UPAYA PENINGKATAN PEMAHAMAN KONSEP SISWA PADA PEMBELAJARAN PERKAKAS TANGAN MELALUI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DI SMKN 1 CILEUNGSI

Authors

  • Hadi Koeswara SMK Negeri 1 Cileungsi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56127/jushpen.v2i2.888

Keywords:

PBL, Understanding Concepts, and Hand Tools

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to increase students' understanding of the concepts of class X TPGM at SMKN 1 Cileungsi through the problem-based learning model. The method used is Classroom Action Research (CAR) using the spiral/cycle model from Kemmis and McTaggart which consists of 2 cycles with four stages in each cycle namely, planning, action, observation and reflection. The subjects of this study were 36 students. Data collection techniques used include observation, learning achievement tests, and documentation. Data on student activity was obtained through class observation and analyzed to compare student activity levels in each cycle. Data about students' understanding of concepts can be seen from the learning outcomes obtained through written tests and practical tests then analyzed to compare the results of the exams in each cycle. The results showed an increase in activity and student learning outcomes in the subject of hand tools using the PBL method. This is evidenced by the increase in student activity as seen from the percentage of student activity in cycle I of 55.56% (enough) increased by 22.22% in cycle II to 77.78% (good). Of the 9 aspects observed in cycle I, 4 aspects are still below the KKM, namely in the aspect of the ability to work on student worksheets, the courage of students in presenting their findings, the ability of students to relate material to real life, and the ability to solve problems while in cycle II all aspects have reached KKM. An increase in students' understanding of concepts can be seen from the average increase in practical test scores and written test scores. The average practice test score in cycle I was 68.24 (55.56%) increasing to 81.59 (86.11%) in cycle II. While the average written test score in cycle I was 59.08 (41.67%) increased to 62.04 (77.78%) in cycle II of the 36 students who still had not reached the KKM on the practical test as many as 5 students (13 .89%) while in the written test there were 8 students (22.22%) at the end of the cycle.

References

Depdikbud. 1999. Penelitian Tindakan (Action Research). Bahan Pelatihan Jakarta: Dikdasmen Depdikbud.

Eanes, R. 1997. Content Area Literacy: Teaching Today’s and Tomorrow. New York: Delmar Publisher.

Elliot, J. 1991. AN. Action Reseach for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Federikson, J. & Collins, A. 2002. What is Authentic Assesment: Term and Condition of Use.

Hougton Mifflin Company (online), http://www/eduplace.com/rdg/res/lita ss/, diakses 30 Maret 2022.

Hammond, L.D. dan Snyde, J.D.2001. Authentic Assesment of Reaching Indonesia Context,U.S.DepartemenEducation(online),(http:www.Contextual.org/abs2.htm., diakses 29 April 2022).

Agung Setyobudi. 2013. Teknologi Mekanik, Kemdikbud.

Ing. Alois Schonmetz, dkk, 1985. Pengerjaan Logam dengan Perkakas Tangan dan Mesin Sederhana, Edisi Bahasa Indonesia, Penerbit Angkasa Bandung.

BS Anwir, 1982, Menggunting dan Mengergaji, Penerbit Bhratara Karya Aksara Jakarta.

Nurhadi & Senduk, A.G. 2003. Pembelajaran Kontekstual dan Penerapannya dalam KBK. Malang: Penerbit Universitas Negeri Malang.

O’Malley, J.M. & Piece, L.V. 1996. Authentic Assessment for Ennglish Language Learners: Practical Approaches For Teachers. Virginia: Addison-Wesley.

Puhl, C. 1997. Develop, Not Judge: Continuous Assesment in the ESL Classroom. English Teaching Forum, April 1997, pp 2-9.

Purwadinata, 1967. Psikologi Pendidikan dengan Pendidikan Baru.Bandung; PT Remaja Rosdakarya

Arsyad, A. 2007. Media pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada

Jihad, A & Haris, A. 2009. Evaluasi pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Multi Presindo.

Maclean, R. & Wilson. D. (eds). 2009. International handbook of education forthe changing world of work. UNESCO. Paris: Springer.

Ferry, T.I. (2008). Kurikulum yang mencerdaskan; visi 2030 dan pendidikan alternatif. Jakarta: Kompas.

Bloom, B.S. (ed). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives., the classificationof educational goals. handbook I: cognitive domain.New York:Longman

Koper, R & Tattersall. (Ed.) 2005). Learning design, a hand book on modeling andelivering networked education and training. Verlang Berling: Springer.

Uno, B.H. (2011). Perencanaan pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.

Downloads

Published

2023-07-21

How to Cite

Hadi Koeswara. (2023). UPAYA PENINGKATAN PEMAHAMAN KONSEP SISWA PADA PEMBELAJARAN PERKAKAS TANGAN MELALUI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DI SMKN 1 CILEUNGSI. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Dan Pendidikan, 2(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.56127/jushpen.v2i2.888

Similar Articles

1 2 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.