Students’ Scientific Explanation in Blended Physics Learning with E-Scaffolding

E. Oktavianti, S. K. Handayanto, W. Wartono, E. Saniso


This purpose of this research was to analyze the influence of blended physics learning with e-scaffolding on the gas kinetic theory to the students’ scientific explanation. This research used quasi-experimentation with one group pretest-posttest design. The population of this research included the grade XI students of Natural Sciences in SMA Negeri 1 Bangkalan. The proposed hypothesis was that the blended physics learning with e-scaffolding affected the students’ scientific explanation. The research results indicated that the students’ scientific explanation ability significantly increased after they experienced blended physics learning with e-scaffolding. All aspects of scientific explanation, that was the claim, evidence, and reasoning improved significantly.


blended learning; e-scaffolding; scientific explanation

Full Text:



Amelia, R., Handayanto, S., & Muhardjito, M. (2016). The Influence of V Diagram Procedural Scaffolding in Group Investigation Towards Students with High and Low Prior Knowledge. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 108-115.

Arends, R. I. (2012).Learning to Teach. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rhineka Cipta.

Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The Learning Benefits of Being Willing and Able to Engage in Scientific Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1612.

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A Scaffolding Framework to Support The Construction of Evidence-Based Arguments Among Middle School Students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401-422.

Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-Based Learning and Argumentation: Testing A Scaffolding Framework to Support Middle School Students’ Creation of Evidence-Based Arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667-694.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working Toward A Stronger Conceptualization of Scientific Explanation for Science Education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.

Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (1998). Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Hsu, Y. S., Lai, T. L., & Hsu, W. H. (2015). A Design Model of Distributed Scaffolding for Inquiry-Based Learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241-273.

Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2017). Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in The Context of Problem-Based Learning for STEM Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. Retrieved from: http://www.doi10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

Kim, W. (2008, August). A Proposal for a Lifecycle Process for Hybrid Learning Programs. In International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Education (pp. 17-30). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Mahmudah, I. R. (2013). Analisis Kesalahan dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Materi Pokok Teori Kinetik Gas pada Siswa Kelas XI SMA Negeri 7 Surakarta Tahun Ajaran 2012/2013. (Doctoral Dissertation, Universitas Sebelas Maret)

McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary Students’ views of Explanation, Argumentation, and Evidence, and Their Abilities to Construct Arguments Over The School Year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific Explanations: Characterizing and Evaluating The Effects of Teachers’ Instructional Practices on Student Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena. The Journal of The Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.

Mustajab, A., & Sahala, S. (2014). Remediasi Kesalahan Siswa Menyelesaikan Soal Gas Ideal melalui Metode Learning Together di SMA. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 3(12), 5-14.

Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of Epistemic Beliefs and Scientific Argumentation in Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.

Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding Information Problem Solving in Web-Based Collaborative Inquiry Learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82-94.

Sudjana, N., Ibrahim. (2001). Penelitian dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo.

Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Improving Students’ PISA Scientific Competencies Through Online Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339.

Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Case Studies of How Students’ Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(1), 101-131.

Wang, C. Y. (2015). Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations: Comparing A Cognitive Versus A Metacognitive Evaluation Approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-271.

Way, J., & Rowe, L. (2008, July). The Role of Scaffolding in The Design of Multimedia Learning Objects. In 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 6-13).

Yoto, Y., & Wiyono, K. (2015). Pengembangan Multimedia Interaktif Pembelajaran Teori Kinetik Gas Berbantuan Lectora Inspire untuk Siswa Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA). Jurnal Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Fisika, 2(2), 211-219.

Yu, F. Y., Tsai, H. C., & Wu, H. L. (2013). Effects of Online Procedural Scaffolds and The Timing of Scaffolding Provision on Elementary Taiwanese students’ Question-generation in A Science Class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 11-22.


  • There are currently no refbacks.