Reading, Mind Mapping, and Sharing (RMS) : Innovation of New Learning Model On Science Lecture To Improve Understanding Concepts
Reading, Mind Mapping, and Sharing (RMS) : Innovation of New Learning Model On Science Lecture To Improve Understanding Concepts
Reading, Mind Mapping, and Sharing (RMS) : Innovation of New Learning Model On Science Lecture To Improve Understanding Concepts
Research Article
Introduction
Human resources are important asset of a nation to be able to maintain its
existence towards various countries. The quality of human resources is a
challenge that must be faced in this 21 st century and in the next centuries. This
challenge has no boundaries of time and does not see the origin of a country.
The nation having the superior and high quality human resources and will win
the global competition. Therefore, the paradigm of quality education system
needs to be a priority in order to support the development of the resources of a
nation.
The improvement/evaluation of the education system continues to be
pursued in order to achieve maximum learning objectives. The success of
education is influenced by the level of professionalism of lecturers in teaching,
the assessment process (Morrison, 2012), quality of teaching showed with
teaching techniques (Nor & Mahamod, 2014), and the readiness of the students
in following the learning activities (Uzaimi, 2012). The indicators of learning
success can be seen from the level of students’ concept understanding once they
finish the learning process (Muhlisin et al., 2016b).
Concept understanding is the ability to grasp the meaning of the material
being learned or the results of the learning process. The ability is described as
the ability to make outline the main idea of a reading passage, to change the
data presented in a particular form into another form, to make an estimation of
the trend in the specific data like charts (Hadi et al., 2013). The ability is
reflected from the ability to master the subject content, as determined for a
particular subject.
Concept understanding is associated with the cognitive processes of person.
The levels of cognitive processes in the bloom taxonomic revised version
include remembering (C1), understanding (C2), applying (C3), analyzing (C4),
evaluating (C5), and creating (C6) (Krathwohl, 2002: 215). Concept
understanding of each student varies. Some students can understand the material
thoroughly, and some others cannot understand anything of what they have
learned, so that their achievement is only limited to recognizing and
experiencing learning it (Muhlisin et al., 2016b).
Concept understanding has an important and strategic position in the
learning activities because it is not only a reconstruction the meaning of
relationships, but also a process of assimilation of knowledge that has been
previously owned. Students should have an understanding of the concept
because the concepts are the basis for higher mental processes in the
formulation of principles and generalizations to solve a problem (Mauke, 2013).
The objective of concept understanding is students can remember the concepts
which are already taught longer (Smarabawa et al., 2013). The efforts to make
the learning outcomes lead to understanding are that the learning process should
emphasize on the significance,
325
Muhlisin
Mind map Assign students to create Create mind map
mind map individually individually related to the
related to the information information they have read
they have read before. before.
Associate students in Create a heteregenous
heterogeneous groups. group consisting of 4-6
Assign students to create students.
mind map colaboratively Create mind map
colaboratively based on
based on the information the
they have read before and information they have read
their individual mind map. before and their individual
Facilitate students to mind map.
conduct a collaborative Communicate their ideas on
mind map in a
discussion in creating collaborative
mind map with their discussion .
group.
Sharing Facilitate each group to Present their group work
present their group work (mind map) infront of the
(mind map) infront of the class in discussion.
class in discussion. Give a feedback/
Give motivation to suggestion/ question to the
students to give feedback group who is doing the
by responding the group presentation.
who is presenting their Focus on the feedback,
work. reinforcement, and
Give feedback, confirmation given by the
reinforcement, and lecturer.
confirmation towards the
material/ topic given
through various learning
sources.
Post-Activity Lead students to pray and Pray before the learning is
say greeting. over and respond to the
greeting.
329
Muhlisin
Method
Research Design
The research was conducted in the Undergraduate program on the basic concept
of science course. The research design used quasi-experimental design with
pretest and postest non-equivalent group research design with 2x2 factorial
design. The procedure of the Quasi-experimental is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
The Implementation Procedures of the Experimental Research
Instrumentation
The test are in the form of essay and developed based on Bloom’s taxonomy
which refer to Krathwohl (2001:215), that is remember (C1), understand (C2),
apply (C3), analyze (C4), evaluate (C5), and create (C6). The research
instruments were sheet. A concept understanding test in the form of essay is
consisting of 18 test items. The concept understanding test was assessed based
on a scale score of 0-4. The reliability level of the concept understanding test
was quite high 0.712.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics technique and inferential
statistical parametric techniques. Descriptive analysis technique was to describe
the data about the students’ concept understanding. The parametric inferential
statistical analysis in this experimental research used Analisys of covariance
(ANACOVA) with the analysis program SPSS 20 for Windows.
Results
The data of mastery students’ concept in detail can be seen in Figure 1.
70 61,01 58,31
56,37
60
49,88 48,22 47,49
50
Score
40
30
20
10
0
Average pretest Average posttest
Conventional high academic ability
Conventional low academic ability
RMS Learning Model high academic ability
RMS Learning Model low academic ability
Figure 1.
The Average Score of Pretest and Posttest of Mastery Students Concept.
The data above then is analyzed by using ANCOVA test. The data is
previously analyzed by using normality and homogeneity of variances test. The
test of normality and homogeneity of variances can be seen in table 3 as
followed
331
Muhlisin
Table 3.
The Result of Test Normality and Homogeneity of Variance of Score of Mastery
Concept.
Test df sig. Criteria Result
Test of Normality 62 0,200 ρ ≥0,05 Normal
Test of Homogeneity of 60 0,094 ρ ≥0,05 Homogen
Variances
Table 4.
The Result of Anacova Test of Effect of Treatment on Mastery Students’ Concept.
Average
Sum of
Data Source df of F Sig.
Squares
square
Pretest 793.128 1 793.128 17.323 .000
Learning model 4199.444 1 4199.444 91.719 .000
Academic 117.712 1 117.712 2.571 .114
Learning model * academic 12.420 1 12.420 .271 .605
error 2609.797 57 45.786
∑ 310348.250 62
On the data source of the learning model, the alpha level is 0.05 with dfl = l
and df2 = 57 obtained Ftable of 4.01. From Table 4, the score of
Farithmetic>Ftable is 91.719> 4.01 and the sig. score is 0,000 <0,05. This
means that H0 is rejected or states that there is a significant difference in the score of
mastery of concepts between students who are taught by using RMS learning model
and conventional learning models. Furthermore, the analysis which held to find out
which learning is better between the two learning models applied, is conducted the
Parameter Estimates test. The test results can be seen in Table 5.
Reading, Mind Mapping … 332
Table 5.
The ResultofEstimates Parameter of Posttest Mastery
Concept
Parameter B Std. error t sig t-table
Constanta 55.697 4.768 11.682 .000 1,67
Pretest .391 .094 4.162 .000 1,67
(Model=1) -16.223 2.433 -6.668 .000 1,67
(Model=2) 0a . . .
Based on table 5 in column B, the score for model 1 is -16,223. It means that
if students are taught by using model 2 (RMS learning model), then the result of
mastery of students concept will be more than 16,233 compared with those who
are taught with model 1 (conventional model learning). It is also proven with
sig. score 0,000<0,05 or tarithmetic˃ttable are 6,668 > 1,67. The difference can be
seen from the average mastery of concept and the result of calculation of gain,
as stated in Figure 1 which showed that the average score of posttest of RMS
learning model for low and high academic ability is higher than average score
of posttest conventional class for low and high academic ability. It is also
supported with the result of normalized gain analysis which can be seen in
Table 6.
Table 6.
The Comparison of Normalized Gain Analysis of Score of Mastery
Average
Class N Gain Category
Pretest Postest
Conventional high academic ability 49,88 61,01 0,21 Low
Conventional low academic ability 48,22 58,31 0,18 Low
RMS Learning Model high 56,37 83,98 0,63 Average
academic ability
RMS Learning Model low 47,49 74,78 0,51 Average
academic ability
Conventional 49,05 59,66 0,20 Low
RMS Learning Model 51,93 79,38 0,57 Average
Based on Table 6, the top normalized gain is shown in the RMS Learning
Model high academic ability and the lowest is shown in the Conventional
Learning Model low academic ability. Overall, RMS Learning model showed
greater normalized gain score than conventional learning model. It shows that
the RMS learning model has potential to improve the mastery of students
concept in which the improvement score of RMS learning model is higher than
conventional learning model.
333
Muhlisin
Discussion
The development of RMS Learning model based on the principles of
constructivism learning theory, so that the learners as independent learners can
be realized. The learning implementation in accordance with the concept (Joyce
et al., 2011) of constructivism is that in the learning process the brain stores
informations, processes it, and changes previous conceptions. Knowledge is
obtained from the experience and interaction. People must actively build or
create their own understanding by synthesizing knowledge from various sources
(Zaibon & Shiratuddin, 2010).
Learning is not just a process of absorbing information, ideas, and skills
because new materials will be constructed by the brain. Knowledge is not only
transmitted by the teachers or parents, but learners must build and construct
their own knowledge, so that they respond to the existing information (Joyce et
al., 2011: 14). This is in line with Marzano (1992: 106) that the learning process
should be designed and managed to improve learners’ ability in organizing their
own experience to be a meaningful new knowledge. Related to constructivism,
it is clearly observable that the learner must build their own knowledge based
on their experience and manage their own thinking processes, not just passively
receive any information.
The social aspect is the basis for RMS learning model which refers to the social
cognition theory by Vygotsky that interpersonal interaction helps develop individual
knowledge. Having a social interaction with others can bring new ideas and improve
the intelligence of individuals (Joyce et al., 2011). It is in line with Fraser & Walberg
(1995) that any development of new concepts was not
Reading, Mind Mapping … 334
conducted in an empty space but in a social context, in which the learners can
experience interactions with others to develop their ideas.
In the reading phase, the students are facilitated to prepare themselves to
follow the learning activity by critically reading the learning material from a
variety of learning resources. Reading activities aim at understanding new ideas
in a written form. This information is consistent with the research by Kirmizi
(2015) that the readiness to learn has a positive effect on motivation and
learning success. Similarly, the research results by Fu et al. (2014) found that
the reading strategies can improve understanding of a concept or a topic.
After the students get the information from a variety of learning resources,
the students make a mind map individually and collaboratively in groups. Mind
mapping activities either individually or in groups require the students to be
able to understand and remember the material they read, and then express it in
writing. Umar & Ahmad (2010) mention that the communication in group
discussions could encourage problem solving and able to improve the thinking
process. This idea was supported by the research results by Gan & Hong (2010)
that learning with peer tutors could improve achievement compared to the
conventional learning.
The mind mapping activity either individually or collaboratively focus the
students on organizing meaningful information and provide an opportunity to
review the information obtained. It allows the students to understand the basic
idea of the content and connect it with the other ideas, so that students
understand a concept well. This idea was supported by the research results by
Long & Carlson (2011) that mind mapping can help in achieving a greater
understanding of the learners than the traditional note-taking and can control in
forming a meaningful connection of the content, so that students can understand
a concept well. Similarly, according to Tungprapa (2015), the implementation
of mind maps makes the learners understand the content more easily,
understand the connection among content and memorize the overall concept.
The final phase of RMS learning model is sharing. This activity facilitates
the interaction with each other in presenting the results of their mind maps. This
phase allows the process to better understand a concept and connect it with one
another that is not yet understood. The final part of sharing phase is the
confirmation process by the lecturers. This step aims at clarifying concepts that
the students do not understand, or they misunderstand. This confirmation
process enables the students to better understand the concepts and to straighten
any miscconceptions the students previously had. This is in line with Ismawati
et al. (2014) that the activities of communication, interaction, and confirmation
from the teacher to the learners can make learning much more focused and help
to improve students’ concept understanding.
335
Muhlisin
The social interaction in RMS learning model phase, such as group mind
mapping, and the social interaction defined in sharing phase which facilitates
the students to be able to understand a material comprehensively because it
gives the students opportunity to give feedback to each other, ask questions,
answer questions, express opinions among group members in the discussion.
Thus, it facilitates in understanding a particular concept that is not yet
understood.
An important finding of this research is that the increase of the students’
concept understanding was also influenced by their intrinsic motivation in the
form of pleasure, or students’ response of the implementation of the learning
model which was relatively new to them, so that their concept understanding
increased. These results are supported with the results of observations
conducted by the observer during the research. It was observed that the students
felt happy, did not get bored and looked excited during the learning process
because in mind mapping consist of color, symbols and short words, so that it
made easier for the students to understand, memorize, and recall. This is in line
with Imad & Utomo (2012) stating that drawing with symbols and colors is able
to make learners feel happier, so that the learners can understand a particular
material better. According to Oren & Meric (2014), learning taught by
describing concepts can make the students feel happy and motivated in learning
that allows them to integrate the topic of science in everyday life. Lee & Pang
(2013) states that motivation can improve learning achievement.
The ANCOVA test is to know whether there is any significant effect of
academic ability on students’ concept understanding. The test results in Table 4
on the source of academic skills showed that the F value was 1.637 with a p-
value nigger than α 0:05 (p≥0.05) which was sig. 0.206. It means that there is
not any significant effect of students’ academic ability on their concept
understanding The division of the collaborative group of the mind mapping was
done by dividing a heterogeneous group members based on their academic
ability consisting of the high academic ability, medium academic ability, and
low academic ability, and the leader of the group was from the high academic
ability students.
The heterogeneous group division was intended to prevent domination by the high
academic students over the others, and so that there would be the interaction
between the high academic students and the low academic students so that the group
members cooperate to achieve their common goal. The research results by Ajaja &
Eravwoke (2010) state that the cooperative learning requires the social interaction in
the form of cooperation between one another, and encourages a discussion on a
certain learning material so that it can enhance the concept understanding among the
students having high academic ability and low academic ability. Similarly, Murdani
(2015) states that the peer tutorials make the learners feel actively involved in the
learning process, and they do not feel embarrassed in
Reading, Mind Mapping … 336
student concept;
There is no effect of difference academic ability toward mastery
References
Ajaja, O., & Eravwoke, O. (2010). Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Junior
Secondary School Students Achievement in Integrated Science. Electronic Journal
of Science Education, 14(1), 1-18.
Bahri.A., Azis, A., & Amin, N. (2012). Penerapan Strategi Pembelajaran Question
Student Have dan Academic Skills on the Cognitive Learning Results of the Class
VIII Junior High School Camba (the Implementation of Learning Strategies Have
Question Student and Academic ability Against Cognitive Learning Outcomes
Grade SMPN 2 Camba). Journal Sainmat, 1(1), 41-51.
Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (1995). Improving Science Education. Chicago: The
National Society for Study of Education.
Fu, Y., Chen, S., Wey, S., & Chen, S. (2014). The Effects of Reading Strategy
Instruction via Electronic Storybooks on EFL Young Readers’ Reading
Performance. International Journal of Contemporary Education Research, 1(1), 9-
20.
Gan, S & Hong, K. (2010).The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring in the Teaching of
Mathematics. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 7 , 113-132.
Hadi, A., Corebima, A., & Saptasari, M. (2013). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Problem
Based Learning (PBL) Terhadap Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis dan Pemahaman
Konsep Biologi Siswa SMA Negeri di Kota Malang (the Effect of Problem Based
Learning (PBL) Learning Model on the Critical Thinking Ability and Understand
Biology for Senior High School in Malang). Journal Online UM, 1-11.
Reading, Mind Mapping … 338
Imaduddin, M., & Utomo, U. (2012). Efektifitas Metode Mapping untuk Meningkatkan
Prestasi Belajar Fisika pada Siswa Kelas VIII (the Effect of Mind Mapping on
Increasing Physics Learning Achievement in Class 8. Humanitas, 9(1), 62-75.
Ismawati, F., Nugroho, S., & Dwijananti, P. (2014). Application of Conceptual
Understanding Procedures for Improving Student Curiosity and Understanding
Concepts. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika, 10, 22-27.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2011). Model of Teaching Model-Model
Pengajaran. Edisi Kedelapan (Model of Teaching Models of Teaching. Eighth
Edition. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar.
Kirmizi, O. (2015). The Influence of Learner Readiness on Student Satisfaction and
Academic Achievement in an Online Program at Higher Education. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 133-142.
Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T., & Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the Effects of Representational
Tools in Collaborative and Individual Inquiry Learning. Computer Supported
Collaborative learning, 6(1), 223-251.
Komalasari, K. (2011). Pembelajaran Kontekstual Konsep dan Aplikasi. Bandung: PT.
Refika Aditama.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Lee, P & Pang, V. (2015). Motivational Factors in Continuing Education an Academic
Achievement of Adult Learners. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction,
10(2015), 55-77.
Long, D & Carlson, D. (2011). Mind the Map: How Thinking Maps Affect Student
Achievement. Networks, 13(2), 1-7.
Marzano, R.J. (1992). A Different Kind of Classrooms: Teaching with Dimension of
Learning.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mauke, M. (2013). Pengaruh Model Contextual Teaching and learning terhadap
Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah dalam Pembelajaran IPA
Fisika di MTs Negeri Negara. E-Journal Program pascasarjana Universitas
Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi IPA, 3, 1-12.
Morrison, A. (2012). Professional Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges.
Initial Teacher Training/Education Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Goverment by APS Group Scotland.
Muhlisin, A. (2012). Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran IPA Terpadu Berbasis
Contextual Teaching And learning (CTL) dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif
Tipe Student Achievement Division (STAD) Tema Polusi Udara. Journal of
Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(2012), 139-145.
Muhlisin, A., Susilo, H., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2015). Analysis of Method or
Learning Model and Skill Qualification of Students’ Critical Thinking in The
Natural Science Basic Concept Lecture. 8th International Conference on Science,
Mathematics&Technology Education (SMTE) UNJ. Jakarta, November 21-24, 2015.
Muhlisin, A., Susilo, H., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2016a). Analisis Keterampilan
Metakognitif Ditinjau dari Kemampuan Akademik Berbeda pada Perkuliahan
Konsep Dasar IPA. Seminar NasionalBiologi FMIPA Unesa. Surabaya, 20 Februari
2016.
339
Muhlisin
Muhlisin, A., Susilo, H., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2016b). An Analysis of University
Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Retention on Science Basic Concepts.
Conference Proceedings 7th International Conference on Educational Technology
(ICETA7) of Adi Buana. Graduate Program University of PGRI Adi Buana.
Surabaya. 13 March 2016.
Muhlisin, A., Susilo, H., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2016). Improving Critical Thinking
Skills of College Students Through RMS Model for Learning Basic Concepts in
Science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 17, (1), Article 12.
Muhlisin, A., Susilo, H., Amin, M., & Rohman, F. (2018). The Effectiveness of RMS
Learning Model in Improving Metacognitive Skills on Science Basic Concepts.
Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(4), 1-14.
Mumpuni, K., Prayitno, B., Karyanto, P., & Sugiharto, B. (2012). Pemberdayaan Hasil
Belajar Kognitif Biologi Melalui Strategi Pembelajaran INSTAD pada Kemampuan
Akademik Berbeda. Seminar Nasional IX Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UNS, 281-285.
Murdani, S. (2015). Model Pembelajaran Kolaboratif dengan Tutor Sebaya pada Pokok
Bahasan Rangkaian Seri Paralel Hambatan Listrik. JRKPF UAD, 1(2), 42-46.
Nor, M & Mahamod, Z. (2014). Pengetahuan Pedagogi Kandungan Guru Bahasa IBAN
yang Baharu dengan yang Berpengalaman di Sekolah-Sekolah Menengah di
Sarawak. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 11, 2017-236.
Oren, F. & Meric, G. (2014). Seventh Grade Students’ Perceptions of Using Concept
Cartoons in Science and Technology Course. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(2), 116-137.
Rohana. (2009). Penggunaan Peta Konsep dalam Pembelajaran Statistika Dasar di
Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika FKIP Universitas PGRI Palembang. Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika, 3(2), 92-102.
Siemens, G. (2005). Learning Development Cycle: Bridging Learning Design and
Modern Knowledge Needs. (www.cedma-europe.org), diakses pada 29 Desember
2014.
Smarabawa, I., Arnyana, IB., Igan., & Setiawan. (2013). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran
Sains Teknologi Masyarakat terhadap Pemahaman Konsep Biologi dan
Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa SMA.E-Journal Program Pascasarjana
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi IPA, 3(1), 1-11.
Sofiya, N. (2014). Pengaruh Motivasi Belajar, Membaca Kritis dan Belajar terhadap
Berpikir Kritis Siswa Jurusan Administrasi Perkantoran SMK Widya Praja Ungaran.
Economic Education Analysis Journal, 3(3), 570-575.
Sutami, N., Suharsono, N., & Warpala, I. (2013). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Scaffolding
terhadap Keterampilan Menulis Teks Recount Berbahasa Inggris dan Kreativitas
Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 3 Manggis. E-Journal Program Pascasarjana
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi Teknologi Pembelajaran, 3(1), 1-9.
Tungprapa, T. (2015). Effect of Using the Electronic Mind Map in the Education
Research Methodology Course for Master Degree Students in the Faculty of
Education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11),
803-807.
Umar, I & Ahmad, N. (2010). Trainee Teachers’ Critical Thinking in an Online
Discussion Forum: A Content Analysis. Malaysian Journal of Learning and
Instruction, 7 , 75-91.
Reading, Mind Mapping … 340
Uzaimi, A. (2012). Ekspektasi, Motivasi, dan Kesiapan Mahasiswa untuk Belajar Studi
pada
Mahasiswa Akuntansi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji Tanjung pinang
(Studi
Komparatif Mahasiswa Pendatang dan Tempatan). JEMI, 3(1), 23-32.
Wigiani, A., Ashadi., & Hastuti, B. (2012). Studi Komparasi Metode Pembelajaran
Problem Posing dan Mind Mapping terhadap Prestasi Belajar dengan
Memperhatikan Kreativitas Siswa pada Materi Pokok Reaksi Redoks Kelas X
Semester 2 SMA Negeri 1 Sukoharjo Tahun Pelajaran 2011/2012. Jurnal
Pendidikan Kimia, 1(1), 1-7.
Zaibon, S & Shiratuddin, N. (2010). Mobile Game-Based Learning (mGBL):
Application Developmen and Heuristics Evaluation Strategy. Malaysian Journal of
Learning and Instruction, 7, 37-73.