Sri Rahayu, Fitri Aldresti, Fauziatul Fajaroh


The aim of this study was to investigate the difference on scientific explanation skills of students taught using POGIL model with SSI context, POGIL model, and conventional model on salt hydrolysis and buffer solution. This study used quasi-experimental posttest only design. Sample used three classes which were selected by convenience sampling technique in a public high school in Malang. The data were obtained from students' written scientific explanation and classified using SOLO taxonomy. The results of Kruskall-Wallis H-Test showed that there is significant different of students' scientific explanation skills between students' who were taught using POGIL model with SSI learning context, POGIL model, and conventional model.


inquiry; socioscientific issues; scientific explanation; SOLO taxonomy


Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L. & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English Learners Increase Achievement Through Inquiry-Based Science Instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 26, No.2, hlm. 213–239.

Bailey, C.P., Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2012). Learning transferable skills in large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, Vol. 40, No.1, hlm. 1-7.

Barthlow, M. J. (2011). The Effectiveness of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning to Reduce Alternate Conception in Secondary Chemistry. Lynchburg: Liberty University.

Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For Whom Is Argument and Explanation a Necessary Distinction? A Response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, Vol.96, No. 5, hlm. 808-813.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science Education, Vol. 93, No.1, hlm. 26-55.

Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Biggs, J.B., and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning - the SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

Biggs, J.B. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (3rd Ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Education & Open University Press.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working Toward a Stronger Conceptualization of Scientific Explanation for Science Education. Science Education, Vol. 95, No. 4, hlm. 639–669.

Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research Approach to Designing Chemistry Education Using Authentic Practices as Contexts. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 28, No. 9, hlm. 1063– 1086.

Chase A, Pakhira D, Stains M. (2013). Implementing process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning for the first time: adaptations and shortterm impacts on students’ attitude and performance. J Chem Educ 90, 409–416.

Coll, R. K. & Treagust, D. F. 2001. Learners’ Use Of Analogy And Alternative Conceptions For Chemical Bonding, Australian Science Teachers Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, hlm. 24–32.

Eaton, L., (2006), The Effects of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning on Student Achievement in a One Semester General, Organic, and Biochemistry Course. Tesis tidak diterbitkan. New York: St. John Fisher College.

Firman, H. (2016). Diagnosing Weaknesses of Indonesian Students' Learning. Dalam L. M. Thien dkk. (Eds), What Can PISA 2012 Data Tell Us? (hlm. 63-80). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Faria, C., Freire, S., Baptista, M., & Galvão, C. (2014). The construction of a reasoned explanation of a health phenomenon: an analysis of competencies mobilized. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 36, No. 9, hlm. 1476–1490.

Geiger, M. P. (2010). Implementing POGIL in Allied Health Chemistry Courses: Insights from Process Education. International Journal of Process Education, Vol. 2, No.1, hlm. 19-34.

Graber, W., Nentwig, P., Becker, H.J., Sumfleth, E., Pitton, A., Wollweber, K., Jorde, D., (2001). Scientific Literacy: From Theory to Practice. Dalam H. Behrendt, dkk. (Eds), Research in Science Education-Past, Present, and Future (hlm. 61-70). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hanson, D. M. (2005a). Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning Activity. Dalam S. W. Beyerlein & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty Guidedbook-A Comprehensie Tool for Improving Faculty Performance. (hlm. 381-384). Lisle, IL: Pasific Crest.

Hanson, D. M. (2006b). Instructor's Guide to Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning. Lisle, IL: Pasific Crest.

Holbrook, J, & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Enviroment & Science Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, hlm. 275-288.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing Decision-Making Skills for Socio-Scientific Issues. Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 41, No. 4, hlm. 170-177

Maulidiawati dan Soeprodjo. (2014). Keefektifan Pembelajaran Kooperatif dengan Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning pada Hasil Belajar. Chemistry in Education. Vol. 3, No. 2, hlm. 163-169.

McNeill, K. L., dan Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and Scientific Explanations: Helping Students Use Evidence and Reasoning. Dalam J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (hlm.121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2): 153–191.

Murphy KL, Picione J, Holme TA. 2010. Research and teaching: Data-driven implementation and adaptation of new teaching methodologies. J Coll Sci Teach. Vol. 40, No. 2, hlm. 78–84.

Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2009). Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using The SOLO Taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 31, hlm. 1359–1378.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2016a). PISA 2015: PISA Results in Focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

(2016b). PISA 2015 Science Framework. In OECD. PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 41, No. 10, hlm. 994-1020.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A., (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation: A Necessary Distinction?. Science Education, Vol. 95, No. 4, hlm. 627-638.

Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: Teaching about genes, environment and human performances. Dalam T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (hlm. 201–238). Dordrecht: Springer.

Qureshi, S., Rao Vishnumolakala, V., Southam, D. C. & Treagust, D. F. (2016). InquiryBased Chemistry Education in a High-Context Culture: A Qatari Case Study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, hlm. 1-22.

Rahayu, S. (2016). Mengembangkan Literasi Sains Anak Indonesia Melalui Pembelajaran Berorientasi Nature of Science (NOS). Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang. Makalah disampaikan dalam Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar dalam bidang Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam pada 17 Maret 2016.

Rahayu, S. (2017). Promoting the 21st Century Scientific Literacy Skills through Innovative Chemistry Instruction. AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1911, No. 1, hlm.1-8.

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. Dalam N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2), hlm. 545–558. New York, NY: Routledge

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research. Journal of Research In Science Teaching. Vol. 41, No. 5, hlm. 513-536.

Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, Vol. 45, hlm. 1–42.

Sadler, T.D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M.S. (2016). Learning Science Content through Socio-Scientific Issues-Based Instruction: A Multi-Level Assessment Study. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 38, No. 10, hlm. 1-14.

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 23, hlm. 23–55.

Soobard, R. And Rannikmäe, M. (2015). Examining Curriculum Related Progress Using a context based Test Instrument – A Comparison of Estonian Grade 10 and 11 Students. Journal of Science Education International, Vol. 26, No. 3, hlm. 263- 283.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tsai, C. Y. (2017). The Effect Of Online Argumentation Of Socio-Scientific Issues On Students' Scientific Competencies And Sustainability Attitudes. Computers & Education, Vol. 144, hlm. 14-27.

Wang, C. Yu. (2014). Scaffolding Middle School Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations: Comparing a Cognitive Versus a Metacognitive Evaluation Approach. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 37, No. 2, hlm. 237-231.

Wu, H.-K., & Hsieh, C.-E. 2006. Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills To Construct Explanations In Inquiry-Based Learning Environments. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 28, hlm. 1289–1313.

Yuliastini, I.B., Rahayu, S., & Fajaroh, F. (2016). POGIL Berkonteks Socioscientific Issues (SSI) dan Literasi Sains Siswa SMK. Makalah disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional Pendidikan IPA Pascasarjana UM, Malang, 8 Oktober.

Yuliati, L., Kusairi, S., dan Munfaridah, N. (2016). Pembelajaran Inkuiri Dengan Thinking Maps Pada Pembelajaran Fisika. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, Vol. 21, No. 2, hlm. 142-147.

Zawadzki, R. (2010). Is Pro POGIL Suitable As A Teaching Method in Thailand’s Higher Education?. Asian Journal Education and Learning, Vol. 1, No. 2, hlm. 66-74.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific Issues as a Curriculum Emphasis: Theory, Research and Practice. Dalam N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA

JPMIPA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Jurnal Pengajaran Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (JPMIPA) or Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching 

All rights reserverd. pISSN 1412-0917 eISSN 2443-3616

Copyright © Faculty of Mathematics and Science Education (FPMIPA) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)


View JPMIPA Stats