SR ( Science and Religion ) SEBAGAI PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN BIOLOGI PADA KURIKULUM 2013 UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KARAKTER SISWA
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The learning activities is a process of discovery and experience so that the knowledge can improve students' understanding and the character. Science is often identified with the West. The Islamic education is often oriented to the future life tend to be defensive. Approach of Science and Religion (SR) is a combination of approaches concepts, process skills, inquiry, and discovery and approaches to religious values. The philosophy underlying the approach is a constructivist approach behavioristik SR, learners formulate their own concepts in cognitive structure based on their knowledge then implement the values that exist in the community surrounding and religious values. Subject of this research was a 45 students of MAN 1 Semarang academic year 2015-2016 Research was conducted in odd semester of 2015, include: 1) planning, 2) implementation, 3) observation, and
4) evaluation. The results showed a good indicator of student activity in the learning lab and discussions has been reached on the completeness of classical study on lab activities amounted to 82.44% with an average value of 81.48 liveliness, and discussions 81.86% with an average value of 82, 10 (criteria very well). Indicators student's character visits of religious attitudes, responsibility, honesty, respect, discipline, and self-contained. The conclusion were a. SR approach seeks to provide an understanding of How teach science by providing a vision of Islam in the classroom. b. SR approach applied to the learning process Biology can apply knowledge and improve the character of the students.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Acar, O., et al. (2010). “Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines”. International Journal of Science Education. 32, (9), 1191-1206.
Anderson, C. (2012). “On the nature of thought processes and their relationship to the accumulation of knowledge: The process of making a diagnosis”. Dermatology Practical and Conceptual. 2 (4), 47-62.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review. 106, (4),
Campbell, N. A., et al. (2012). Biologi Edisi Kedelapan Jilid 3. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Caplan, P. (1987). Cultural Construction of Sexuality. London: Tavistock publication.
Chin, C. & Osborne, J. (2010). “Students’ questions and discursive interaction: How they impact argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science”. Contemporary Science Education Research: Learning and Assessment. 1, (2), 3-12.
Daradjat, Z., et al. (1995). Metodik Khusus Pengajaran Agama Islam. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Dawson, V. M. (2007). “An exploration of high school (12-17 years old) student’ understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes”. Research in Science Education. 37, (1), 59-73.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). “High-school student’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy?”. International Journal of Science Education. 31, (11), 1421-1445.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2010). “Teaching strategies for developing student’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics”. Research in Science Education. 40, (1), 133148.
Depdikbud (1988). Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Ennis, Robert H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Erduran, S., et al. (2004). “TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern for studying science discourse”. Science Education. 88, (6), 915-933.
Foong, C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2010). “Assessing student’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge”. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science. 9, (1), 1120-
Gordon, T. (1994). Menjadi Orang Tua Efektif. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Gunarsa, D. S. Y., & Gunarsa D. S. (1995). Psikologi Perkembangan
Anak & Remaja. Jakarta: Gunung Mulia.
Hafidz, W. (1999). Pola Relasi Gender & permasalahannya. Jakarta: Arcan.
Heyes, S., & Hardy M. (1996). Pengantar Psikologi. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Inch, E. S., Warnick, B., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical Thinking and Communication The Use of Reason in Argument Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Knippels, M. C. P. J., et al. (2009). “Education through fiction: Acquiring opinion-forming skills in the context of genomic”. International Journal of Science Education. 31, (15), 2057-2083.
Koentjaraningrat. (1982). Manusia & Kebudayaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Djambatan.
Lubben, F., et al. (2002). “Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentationabout experimental data: A South African case study”. International Journal of Science Education. 32, (16), 2143-2166.
Mattern, M., & Schau, C. (2002). “Gender differences in science attitude- achievement relationships over time among middle-school students”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39, (4), 324-340.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). “Who reason well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge Levels”. Cognition and Instruction. 14, (2), 139-178.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publication.
Munandar, U. (1982). Pemanduan Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Rajawali.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, Gender, and Society. London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd.
Perkins, D. N. (1985). “Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning”. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77, (5),
Poebakawatja, S. (1976). Ensiklopedi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Gunung Agung.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). “Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41, (5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). “Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making”. International Journal of Science Education. 28, (12), 1463-1488.
Sadler, T. D., & Donelly, L. A. (2006). “Socioscientific argumentation: The effect of content knowledge and morality”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 42, (1), 112-138.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). “A threshold model of content knowledge transfers for socioscientific argumentation”. Science Education. 90, (1), 986-
Shin, N., et al. (2003). “Understanding and facilitating historical argumentation skills in a multimedia learning environment among high school students”. Center of Educational Technologies. 2, (1),
-112.
Thalib, M. (1995). 40 Tanggung Jawab Orang Tua terhadap Anak. Bandung: Irsyad Baitus Salam.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. England: Cambridge University Press.
Udell, W. (2007). “Enhancing adolescent girls’ argument skills in reasoning about personal and non-personal decisions”. Cognitive Development. 22, (1), 341-352.
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2007). Media Argumentation, Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, C., et al. (2000). Race, Class, and Gender in Exclusion from School. London: Falmer Press.
Yusuf, S. (1986). Psikologi Perkembangan Anak & Remaja. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). “Fostering student’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39 (1), 35-62
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/biodidaktika.v11i2.1587
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 BIODIDAKTIKA, JURNAL BIOLOGI DAN PEMBELAJARAN