Comparing the Effect of Project-Based Learning and Discovery
Learning on Students’ Futsal Learning Outcomes
Yusuf Jamaludin, Komarudin Komarudin and Tite Juliantine
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jln. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Project-Based Learning, Discovery Learning, Learning Outcomes (Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor).
Abstract: The aim of this study was to find out (1) if project-based learning could significantly influence students’
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes in futsal learning, (2) if discovery learning could
significantly influence students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes in futsal learning,
and (3) if the influence of project-based learning on students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning
outcomes in futsal learning is different from that of the discovery learning. The study was conducted using an
experimental design. The samples were seventh grade students at MTs AL-Marwah Kabupaten Bandung
chosen using a cluster random sampling technique. The data were collected through an objective cognitive
test, an affective questionnaire, and observation sheets to measure the psychomotor learning outcomes. A
MANOVA test was used to conduct the hypothesis testing. Based on the results of data analysis, it was
concluded that (1) project-based learning significantly influenced students’ cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor learning outcomes in futsal learning, (2) discovery learning significantly influenced students’
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes in futsal learning, and (3) the influence of project-
based learning on students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning outcomes in futsal learning was
not significantly different from that of the discovery learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
The development of Curriculum 2013 was the
continuation step of the Competence Based
Curriculum Development that was initiated in 2004
and KTSP 2006 that include the behaviour,
knowledge and skills in an integrated manner. The
aim of the physical education is comprehensive, it
covers the cognitive, affective and psychomotor
domains (Anderson et al., 2016).
Unfortunately, until today, the focus and attention
on the effort to improve the comprehensive physical
education learning result, which are cognitive,
affective and psychomotor, are often neglected by the
educators (Schools, 2013). The facts show that there
are still lots of physical education at schools that are
still teacher-centered and only focus solely on
movement concept mastering so that the cognitive
and affective aspects are neglected (Approach, 2009).
The alteration on the teaching process in
curriculum 2013 includes a) scope of competence
characteristics oriented: 1) the behaviour to accept,
perform, respect, appreciate, and practice 2) the skill
to observe, ask, try, sense, present, and create, and 3)
the knowledge to know, understand, apply, analyse,
evaluate, and create: b) to use scientific approach, the
character competence based on levels. C) to prioritize
the project based learning and discovery learning
models (Kirk, 2015; Dearden, 2014).
The Project-based Learning is a learning model
that uses projections or activities as a learning process
to achieve the competence of behaviour, knowledge
and skill (Approach, 2009; Gibbes and Carson, 2013).
The project-based learning uses the projects as an
initial step to integrate new knowledge and skill based
on real experience (Beaumont et al., 2011). The
project-based approach is a learning whose
innovative emphasis is on contextual issues
(Approach, 2009). In this project-based learning, the
students learn actively and will be made actively
hands-on (through physical activities) and minds-on
(through thinking/mental activities) (Ang and
Penney, 2014).
The Discovery Learning model is a learning
theory defined as a learning process that occurs if the
students are not presented with learning in its final
form, but are expected to organize it by themselves
(Dean, 2010). Referring to Bruner’s opinion, that
Jamaludin, Y., Komarudin, K. and Juliantine, T.
Comparing the Effect of Project-Based Learning and Discovery Learning on Students’ Futsal Learning Outcomes.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 277-281
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
277

“Discovery Learning can be defined as the learning
that takes place when the student is not presented with
subject matter in the final form, but rather is required
to organize it himself” (Washio et al., 2015). The
basic of Bruner’s idea is an idea of Piaget which
stated that kids must play an active role in the learning
process in the class. Bruner used the method called
Discovery Learning where the students organize the
materials learned with one final form Dalyono (Steele
et al., 2016). The Discovery Learning method is to
understand the concept, meanings and the relations
through an intuitive process to finally reach the
conclusion Budiningsih. The discovery takes place if
the individuals involved, particularly in using the
mental process to find some concepts and principles.
The discovery is performed through observation,
classification, measurement, prediction, definition
and inference (Washio et al., 2015) the process is
called the cognitive process while the discovery is the
mental process of assimilating concepts and
principles in the mind.
The importance of the study result that consists of
the cognitive, affective and psychomotor for the
students, urges the teachers to innovate their teaching
(Quay et al., 2016). The Project-based learning model
and Discovery Learning are based on the
constructivism theory and is expected to be a learning
process that can improve the study results of the
students (Keenan and Keenan, 2016).
2 METHODS
2.1 Participants
Seventh graders from two classes of 40 students with
learning length of four weeks in MTs Al-Marwah
Pameungpeuk, Kabupaten Bandung.
2.2 Instruments
2.2.1 Cognitive
The instruments to measure the cognitive domain
regarding the students’ knowledge of the materials
taught in MC and BC (Main Competence and Basic
Competence) and to evaluate the mastery level of the
students is the objective test in form of multiple
choices that consist of 28 questions with choices of
A, B, C, and D.
2.2.2 Affective
The instrument to measure the affective domain is the
scoring scale. The indicator revealed regarding to the
values contained in the physical education about
“cooperation, self-reflection”, “behaviour profile in
physical education”, and “social, emotional/attitude
test” consist of 24 questions.
2.2.3 Psychomotor
The instrument in this research used the scoring
instrument for the skill in playing Futsal by using
GPAI (Game Performance Assessment Instrument).
The writer focused on three performance aspects on
each decision made component (proper or improper),
skill execution (effective or ineffective) and support
(proper or improper).
2.3 Procedure
The sampling for the research was conducted
randomly to the class groups in the population by
using cluster random sampling technique. This
procedure is used because it was not allowed to make
a new class in order to choose the samples, therefore
the sampling used the available class.
The steps in deciding the samples are: performing
the random selection and then performing the random
assignment.
The treatment is given for 12 meetings three times
per week.
3 RESULTS
The data of the research result is analysed with the
help of SPSS 22. The summary of the count result is
as follows table 1:
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
278

Table 1: Data of Research Result.
Item
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Lower
Upper
Cognitive Initial Test
Cognitive Final Test
-1.350
.489
.109
-1.579
-1.121
-12.337
19
.000
Affective Initial Test
Affective Final Test
-2.700
.733
.164
-3.043
-2.357
-16.480
19
.000
Psychomotor Initial
Test Psychomotor
Final Test
-1.600
1.847
.413
-2.464
-.736
-3.875
19
.000
(1) The cognitive domain obtained the t-count for
12.337 with a significance value of 0,000 < 0,05;
(2) Affective domain obtained the t-count for 16.480
with a significance value of 0,000 < 0,05; (3)
Psychomotor domain obtained the t-count for -3.875
with a significance value of 0,000 < 0,05. With
such value, it means that the H0 is rejected, meaning
that there is a significant difference between the
results of the initial and final tests of the cognitive,
affective and psychomotor domains in the Project-
Based Learning Model groups.
Table 2: Data of Research Result.
Item
Paired Differences
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Lower
Upper
Cognitive Initial Test
Cognitive Final Test
-.950
.394
.088
-1.134
-.766
-10.782
19
.000
Affective Initial Test
Affective Final Test
-2.200
.523
.117
.-2.445
-1.955
-18.807
19
.000
Psychomotor Initial Test
Psychomotor Final Test
-1.050
.759
.170
-1.405
-.695
-6.185
19
.000
(1) The cognitive domain obtained the t-count for
10.782 with a significance value of 0,000 < 0,05;
(2) Affective domain obtained the t-count for 18,807
with a significance value of 0,000 < 0,05;
Psychomotor domain obtained the t-count for -6,185
with a significance value for 0,000 < 0,05.
Therefore, it means that the H0 is rejected, meaning
that there is a significant different between the results
of the initial and final tests of the cognitive, affective
and psychomotor domains in the Discovery Learning
Model groups.
Table 3: Data of Research Result.
Model Project Based-
Learning
Model Discovery
Learning
Domain
Gain
Domain
Gain
Cognitive
1.35
Cognitive
1.60
Affective
2.70
Affective
2.20
Psychomotor
1.60
Psychomotor
1.05
Based on the result of the score gain data analysis,
it showed that the Project-based Learning Model
affects more significantly than the Discovery
Learning Model toward the cognitive, affective and
psychomotor learning results of the students in futsal
learning.
4 DISCUSSION
Based on the result of the data analysis, it can be seen
that the Project-based Learning Model gives
significant effects to the students’ cognitive results in
learning futsal (Stozhko et al., 2017). The Project-
based Learning really allows the students to develop
their cognitive aspects since it also requires the
students to research, plan, design, and reflect their
creations in the project (Stozhko et al., 2017). The
futsal learning also helps each student to develop their
affective aspect (Blumenfeld et al., 2011). In the
Comparing the Effect of Project-Based Learning and Discovery Learning on Students’ Futsal Learning Outcomes
279

Project-based Learning, the students perform an
active learning (Approach, 2009). The students are
really required to perform actively in hands on
(through physical activities) manner. All the aims will
be achieved in the process of Project-based Learning
Model, since the students involve actively in the
learning process and this will improve the students’
psychomotor aspects (Stozhko et al., 2017). This
statement is strengthened by a researched conducted
by Iwamoto et al. (2016) entitled “The Effect of
Project-Based Learning on Student Performance”
which showed that this particular model can improve
the students’ skill. Therefore, based on the result of
the data analysis, theory of the experts and the results
of the previous researches, they showed that the
Project-based Learning gives significant effects on
the result of the students’ psychomotor in the futsal
learning (Stozhko et al., 2017).
The Discovery Learning model affects
significantly toward the students’ cognitive, affective
and psychomotor futsal learning results (Moy, 2016)
The Discovery Learning model is a learning theory
defined as a learning process that occurs if the
students are not presented with the learning material
in its final form (Dean, 2010). Therefore, the students
must involve to learn actively in the class (Dean,
2010), by using the method called Discovery
Learning, where the students organize the materials
learned in a final form. The Discovery Learning
method is to understand concepts, meanings, and
relationships through an intuitive process to
eventually reach the conclusion (Terms, 2016).
The Discovery Learning model process prioritizes
an active participation from each student and
identifies skill differences well. To support the
learning process, an environment to facilitate the
curiosity of the students in the exploration stage is
required. Such environment is aimed so that the
students can follow the learning process well, be more
creative, work in a team as well as accepting feedback
and suggestions discussed in groups to develop the
students’ affective aspect. All these can be achieved
in the Discovery Learning model process since the
students involve actively in the learning process
(Bradley and Bradley, 2007).
In the Learning Concept, the Discovery Learning
is the establishment of the categories or concepts that
allow the generalization. As for the categorization
seen in the Discovery which means the establishment
of the categories or more known as coding systems
(Anderson et al., 2016). The categories establishment
and coding systems is formulated in the sense of
relations (similarity and difference) that occur
between the objects and events. Considering that a
concept or categorization has five elements and that
the students are deemed understand a concept if
he/she knows all the elements of the concept which
include: names, positive and negative examples, main
or side characteristics, characteristics range, and the
rules (Hammer and Hammer, 2009). The concept
establishment is a two different categorizing activities
that require different thinking process (Thomas,
2012). Some of the previous researches became the
researchers’ references for this research. Filippatou
and Kaldi (2010) entitled The Effectiveness of Project
Based Learningon Pupils with learning Difficulties
Regarding Academic, Performance, Group Work and
Motivation.
In this Project-based Learning, the students learn
actively through hands on activities (physical
activities). In the futsal learning, there are many
physical movements such as running, passing,
shooting, dribbling, and so on. By performing the
Discovery Learning model, and individual’s talent
and skill can be developed (Çakici, 2013; Approach,
2009). Almost every adult has passed the three skill
systems to state their skills perfectly. The three skill
systems are known with three ways of presentation,
namely: (1) Enactive presentation, a presentation
performed through a manipulative action. With this,
an individual finds out a reality aspect without using
the thoughts or words. Thus, this consists of the
presentation of the past events through motor
response, this is performed in a set with activities to
achieve a certain goal. For instance, one student
inactively knows how to do the passing, dribbling and
shooting, (2) Iconic presentation, it is based on
internal thoughts, the knowledge is presented by a
group of images that represent a concept, but this does
not define the particular concept comprehensively,
(3) Symbolic presentation, it is performed by using
words or languages, proven by one’s ability that pays
more attention to proportion or statement instead of
objects, gives a hierarchical structure on concepts and
considers alternative probabilities in a combined way.
Consequently, based on the data analysis, theories
of the experts and previous research results, it is
stated that the Project-based Learning Model has
more significant effects than the Discovery Learning
Model toward the cognitive, affective and
psychomotor of the students’ futsal learning.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the result of the research and the discussion,
the writers conclude that:
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
280

(1) The Project-based Learning gives significant
effects toward the students’ cognitive, affective and
psychomotor futsal learning results (Stozhko et al.,
2017; Bilgin, 2015). (2) The Discovery Learning
model gives significant effects toward the students’
cognitive, affective and psychomotor futsal learning
results (Terms, 2016). (3) The Project-based Learning
Model affects more significantly than the Discovery
Learning Model toward the students’ cognitive,
affective and psychomotor futsal learning results.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. W., Hartley, A. A., Bye, R., Harber, K. D.,
Anderson, J. W., Hartley, A. A., White, O. L., 2016.
Cognitive Training Using Self ‐ Discovery Methods,
1277(June).
Andrew, K., Richards, R., Ressler, J. D., 2016. A
collaborative approach to self-study research in
physical education teacher education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education. 35(3), 290-295.
Ang, S. C., Penney, D., 2014. Sport Promoting social and
emotional learning outcomes in physical education:
insights from a school-based research project in
Singapore. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health. 37–41.
Approach, T. P., 2009. System wide implementation of
project-based learning The Philadelphia Approach.
Beaumont, C., Savin-baden, M., Conradi, E., 2011.
Evaluating a Second Life Problem-Based Learning
(PBL) demonstrator project: what can we learn?,
(February 2015), 37–41.
Bilgin, I., 2015. The Effects of Project Based Learsning on
Undergraduate Students’ Achievement and Self -
Efficacy Beliefs Towards Science Teaching, 11(3),
469–477.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S.,
Guzdial, M., Palincsar, A., 2011. Motivating Project-
Based Learning : Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the
Learning. (November 2012), 37–41.
Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A.,
Belysheva, G., 2017. Effect of virtual analytical
chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research
skills and practices. Research in Learning Technology.
25.
Bradley, F., Bradley, F., 2007. Discovery and innovation in
the undergraduate learning experience Discovery and
innovation in the undergraduate learning experience,
(September 2013), 37–41.
Çakici, Y., 2013. An Investigation of the Effect of Project-
Based Learning Approach on Children’s Achievement
and Attitude in Science, 3(2), 9–17.
Dean, E. E., 2010. Teaching the Proof Process A Model for
Discovery Learning, (November 2014).
Dearden, R. F., 2014. Education 3-13 : International Journal
What is Discovery Learning ?, (December), 37–41.
Filippatou, D., Kaldi, S., 2010. The Effectiveness of
Project-Based Learning on Pupils with Learning
Difficulties Regarding Academic Performance, Group
Work and Motivation. International Journal of Special
Education. 25(1), 17-26.
Gibbes, M., Carson, L., 2013. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching Project-based language
learning: an activity theory analysis, (June), 37–41.
Hammer, D., Hammer, D., 2009. Teaching Discovery
Learning and Discovery Teaching, (October 2014), 37–
41.
Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Vuong, K., 2016. The effect of
project-based learning on student performance: An
action research study. International Journal for
Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning. 1(1),
24-42.
Keenan, S., Keenan, S., 2016. Combining Kuhn and Jung :
outlining a “ step ladder model ” ( SLM ) for scientific
discovery and paradigm shift research, 9052(February).
Kirk, D., 2015. Educational Philosophy and Theory:
Educational Value and Models-Based Practice in
Physical Education Educational Value and Models-
Based Practice in Physical Education, (February).
Moy, B. J., 2016. Teaching against the grain: Learning
designs for evolving physical education practice,
Queensland University of Technology. Doctoral
dissertation.
Quay, J., Kokkonen, J., Kokkonen, M., 2016. Finnish
interpretations of Creative Physical Education,
7122(August).
Schools, P., 2013. Research Quarterly. American Aims and
Objectives of Physical Education Activities. (August
2014), 37–41.
Steele, A., Hives, L., Scott, J., 2016. Stories of learning:
Inquiry-based pathways of discovery through
environmental education. Cogent Education. 3(1),
1202546.
Stozhko, N., Bortnik, B., Mironova, L., Tchernysheva, A.,
Podshivalova, E., 2015. Interdisciplinary project-based
learning: technology for improving student cognition.
Research in Learning Technology. 23(1), 27577.
Terms, F., 2016. Inquiry-based Learning Approach in
Physical Education: Stimulating and Engaging
Students in Physical and Cognitive Learning, 3084
(March), 6–14.
Thomas, J. R., 2012. Preparing for Faculty Roles in
Discovery, Learning, and Engagement, (November
2014), 37–41.
Washio, T., Motoda, H., Niwa, Y., 2015. Journal of
Experimental and Theoretical Enhancing the
plausibility of law equation discovery through cross
check among multiple scale-type-based models,
(January 2015), 37–41.
Comparing the Effect of Project-Based Learning and Discovery Learning on Students’ Futsal Learning Outcomes
281