalmi. E. (2013). Teaching
assistants’ beliefs regarding example solutions in introductory physics. Physical Review
Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 9, 010120.
[44]Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating
learning in multidisciplinary group swith transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 8 (2), pp. 189-223.
[45]Isjoni. 2010. Cooperative learning. Bandung: Alfabeta.
[46]Lu, L. and Ortlieb, E.T. (2009) Teacher candidate as innovative change agents. Current issues in
education, 11(5).
[47]Jan, H., Van, D.,Douwe, B.,and Nico, V. (2001) Professional development and reform in science
education: the rule of teachers practical knowledge, Journal of research in science teaching.
38(2): 137-158.
[48]Cooper, J., and Robinson, P. (1998). "Small group instruction in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology." Journal of College Science Teaching. 27:383.
[49]MacGregor, J. (1990). "Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform" In Svinicki,
M. D. (Ed.), The changing face of college teaching, New Directions for Teaching and
Learning No. 42.
[50]Smith, B. L., and MacGregor, J. T. (1992). "What is collaborative learning?" In Goodsell, A. S.,
Maher, M. R., and Tinto, V., Eds. (1992), Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher
Education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment, Syracuse
University.
[51]Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between
cooperative and collaborative learning. Change July/August 1995 pp. 34-4 (Available to
HKUST staff and students via HKUST Library's subscription to ProQuest).
[52]Rockwood, H. S. (1995). Cooperative and collaborative learning. The National Teaching and
Learning Forum, 4, 8–9.
[53]Dillenbourg P. (1999) What do yuo mean by collaborative learning?. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed)
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp.1-19). Oxford:
Elsevier
[54]Panitz, T.(1996). A Definition of collaborative vs cooperative learning. deliberations, London
Metropolitan University; UK.
[55]Panitz, T.(1999). Benefits of Cooperative Learning in Relation to Student Motivation", in Theall,
M. (Ed.) Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to
excel, New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA; USA. Josey-Bass
publishing.
[56]Moreno, R. (2010). Educational Psychology. New York: John Weley & Sons Inc. [57]Woolfolk,
A. (2010). Educational phycology. USA: Pearson Educational International. [58]Ludvigsen, S., Stahl,
G., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2015). Collaboration and the formation of new
knowledge artifacts. International Journal ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning. 10
(1), pp. 1-6
[59]NRC (2011). Inquiri and the national science education standards. a guide for teaching and
learning. Washington: National Academy Press.
[60]Fiore, S., Rosen, M., Smith-Jentsch, K., Salas, E., Letsky, M. & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an
understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting process in complex collaborative
contexts. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 203-224.
[61]Schwarz, B.B., de Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015) Learning to learn together with
CSCL tools. International Journal Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 10 (3), pp.
239-271.
[62]Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal
collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. Vol. 15, pp. 121-151.
[63]Burns, M., Elizabeth Pierson, E., Reddy, S. (2014). Working together: How teachers teach and
students learn in collaborative learning environments. International Journal of Instruction.
Vol.7, No.1. pp. 17-32.
71
ISSN : 2476-9533
Volume 3, October 2017
[64]Jones, H. M. B. & Vall, O. C. (2014). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the
classroom: Pre service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special
Education. Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
[65]Davis, P., Horn, M., Block, F., Phillips, B., Evan, E. M., Diamond, J., & Shen, C. (2015) “Whoa!
We’re going deep in the trees”. International Journal Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning. 10 (1).
[66]Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., & DeLiema, D. (2015) Constructing liminal blends in a collaborative
augmented-reality learning environment. International Journal Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning. 10 (1), pp. 7-34.
[67]Rehm, M., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2015) The impact of hierarchical positions on
communities of learning. International Journal ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning.
10 (2), pp. 117-138.
[68]Siqin, T., van Aalst, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2015) Fixed group and opportunistic collaboration in a
CSCL environment. International Journal ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning. 10
(2), pp. 161-181
[69]Stahl, G. (2015) Conceptualizing the intersubjective group. International Journal Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning. 10 (3), pp. 209-217.
72