Scientific Approach to Promote Response Fluency Viewed from Social Intelligence: Is It Effective?

Abstract

This study was aimed at investigating whether or not there is an interaction between learning approach and social intelligence towards response fluency. A number of 126 eighth grade students (M = 13.9; SD = 0.5 years) in Bojonegoro, Indonesia were randomly selected to participate in this study. This research used 2x3 factorial quasi-experiment with the matching static comparison design. The statistical Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) ware implemented for analysis of data in the study. The results show that: there is a significant difference in response to fluency between students who learn with a scientific approach and direct learning approach; there are significant differences in response to fluency between students who have high, medium, and low social intelligence, both in scientific and direct learning approaches, the students with high social intelligence levels have better response to fluency than those with moderate social intelligence or low, and the students with moderate social intelligence have better response to fluency than those with low social intelligence, in all levels of social intelligence, the students who were taught by using scientific approach have better response to fluency than those who were taught by using direct learning approach.

Keywords

• Scientific approach,direct instruction,social intelligence,response fluency

References

1. Akcanca, N., & Ozsevgec, L. C. (2017). Effect of activities prepared by different teaching techniques on scientific creativity levels of prospective pre-school teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.1.71.
2. Anyanwu, S. U., & Iwuamadi, F. N. (2015). Student-centered teaching and learning in higher education: transition from theory to practice in nigeria. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(8), 349–358.
3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. A. (2010). Introduction to research in education (eighth edition). Ohio, United States: Wadsworth.
4. Azimigaroosi, S., Zhiean, F., & Farahmand, H. (2015). On the comparison of effectiveness of direct instruction method and multimedia instruction on students suffering from special learning disorder along with defects in dictation. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 62(2), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.62.8.
5. Boyaci, Z., Sahin, S., Hasirci, H. M. E., & Kilic, A. (2017). Student-centered education scale: a validity and reliability study. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.93.
6. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, (pp. 17-66). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2.
7. Budiyono. (2004). Metodologi penelitian [Educational metodology]. Surakarta, Indonesia: Uns press.
8. Craft, A. (2014). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London, UK: Routledge.

9. Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262.
10. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
11. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. Lester (ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
12. Hosnan, M. (2014). Pendekatan saintifik dan kontekstual dalam pembelajaran abad 21: kunci sukses implementasi Kurikulum 2013 [Scientific and contextual approach in 21st century learning: the key to successful implementation of 2013 curriculum]. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
13. Hudgins, B. B. (1983). Educational Psychology. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
14. In’am, A., & Hajar, S. (2017). Learning geometry through discovery learning using a scientific approach. International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 55–70.
15. Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29.
16. Kemdikbud. (2013). Materi pelatihan guru matematika sekolah menengah pertama dalam mengimplementasikan kurikulum 2013 [Material of junior high school mathematics teacher training in implementing the 2013 curriculum]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Human resource development agency.
17. Keyes, G. (2010). Teaching the scientific method in the social sciences. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 10(2), 18–28.
18. Kilic, A. (2010). Leaner-centered micro teaching in teacher. International Journal of Instruction, 3(1), 77-100.
19. Kurnik, Z. (2008). The scientific approach to teaching math. Teaching Methodology of Mathematics (Metodika), 17(2), 421–432.
20. Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social innovation: enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2), 123–140.
21. Mathur, S. (2007). Manual of social intelligence scale. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India: Rred'shine Publication. Inc.
22. Mulyasa, E. (2013). Pengembangan dan implementasi kurikulum 2013 [Development and implementation of 2013 curriculum]. Bandung, Indonesia: Rosdakarya.
23. Pekdogan, S., & Korkmaz, H. İ. (2001). Improving the perception of self-sufficiency towards creative drama. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.5.3.101.
24. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1.
25. Richards, G. (2001). Cultural Attractions and European Tourism. Wallingford, England: CAB International.
26. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed,) Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
27. Schwarz, C. V, Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Fortus, D., Schwartz, Y., … Ache, A. (2009). Developing a Learning Progression for Scientific Modeling : Making Scientific Modeling Accessible and Meaningful for Learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311.
28. Smolkowski, K., Danaher, B. G., Seeley, J. R., Kosty, D. B., & Severson, H. H. (2010). Modeling missing binary outcome data in a successful web-based smokeless tobacco cessation program. Journal Compilation, 105(c), 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02896.x.
29. Syah, M. (2010). Psikologi pendidikan: dengan pendekatan baru [Educational psychology: with a new approach]. Bandung, Indonesia: Rosdakarya.
30. Talbert, E., Hofkens, T., & Wang, M. (2019). Does student-centered instruction engage students differently? The moderation effect of student ethnicity. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1519690.
31. Wawra, D. (2009). Social intelligence. European Journal of English Studies, 13(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570902907193.
32. Wenno, H. (2014). Direct instruction model to increase physical science competence of students as one form of classroom assesment. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 3(3), 1–6.
33. Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97.