Comparison of Learning in Inductive and Deductive Approach to Increase Student’s Conceptual Understanding based on International Standard Curriculum
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the pattern of a more effective learning approach between the inductive and deductive approach in improving students’ conceptual understanding referring to the international standard curriculum on the X graders for the material property particulate subject matter. Through the deductive approach, students already have a picture/concept in their minds. But by using an inductive approach, students use their logic to understand concepts and summarize it. The research method applied in this study is a descriptive-comparative method with a triangulation analysis technique. Instruments used in the study were a questionnaire for the students, observation sheets, and three-tier diagnostic test items for pretest and posttest. The average pretest scores for deductive and inductive classes were 54.70 and 48.25, respectively. The result of the observation sheet analysis showed the deductive approach surpassed 12 points more than the inductive approach in improving the student’s learning activity. The result of the questionnaire analysis showed that 38 of 68 students prefer the learning process using deductive to inductive approach, and thought that it was suitable with the students’ characteristics. While the average posttest scores for deductive and inductive classes were 68.16 and 55.47, respectively. The analysis result of the N-Gain test towards the pretest and posttest results regarding the three-tier diagnostic test items indicated achievement of student’s conceptual understanding using a deductive approach which was 14.2225% higher than the use of the inductive approach. The Triangulation Analysis stated that the deductive approach was more effective in improving students’ conceptual understanding of Chemistry and material topics as well as material classification. While the inductive approach was more effectively applied to the topic of Particle Kinetic theory.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
AbduRofiq, A. (2014). Menakar pengaruh masyarakat ekonomi ASEAN 2015 terhadap pembangunan Indonesia. SALAM: Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-i, 1(2).
Ajai, J. T., Imoko, B. I., & O’kwu, E. I. (2013). Comparison of the learning effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) and conventional method of teaching algebra. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(1), 131-135.
Atta, M. A., Ayaz, M., & Nawaz, Q. (2015). Comparative study of inductive & deductive methods of teaching mathematics at elementary level. Gomal University Journal of Research, 31(1), 20-28.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32(3), 347-364.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of technology education, 19(2), 22-39.
Fisher, A. A. (2018). Inductive reasoning in the context of discovery: Analogy as an experimental stratagem in the history and philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 69, 23-33.
Glaser, K. (2016). News from the pragmatics classroom: Contrasting the inductive and the deductive approach in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Intercultural pragmatics, 13(4), 529-561.
Heit, E., & Rotello, C. M. (2010). Relations between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 805.
IGCSE, C. (2016). Syllabus.
Jebreen, I. (2012). Using inductive approach as research strategy in requirements engineering. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 1(2), 162-173.
Lee, H. S., & Park, J. (2013). Deductive reasoning to teach Newton’s law of motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1391-1414.
Liu, L. (2016). Using Generic Inductive Approach in Qualitative Educational Research: A Case Study Analysis. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 129-135.
Marsita, R. A., Priatmoko, S., & Kusuma, E. (2010). Analisis kesulitan belajar kimia siswa SMA dalam memahami materi larutan penyangga dengan menggunakan two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 4(1).
Ndemo, Z., Zindi, F., & Mtetwa, D. (2017). Mathematics Undergraduate Student Teachers’ Conceptions of Guided Inductive and Deductive Teaching Approaches. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 6(2), 75-83.
Nisbet, R., Elder, J., & Miner, G. (2009). Handbook of statistical analysis and data mining applications. Academic Press.
Odabaşi, B., & Kolburan, G. (2013). Employment of active learning in classroom management and it’s effect on students’ academic success. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 4(1), 23-29.
Gurria, A. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. PISA in Focus, (67), 1.
Lee, P., & Lin, H. (2019). The effect of the inductive and deductive data-driven learning (DDL) on vocabulary acquisition and retention. System, 81, 14-25.
Rahmah, M. A. (2017, February). Inductive-Deductive Approach to Improve Mathematical Problem Solving for Junior High School. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 812, No. 1, p. 012089). IOP Publishing.
Schmidt, H., Rotgans, J., & Yew, E. (2011). history: from those who wrote it. Medical Education, 45, 792-806.
Ihedioha, S. A., & Osu, B. O. (2012). Comparative effectiveness of inductive inquiry and transmitter of knowledge models on secondary school students’ achievement on circle geometry and trigonometry.[Versi Elektronik]. Bulletin of society for mathematical services and standards. ISSN, 2277-8020.
Silverstein, D. L., & Osei-Prempeh, G. (2010). Making A Chemical Process Control Course an Inductive and Deductive Learning Experience. Chemical Engineering Education, 44(2), 119-126.
Smart, K. L., Witt, C., & Scott, J. P. (2012). Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 392-403.
Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., Hayes, B. K., & Kalish, M. L. (2020). A test of two processes: The effect of training on deductive and inductive reasoning. Cognition, 199, 104223.
Stojanovska, M. I., Soptrajanov, B. T., & Petrusevski, V. M. (2012). Addressing misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter among secondary-school and high-school students in the Republic of Macedonia. Creative Education, 3(05), 619.
Stojanovska, M., Petruševski, V. M., & Šoptrajanov, B. (2014). Study of the Use of The Three Levels of Thinking and Representation. Contributions. Section of Natural, Mathematical & Biotechnical Sciences, 35(1).
Sudria, I. B. N., Redhana, I. W., Kirna, I., & Aini, D. (2018). Effect of Kolb’s Learning Styles under Inductive Guided-Inquiry Learning on Learning Outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 89-102.
Suprapto, P. K., bin Ahmad, M. Z., Chaidir, D. M., Ardiansyah, R., & Diella, D. (2018). Spatial Intelligence and Students’ Achievement to Support Creativity on Visuospatial-Based Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(2), 224-231.
Trochim, W. M. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base.(2nd Eds.). Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
