Implementing Direct Instruction Model with Mind Mapping Method

on Static Fluids

Julian Yudani, M. Arifuddin, Misbah, Dewi Dewantara

Physics Education, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin, Indonesia

Keywords: Learning Outcomes, Direct Instruction, Mind Mapping.

Abstract: Student physics learning outcomes is still low. So it needs to be improved by using certain models and

methods. One of the ways is by implementing direct instruction Model with mind mapping method of physics

learning. This type of research is a classroom action research that aims to improve students' physics learning

outcomes by using direct instruction model with mind mapping method. The type of research is classroom

action research that consists of 2 cycles. The research was conducted on the students of class XI IPA SMAN

11 Banjarmasin. A test was conducted to collect data onto student learning outcomes. Data were analyzed by

describing the quantitative results obtained. Student learning outcomes of cycle I had not fulfilled the success

indicator with the percentage of students who completed the classical by 54,84%. Student learning outcomes

of cycle II increased to 90.91%. Thus, the conclusion is that students' learning outcomes of static fluid

increases when a direct instruction model is applied using the mind mapping method.

1 INTRODUCTION

The common problems affecting the world of

education in Indonesia and especially in SMAN 11

Banjarmasin is the low learning outcomes of students,

especially on the subject of physics. Based on the

final semester test results of SMAN 11 Banjarmasin

on Tuesday December 06, 2016, the result of studying

38% of students of grade XI IPA is still below the

minimum graduation criteria, which has been

determined the school is 70. This shows the results of

student learning in class XI IPA SMAN 11

Banjarmasin needs to be improved by using

appropriate teaching models and methods.

Student learning outcomes, is the ability of

students to meet a stage of achievement of learning

experiences in one basic competence (Kunandar,

2007). Bloom mentioned that the learning outcomes

consist of 3 domains: cognitive, affective, and

psychomotor. Based on this, the learning process is

characterized as a whole behavioural change both in

terms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The

process of change takes place, from the simplest to

the most complex that is problem solving, and the

importance of the role of personality in the process

and learning outcomes (Ruhimat, 2011).

Student learning outcomes can be improved by

the use of appropriate models and learning methods.

Learning model used in this research is direct

instruction model. The direct instruction model has

been specifically designed to teach students about the

procedural knowledge required to carry out complex

and simple skills and well-structured declarative

knowledge and can be taught step by step (Nur,

2011). Memorizing certain laws or formulas in the

field Science is an example of simple declarative

knowledge (factual information), whereas how to

operate measuring tools of science is an example of

procedural knowledge (Suyidno and Jamal, 2011).

Student learning outcomes can be improved by a

method that can be incorporated into this direct

instruction model, one of which can be used is mind

mapping. Based on Skinner's theory, the mapping is

an appropriate method of learning because all the

reinforcing elements (reinforcement) described by

Skinner such as fun, reward, conducive environments

can be applied to learning by mapping approach.

Mind mapping is an effective visual technique

that represents topics, ideas, or concepts with the help

of shapes, images, and keywords (Balım, 2013). Mind

mapping can be created using handwriting by

combining colours, drawings as well as curved

branches as desired, so mind mapping becomes not

bored to be seen visually (Syahidah, 2015). Mind

Yudani, J., Arifuddin, M., Misbah, . and Dewantara, D.

Implementing Direct Instruction Model with Mind Mapping Method on Static Fluids.

DOI: 10.5220/0008409701930196

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation (ICLI 2018), pages 193-196

ISBN: 978-989-758-391-9

193

mapping records all information through symbols,

images, lines, words, and colors. The mind mapping

used in this research is mind mapping type of spider

(Swadarma, 2013).

The necessary tools are very simple, among them

are paper sheets and colored pencils (Balım, 2013;

Corwin, Smith and Dubois, 2016). In mind mapping,

the main topic is depicted in the centre section, with

branches extending out of this image. Branch of the

main topic is a sub-theme. Keywords or images is

used in each branch (Polat, Yavu and Tunc, 2017). In

general, mind mapping is presented logically. This

makes students highly motivated to learn the science

aspects easily (Hallen and Sangeetha, 2015).

Physics learning by applying the mind mapping

method of the direct instruction model can improve

student learning outcomes (Venisari, Gunawan and

Sutrio, 2015). The attractiveness of the view on the

mind mapping and easy to understand by the students

so much the better (Hallen and Sangeetha, 2015).

Mind mapping can be done as an individual exercise

or group exercise, at the beginning and end of

learning (Corwin, Smith and Dubois, 2016).

The formulation of the problem of this research is

how the student learning outcomes, using direct

instruction model with mind mapping on physics

learning in class XI IPA SMA Negeri 11

Banjarmasin?

2 METHOD

This type of research is a classroom action research

that aims to improve students' physics learning

outcomes. This research was conducted for 2 cycles.

Each cycle consists of three stages: planning, action /

observation, and reflection. Subjects in this study

were students of class XI IPA SMA Negeri 11

Banjarmasin even semester (semester 2) academic

year 2016/2017 which amounted to 34 people. The

object of research is the result of student physics

learning on the implementation of direct instruction

model assisted mind mapping.

Techniques used in collecting data onto this study

were a test, to determine student learning outcomes.

The test was essay based on learning objectives as a

description of basic indicators and competencies. The

items that had been made are further validated by

experts or practitioners, then tested the test instrument

on students that have been taught the subject of static

fluid.

Completeness of individual student learning, meet

the criteria of success if students were able to achieve

the minimum criterion value that had been

determined by the school was 70, while the

completeness of learning in classical meeting the

criteria of success if the number of students who

complete 70% of the total students in the class.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

There are 7 items on the test result of learning cycle I

according to the purpose of learning. At the first item,

students were asked to explain what pressure means.

The second item were to calculate the hydrostatic

pressure in a certain depth. On the matter had been

known the depth and mass of mercury species. The

third item were a story about a driver of one of the flat

tires, students are asked to answer why a pressure

gauge gives a zero reading while there is still airing

inside the tire. The fourth item, students were asked

to explain the basic law of hydrostatics. The fifth item

were to calculate the height of mercury in the U pipe.

On the matter of known water level, the density of the

water and the mass of mercury the seventh item is to

analyze the ratio of water and kerosene in the tube.

On the question has been known the density of water

type, oil type mass, and hydrostatic pressure at the

bottom of the tube.

Table 1: Recapitulation of the value of the student learning

outcomes classically in cycle I.

Score

range

Category

Frequency

Percentage

0 – 69

Not

completed

students

45,16%

70 – 100

Completed

students

54,84%

Table 1 showed that the learning outcomes of

students who completed classically in the first cycle

amounted to 54.84% or had not achieved indicators

of success. Therefore, efforts should be made to

improved learning outcomes of cycle II. To improve

students 'learning outcomes, the next step was to

emphasized the students' ability to work on the

physics problem by optimizing the explanation when

delivering the material and sample questions.

The study continued to cycle II. In phase 1 of the

direct instruction model, the researcher conveyed the

learning objectives and prepared the students. The

learning then proceeds with the next phase. Phase 2

researchers explained the material using mind

mapping followed by explaining the example

problem.

There are 6 items in the test results of learning

cycle II in accordance with the purpose of learning.

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

194

At the first item, students were asked to explain about

Pascal's Law. The second item was to calculate the

force applied to a small suction by applying Pascal's

Law. On the matter had been known the force on the

large suction and cross-sectional area of each

respirator. The third item was about analyzed the

mass given to the cylinder in order for a balanced

system to use Pascal's Law. On the problem had been

known the force contained in the small suction, cross-

sectional area of each type and the type of liquid. The

fourth item, the students were asked to explain about

the Law of Archimedes. The fifth item were to

explain why a hot air balloon can apply the Law of

Archimedes. The sixth item was to analyzed the

density of objects dyed in water using the Law of

Archimedes. On the matter had been known the

weight of objects in the air, the weight of objects

when immersed in water, and the density of water.

Table 2 shows that the learning outcomes of

students who completed classically in cycle I

amounted to 90.91% or have achieved success

indicator. In phase 1 of the direct instruction model,

the teacher conveyed the goals and prepared the

students. The learning then proceeded with the next

phase. Phase 2, the teacher explains the material used

mind mapping followed by explaining the example

problem. After the problem-solving steps were

taught, the teacher guided the training to the students

in phase 3 of the direct instruction model to work on

the practice questions contained in the worksheet.

Teachers checked understanding and provided

feedback on students in phase 4. In this phase, the

teacher asked student representatives to write their

answers in front of the class. This was done to check

students' understanding. The teacher then provided

feedback, asked the other students to respond if the

answer is different from the answer written in front of

the class. Then the teacher provided reinforcement by

explaining the correct answer. The last phase was to

provide opportunities for advanced training and

implementation (phase 5). The teacher provided

advanced training on the worksheet and asked the

students to make a mind mapping based on the

material they have learned in the lesson.

Table 2 Recapitulation of the value of the test of student

learning outcomes classically in cycle II.

Score

range

Category

Frequency

Percentag

0 – 69

Not completed

3 students

9,09%

70 – 100

Completed

30 students

90,91%

Based on the data in Table 2, student learning

outcomes in cycle II increased to 90.91%. Thus,

direct instruction model with mind mapping could

improve student learning outcomes. The study

revealed that direct instruction model with mind

mapping method can improve student learning

outcomes (Venisari, Gunawan and Sutrio, 2015).

Improving student learning outcomes can be done in

direct instruction settings (Kamsinah, Jamal and

Misbah, 2016; Ahliha, Mastuang and Mahardika,

2017). As for ways to improve student learning

outcomes in addition to maximizing the time of

learning, teachers also pay more attention to students

who do not understand when learning, by asking the

rest to respond, respond or ask about what has not

been understood (Karim, Zainuddin and Mastuang,

2016).

Mind mapping also plays a major role in the

increase in these learning outcomes. It is seen from

almost all students in the class is not difficult in doing

the problem because it has been explained by the

teacher and some material summaries have been

written in the form of mind mapping. The students

showed more interest in learning the contents and to

apply it more confidentially (Hallen and Sangeetha,

2015). Mind mapping is able to show how people

understand certain concepts. In mind mapping, any

idea can be linked to another (Balım, 2013). Mind

mapping provides data onto changing students

'thinking, and helps visualize students' conceptual

changes (Corwin, Smith and Dubois, 2016). All

words and images on the mind mapping can serve as

the center of another mind map and thus lead to new

interaction patterns (Balım, 2013; Polat, Yavu and

Tunc, 2017). This new interaction pattern is

developed through each new word and image, and

many variations will be added (Polat, Yavu and Tunc,

2017).

Figure 1. Student’s mind mapping about Archimedes

Law’s.

Implementing Direct Instruction Model with Mind Mapping Method on Static Fluids

195

4 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion is that students' learning outcomes of

static fluid increases when a direct instruction model

is applied using mind mapping method. Student

learning outcomes classically in cycle I and cycle II

increased from 54.84% with the category not

completed to 90.91% with completed category. Based

on the objectives and conclusions of this study, the

teacher has been able to solve the problem of low

student learning outcomes at SMAN 11 Banjarmasin.

Other researchers are also advised to apply the direct

instruction model is applied using mind mapping

method to solve similar problems.

REFERENCES

Ahliha, S., Mastuang and Mahardika, A. I. (2017)

‘Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas VIII E SMP

Negeri 26 Banjarmasin Dengan Menggunakan Metode

Pemecahan Masalah (Problem Solving) Dalam Setting

Pengajaran Langsung’, Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan

Fisika, 5(1), pp. 118–132.

Balım, A. G. (2013) ‘Use of technology-assisted techniques

of mind mapping and concept mapping in science

education: a constructivist study’, Irish Educational

Studies, 32(4), pp. 437–456. doi:

10.1080/03323315.2013.862907.

Corwin, J., Smith, J. G. and Dubois, B. (2016) ‘Tools of the

Trade Assessing Social Learning Outcomes Through

Participatory Mind Mapping The Technique / Process’,

Journal of Extension, 54(1), pp. 1–6.

Hallen, D. and Sangeetha, N. (2015) ‘Research Papers

Effectiveness of Mind Mapping in English Teaching

Among Viii Standard Students’, i-manager’s Journal

on English Language Teaching, 5(1), pp. 45–50.

Kamsinah, D. L., Jamal, M. A. and Misbah (2016)

‘Prosedural Siswa Melalui Model Pengajaran Langsung

Pada Pembelajaran Fisika Di Kelas X 3 SMA Negeri 10

Banjarmasin’, Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 4(2),

pp. 137–143.

Karim, M. A., Zainuddin and Mastuang (2016)

‘Meningkatkan Keterampilan Proses Sains Fisika

Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 2 Juai dengan

Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Inkuiri

Terbimbing’, Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 4(1),

pp. 35–42.

Kunandar (2007) Guru Profesional Implementasi

Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) dan

Sukses dalam Sertifikasi Guru. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo.

Nur, M. (2011) Model Pengajaran Langsung. Surabaya:

Unesa University Press.

Polat, O., Yavu, E. A. and Tunc, A. B. O. (2017) ‘The effect

of using mind maps on the development of maths and

science skills’, Cypriot Journal of Educational

Sciences, 12(1), pp. 32–45.

Ruhimat, T. (2011) Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta:

PT RajaGrafindo Persada.

Suyidno and Jamal, M. A. (2011) Strategi Belajar

Mengajar Pegangan bagi Pembelajar Kreatif, Kritis,

dan Inovatif. Banjarmasin: Microteaching FKIP

UNLAM Banjarmasin.

Swadarma, D. (2013) Penerapan Mind Mapping dalam

Kurikulum Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Gramedia.

Syahidah, N. (2015) ‘Metode Pembelajaran Mind Mapping

Sebagai Upaya Mengembangkan Kreativitas Siswa

dalam Pembelajaran Ekonomi’, in Prosiding Seminar

Nasional Pendidikan Ekonomi FE UNY"

Profesionalisme Pendidik dalam Dinamika Kurikulum

Pendidikan di Indonesia pada Era MEA". Fakultas

Ekonomi UNY, pp. 108–117.

Venisari, R., Gunawan and Sutrio (2015) ‘Penerapan

Metode Mind Mapping pada Model Dircet Instruction

untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah

Fisika Siswa SMPN 16 Mataram’, Jurnal Pendidikan

Fisika dan Teknologi, I(3), pp. 193–198.

ICLI 2018 - 2nd International Conference on Learning Innovation

196