Comparation: Learning Results Engineering Mechanics Using Conventional Learning Model and Learning Cycle in Vocational High School

Abstract

Vocational high school aims to develop the students’ competence of job career that must appropriate with the necessary of company. Therefore, required a program of teaching strategy in order to obtain better result of learning process. The purpose of this study was to know the learning different result from mechanics learning using conventional learning and learning cycle in vocational high school. The method used in this study is comparative quantitative, by using the simple random sampling, sample that used in this study is the students of mechanics program from vocational high school. Testing-T used to know the learning different result from two different learning models. The result of this study shows that learning process in mechanics program of vocational high school using learning cycle is more effective than conventional method. This learning model would be effective to develop scientific abilities, explore material, find concepts and apply these concepts to the other problems, thus the learning results by using this model was increase.

Keywords

• learning result,conventional learning,learning cycle

References

1. Abraham, M.R & Renner J.W. (1986). The Sequence of Learning Cycle Activity in High School Chemistry. J.of Research in Science Teaching, 23(2), 121-143.
2. Ahmad, Z. (2010). Effects of Cooperative Learning vs. Traditional Instruction on Prospective Teachers’ Learning Experience and Achievement. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 151-164.
3. Akinwumi & Bello (2015). Relative Effectiveness of Learning-Cycle Model and Inquiry- Teaching Approaches in Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Physics. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(3), 169-180.
4. Anggraini,Y.,Purnomo.,& Syaad. 2016. The Contribution of Vocational Students’ Learning Discipline, Motivation and Learning Results. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 12(5), 965-970.
5. Badan Pusat Statistik. 2017. Pengangguran Terbuka Menurut Pendidikan Tinggi yang Ditamatkan1986-2017.(Online), (https://www.bps.go.id/statictable/2009/04/16/972/pengangguran- terbukamenurut-pendidikan-tertinggi-yang-ditamatkan-1986---2017.html), accesed 5 January 2018.
6. Brown, P., & Abell, S. (2007). Examining the learning cycle. Science & Children, 46, 58-59.
7. Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (PSMK). 2017a. Strategi Implementasi Revitalisasi SMK (10 Langkah Revitalisasi SMK). Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
8. Escalada, L., Rebello, N., & Zollman, D. (2004). Student explorations of quantum effects in LEDs and luminescent devices. The Physics Teacher, 42(3), 173-179.

9. Gagne, R& Wagner, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Reihhart and Winston.
10. Hanuscin, D. L., & Lee, M. H. (2010). Using a learning cycle approach to teaching the learning cycle to preservice elementary teachers. Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum presentations (MU).
11. Hartinah, S., Suherman, S., Syazali, M., Efendi, H., Junaidi, R., Jermsittiparsert, K., & Umam, R. Probing-Prompting Based On Ethnomathematics Learning Model: The Effect On Mathematical Communication Skill. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 799-814.
12. Hasret, N. & Necati, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of learning cycle model to increase students’ achievement in physics laboratory. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 1-13.
13. Ji-Ping Z. and Collis B. (1995). A Comparison of Teaching Models in the West and in China. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 1(3).
14. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T & Holubec, E.J. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina. MN: Interaction Book Company.
15. Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1992). Model of teaching (4thed). Boston: Allyn and Bacom Publishing.
16. Khalid, A & Azeem, M. (2012). Constructivist Vs Traditional: Effective Instructional Approach in Teacher Education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5), 170-177.
17. Li, Wei Y. (2016). Transforming Conventional Teaching Classroom to Learner-Centred Teaching Classroom Using Multimedia-Mediated Learning Module. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(2), 105-112.
18. Lord, Thomas R. (1999). A Comparison Between Traditional and Constructivist Teaching in Environmental Science. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(22), 22-28.
19. Lorsbach, W. (2002). The Learning Cycle as a Tool for Planning Science Intstruction. Retrieved from: http://www/coe/ilstu.edu/scienceed.
20. Mahe, A. (2014). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education: Implications for Curriculum Design and Student Learning. Journal of Hospitallity, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism Education, 3(2), 46-54.
21. Maier, S. J., & Marek, E. A. (2005). The learning cycle: A re-introduction. The Physics Teacher, 44(2), 109-113.
22. Maudu, B. C. & Amaechi, C. C. (2012). Effects of five steps learning cycle model on students’ understanding of concepts related to elasticity. Journal of Educational and Practice, 3(9), 222-288.
23. McCarthy and L. Anderson. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279-294.
24. Mobark, W. M. (2014). Effect of using cooperative learning strategy on graduate students’ academic performance and gender difference. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(11), 64- 70.
25. Mohammadjani, F &Tonkaboni. (2015). A Comparison between the Effect of Cooperative Learning Teaching Method and Lecture Teaching Method on Students’ Learning and Satisfaction Level.International Education Studies, 8(9), 107-112.
26. Monica. (2013). Analysis of Perceptions of Conventional and E-Learning Education in Corporate Training. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(4), 73-97.
27. Nurdiansyah, A. (2016). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw Untuk Meningkatkan Aktifitas Dan Hasil Belajar Mata Pelajaran Mekanika Teknik Dan Elemen Mesin Kelas X TP-3 di SMK Muhammadiyah 3 Yogyakarta Tahun Pelajaran 2015/2016. Taman Vokasi, 4(1), 135-141.
28. Ofsted .(2010). The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications- and-research/Browse-all-by/Annual-Report/2009-10/The-Annual Report-of-Her- Majesty-s-Chief-Inspector-of-Education-Children-s-Services-and-Skills-2009-10.
29. Olaoluwa, M & Olufunke, T. (2015). Relative Effectiveness of Learning-Cycle Model and Inquiry-Teaching Approaches in Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes in Physics. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(3), 169-180.
30. Paolini, A. (2015). Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness and Student Learning Outcomes. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 15(1), 20-33.
31. Prosser, C.A. & Quigley, T.H. (1950). Vocational Education in a Democracy. Revised Edition. Chicago: American Technical Society.Retrived.
32. Saefulloh, A. (2016). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw pada Mata Pelajaran Mekanika Teknik untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas X TGB b SMK Negeri 2 Sukoharjo Tahun Pelajaran 2015/2016. SKRIPSI Jurusan Pendidikan Teknik Bangunan-FKIP UNS.
33. Smith. M. K. (2001). Kolb on experiential learning. The encyclopedia of informal Education. Students’ Academic Performance and Gender Difference. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(11), 64-70.
34. Utaminingsih, S. 2011. Model Manajemen Pengembangan Soft Skill SMK Program Keahlian Pariwisata. Jurnal Eksplanasi, 6(2), 169-183.
35. Wael. (2014). The Effect of Using Cooperative Learning Strategy on Graduate Students. Academic Performance and Gender Differences, 5(11), 64-70.
36. Watson, P. (2002) The role and integration of learning outcomes into the educational process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(3), 205-219.
37. Weltman,D& Whiteside, M. (2010). Comparing the Effectiveness of Traditional and Active Learning Methods in Business Statistics: Convergence to the Mean. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(1), 1-13.
38. Yore, Larry D. (2001). What is Meant by Constructivist Science Teaching and Will the Science Education Community Stay the Course for Meaningful Reform Electronic. Journal of Science Education, 5(4).