The Development of Student Worksheets (LKPD) with Contextual Approach to Improve Students’ Science Literature Capabilities

Dwi Agnes Setianingrum; Sabar Nurohman

doi:10.21831/jser.v6i1.48223

The Development of Student Worksheets (LKPD) with Contextual Approach to Improve Students’ Science Literature Capabilities

Dwi Agnes Setianingrum, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Sabar Nurohman, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

10.21831/jser.v6i1.48223

Abstract

The aims of this study: (1) analyze the feasibility of LKPD with a contextual approach, (2) analyze the practicality of LKPD with a contextual approach, (3) analyze the effectiveness of LKPD with a contextual approach to improve students' scientific literacy skills. LKPD with this contextual approach helps students in linking the influence of unhealthy living culture on the health of the excretory organ system in humans. This study uses the Thiagarajan 4D (Four-D Model) development model, consisting of four stages, namely the definition stage, the design stage, and the development stage. The dissemination stage was not carried out, this research was only limited to testing the feasibility and effectiveness of the product. The results showed that: (1) LKPD with a contextual approach was feasible, judging from the results of the material validator 3.54 (very good), the results of the media validator 3.89 (very good), and the results of the teacher validator 3 (very good), ( 2) the results of the analysis of the students' responses are 3.12 (very good), (3) based on the results of the analysis of N-Gain and Effect Size, LKPD with a contextual approach is effective in improving students' scientific literacy skills (N-Gain 0.56 (moderate) Effect Size 1.22 (height)). Based on the analysis of the Paired Sample T Test, there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores.

Keywords

Development Research, LKPD, Contextual Approach, Scientific Literacy, Excretion System in Humans.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science Instruction in The Middle and Secondary Schools: Developing Fundamental Knowledge and Skills. Pearson Education Inc, United States of America.

Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-Conceptualization of Scientific Literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48 (6): 670-697.

Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 155-159.

Depdiknas. (2008). Panduan Pengembangan Bahan Ajar. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Desmiwati, R., Ratnawulan, R., & Yulkifli, Y. (2017). Validitas Lkpd Fisika Sma Menggunakan Model Problem Based Learningberbasis Teknologi Digital. Jurnal Eksakta Pendidikan (Jep), 1(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.24036/jep/vol1-iss1/31

Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Scientific Proses Skills in the Context of Teaching Chemistry. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 10 (1): 111-132.

Hake, Richard. (1999). Analyzing Change/ Gain Scores. The journal is downloaded on Monday, January 11, 2020 at 11.45 WIB http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf.

Hariapsari, K. W., & Astriani, D. (n.d.). Kemampuan Literasi Sains Siswa Smp Pada Materi Suhu Dan Perubahannya. 5.

Hayat, Bahrul. (2011). Benchmark Internasional Mutu Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 04 (3): 275-288.

Johnson EB. (2002). Contextual Teaching and Learning: What It is and Why It’s Here to Stay. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Liu, W., Chi, S. S., Friedman, R., & Tsai, M. (2009). Explaning Incivity in the Workplace: The Effect of Personality and Culture. International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Priodicals. 02 (2): 164-184.

Mardapi, Djemari. (2008). Teknik Penyusunan Instrumen Tes dan Non Tes. Yogyakarta: Mitra Cendikia.

Muslich M. (2007). KTSP Pembelajaran Berbasis Kompetensi dan Kontekstual. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Nugraha, D. A., & Binadja, A. (2013). Pengembangan bahan ajar reaksi redoks bervisi sets, berorientasi konstruktivistik. 8.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Result: Executive Summary. https://www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Result in Focus : What 15 Year Olds Know and What They can Do with What They Know. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-result.htm.

OECD. (2018). The PISA 2018 Assessment Framework- Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving Knowledge and Skill. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-assessment-framework-mathematicsreading-science-problem-solving-knowledge-and-skill_5f07c754-en.

Pantiwati, Y., & Husamah, H,. (2014). Analisis Kemampuan Literasi Sains peserta didik SMP Kota Malang. Makalah disajikan dalam Konferensi Ilmiah Tahunan Himpunan Evaluasi Pendidikan Indonesia 2014, Kuta, 18-20 September.

Prastowo, Andi. (2012). Panduan Kreatif Membuat Bahan Ajar Inovatif. Yogyakarta: Diva Press.

Shamsid-Deen I & BP Smith. (2006). Contextual Teaching and Learning Practices in The Family and Consumer Sciences Curriculum. Journal of Family and Consmer Education.

Taniredja & Mustafidah. 2012. Penelitian Kuantitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Thiagarajan, Sivasilam, Semmel, Dorothy S. & Semmel, Melvyn I. (1974). Instructional Development for Training Trachers of Exceptional Children. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Troia, G. A., & Graham, S. (2002, July/August). The Effectiveness of a Highly Explicit,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jser.v6i1.48223