Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.3
,
No
.3
, Sep
t
em
b
e
r
20
14, pp
. 169
~174
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
1
69
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Direct
I
n
structi
o
n Model
to In
creas
e
Phys
ical S
c
ience
Competence of Students as One
F
o
rm of Cl
ass
r
oom Ass
e
sment
Hendrik Wen
n
o
Faculty
of Teach
e
r
Tr
aining
and
Educational
Science, Pattimura U
n
iv
ersity
, Ambon, Indonesia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received
J
u
l 15, 2014
Rev
i
sed
Au
g
20
, 20
14
Accepted Aug 30, 2014
In designing the
lesson teachers
have to adap
t th
e m
e
thod or lear
ning m
odel
with the material to be
taught. In
the teaching of
m
easuring concept, studen
t
s
frequent
l
y
fa
ced
with m
eas
uring
ins
t
rum
e
nts
,
m
i
crom
eter
, s
c
rew,
s
cale
,
an
d
so on. Direct
Instruction Mo
del
would b
e
suitable
for
te
aching
th
e
m
easurem
ent co
ncepts spe
c
ifi
cal
l
y
the
skill of
using m
easurem
en
t tools.
Th
e
purpose of the stud
y
was to determine
the lev
e
l of students master
y
on the
concep
t of measurement through direct
instru
ction
a
l model.
Descriptiv
e
res
earch
with ac
tion
in the cl
as
s
were
used
in t
h
is resear
ch to
d
e
term
ine
th
e
level of students mastery
on the meas
urem
ent concept of t
h
e ph
y
s
ic
al
s
c
ienc
es
in order to achiev
e
com
p
eten
cy
. Th
e samples were 25 seventh grad
e
students on the
second semester
of
academic
y
e
ar 2012/2013 of
11 Ambon
State Junior Hig
h
Schools. The instrume
nt used was the test to
measure the
master
y
of concepts. Performance test
scores and daily
tests ar
e converted
into the categor
y
of excellent, g
ood,
sufficien
t and poor. The results showed
that
the level of
students master
y
of
th
e material is at
ver
y
goo
d and well
with the p
e
rc
ent
a
ge of th
e fin
a
l
results of form
at
ive studen
t
tests
are 48
.0%
and 44.0% resp
ectively
.
It
can
be conc
luded that th
e direct instruction
a
l
model successfully
improve student le
arning
outcomes, especially
to th
e
concep
t of
m
eas
urem
ent.
Keyword:
Direct instruction
Mas
t
er
y le
ar
n
i
n
g
Measure
m
en
t concept
Copyright ©
201
4 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Izaak
Hendri
k W
e
nno,
Faculty of Tea
c
her Trai
ning
an
d Ed
u
cation
a
l
Scien
ce,
Pat
t
i
m
u
ra U
n
i
v
ersi
t
y
Am
bon,
In
d
onesi
a.
Em
a
il: wen
n
o
i
z@yaho
o.co.id
1.
INTRODUCTION
Ph
ysics is a b
r
an
ch
o
f
n
a
tural scien
ce wh
ich
ex
am
in
es th
e
m
a
tter an
d
en
erg
y
in
all its
fo
rm
s and
m
a
ni
fest
at
i
ons
[1]
.
As
a pa
rt
o
f
nat
u
ral
s
c
i
e
nce,
phy
sic
s
is a subject
that serves as
a ve
hicle to devel
op
cap
ab
ilities such
as t
h
e ab
ility to
an
alyze, i
n
terp
ret,
p
r
o
c
ess sk
ills, an
d
nu
m
e
racy sk
ills. In
add
itio
n, as p
a
rts
of t
h
e nat
u
ral
sci
e
nces are
i
n
cl
ude
d i
n
t
h
e
nat
i
onal
e
x
am
s, t
h
e st
ude
nt
s'
m
a
st
ery
of
p
h
y
s
i
c
s bec
o
m
e
s very
im
port
a
nt
.
Acc
o
r
d
i
n
g t
o
[
2
]
phy
si
cs i
s
a
n
i
m
port
a
nt
su
b
j
e
c
t th
at is tau
ght as a sep
a
rate
subject, e
s
peci
ally at
th
e
lev
e
l of
senio
r
h
i
gh
schoo
l/
m
a
d
r
as
ah
aliyah, beca
use science
ca
n provi
d
e
s
u
pplies
t
o
stude
nts, as we
ll
as
a
med
i
u
m
to
d
e
velo
p
th
e ab
ility to
th
ink
and
so
lv
e
p
r
ob
lem
s
in
stud
en
ts life ev
ery
d
ay. Based
o
n
n
a
tional test
r
e
su
lts
f
r
o
m
ye
ar
to
year, th
e
r
e
su
lts
o
f
studyin
g
p
h
y
sics at
th
e h
i
g
h
sch
o
o
l
lev
e
l is r
a
nked
r
e
lativ
ely low
[3
].
Wh
ile as cited
in [4
] th
at
av
erag
e score o
f
ph
ysic
s
of stud
en
ts in
Indo
n
e
sia
(34
,
5
7
) still far
b
e
low
in
tern
ation
a
l
st
an
d
a
rd
s (43
,
40).
Th
is low ach
i
ev
em
en
t was du
e to th
e
relativ
ely h
i
gh
ob
lig
atio
n in
st
u
d
y
in
g
ph
ysics wh
ich
req
u
i
res
in
tellig
en
ce, so
ph
isticated
thin
k
i
ng
sk
ills,
n
u
m
eracy sk
ills, ob
servatio
n
sen
s
itiv
ity, as
well as th
e skills to
respon
d
t
o
a prob
lem
critica
l
ly [3
]. Ph
ysics sub
j
ect
s
h
a
v
e
co
nd
itio
n
a
l
n
a
tu
re (co
m
p
r
ehen
siv
e
) wh
ich
mean
s
t
h
at
t
h
ere
i
s
a
l
way
s
a rel
a
t
i
ons
hi
p bet
w
ee
n eac
h c
once
p
t
.
So
t
h
e m
a
stery
o
f
new
co
ncept
s
o
f
t
e
n
r
e
qui
re
pre
r
eq
ui
si
t
e
un
derst
a
ndi
ng
of
t
h
e conce
p
t
s
p
r
evi
o
usl
y
l
earne
d. The
r
e
f
o
r
e, i
f
t
h
ere i
s
any
di
ffi
cul
t
y
t
o
o
k
pl
ace
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
3,
No
. 3,
Se
pt
em
ber
2
0
1
4
:
1
6
9
– 17
4
17
0
in
learn
i
ng
a co
n
c
ep
t, it will
in
flu
e
n
ce t
h
e l
earn
i
n
g
of t
h
e n
e
x
t
con
c
ep
t, o
r
if
t
h
er
e is an
y m
i
sco
n
cep
tio
n, th
is
will likely to c
a
rry over to the next ed
ucation level [3]. Thi
s
is in line wit
h
what is state
d
in
[4] that teaching
p
h
y
sics at th
e j
u
n
i
o
r
h
i
g
h
scho
o
l
lev
e
l is ai
med
at in
creasin
g
th
e kno
wled
g
e
, con
cep
ts, an
d
sk
ills to
th
e n
e
x
t
l
e
vel
.
Th
us,
u
n
d
erst
a
ndi
ng
o
f
t
h
e co
ncept
a
n
d i
m
provem
e
nt
of t
h
e st
ude
n
t
s'
underst
a
n
d
i
ng
o
n
p
h
y
s
i
c
s
at
t
h
e
ju
ni
o
r
hi
g
h
sc
h
ool
l
e
vel
i
s
i
n
d
i
spensa
bl
e.
On
one si
de
, som
e
t
i
m
e
s st
udent
s t
h
i
n
k t
h
at
phy
si
cs i
s
a col
l
ect
i
on o
f
fo
rm
ul
as t
h
at
m
u
st
be
me
m
o
rized
and
app
lied
wh
en
faced
with
qu
estion
s
[4
],
[6]. Th
is p
r
esu
m
p
tio
n
will in
creasin
g
l
y affect
p
o
o
r
learning outcomes, if not supported
by
the ability of teachers to
teach physics prope
rly. On
the
othe
r side, in
physics less
ons, teachers te
nd to teachthe form
ulas in
stead of applying the prac
tical conce
p
ts of physics
itself. In addition, in
delivery the
lessons t
eachers still apply c
o
nve
n
tional
learning patterns.
Teac
hing is
m
o
re foc
u
sed
on the
flow of
inform
ation from
teacher
to t
h
e stude
n
ts. Te
achers
port
ray them
selves as orat
or,
and stude
n
ts are conside
r
ed to
ha
ve
no
ex
pe
ri
ence at
al
l
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e c
o
nce
p
t
s
bei
n
g t
a
ug
ht
.
For
t
h
e
sake
o
f
cha
ngi
ng
t
h
e
perce
p
t
i
o
n
of
s
t
ude
nt
s
ove
r t
h
e co
urse
, t
eac
h
e
r m
u
st
cha
nge
t
h
e
pat
t
e
rn
o
f
teach
i
ng
. Teach
er
s sh
ou
ld
n
o
t
on
ly sp
eak con
tin
uou
sly
an
d do
m
i
n
a
te t
h
e lesso
n
hou
rs, bu
t st
u
d
e
n
t
s
sh
ou
l
d
be actively involve
d in practi
cal activities
through sim
p
le
expe
rim
e
nts or researc
h
.For exam
ple, at
the m
a
tter
of m
easurem
ent, stude
n
ts
not only
have
to
receive i
n
form
ation
from
teac
hers
about phy
s
ical
m
a
gnitudes and
t
h
ei
r m
easuri
ng t
ool
s
,
b
u
t
i
n
st
ead h
o
w t
e
a
c
hers ca
n di
g
kn
owl
e
dge
of
t
h
e st
ude
nt
s abo
u
t
t
h
e co
nc
ept
o
f
p
h
y
sical qu
an
t
ities
measu
r
emen
t o
r
th
eir
m
easu
r
in
g
t
o
o
l
s, as well as h
o
w to
measu
r
e tho
s
e
matters
encountere
d i
n
e
v
ery
d
ay life. Furt
herm
ore
,
teach
e
r
s
can integrat
e and c
o
m
p
le
m
e
nt the st
ude
nts'
unde
rstanding of conce
p
ts
according t
o
science, a
n
d involve
the st
ude
nt’s
ac
tive
participation in the
expe
ri
m
e
nt
.
C
u
r
r
i
c
ul
um
200
4 c
o
m
p
et
ency
-base
d
cu
rri
cul
u
m
i
s
desi
gne
d t
o
pr
o
duce
gra
d
uat
e
s wh
o are
co
m
p
eten
t in
t
h
e sen
s
e of
h
a
v
i
ng
t
h
e
k
nowled
g
e
, sk
ills, attitu
d
e
s and v
a
lu
es
reflected in
t
h
e
b
a
sic
n
o
rm
s o
f
t
h
i
nki
ng a
n
d act
i
ng. T
h
i
s
g
o
a
l
can be achi
e
ved i
f
t
h
e
det
e
rm
i
n
at
i
on of l
earni
ng
pr
og
ra
m
s
are t
a
i
l
o
red t
o
t
h
e
characte
r
istics of t
h
e subjects
,
standa
rds
of
com
p
etence, a
s
well as basi
c
com
p
etencies to be m
a
stered by
st
ude
nt
s [7]
.
A
ccor
d
i
n
g
t
o
K
a
rham
i
[8]
the
r
e are t
h
ree
m
a
in thi
n
gs that
need
t
o
be
c
onsi
d
ere
d
i
n
t
h
e
l
earni
ng
activ
ities, th
ey are 1)
wh
at
materials to
b
e
tau
g
h
t
,
2
)
how to
teach
th
em
, an
d
3
)
ho
w d
o
we
kn
ow t
h
at th
e
learning
proce
ss can ta
ke
place appr
opriately and t
o
what exte
nt stud
ents ca
n
suc
cessfully
m
a
ster t
h
e
m
a
terials. Thus, in desi
gni
ng teac
hing learni
ng
process
,
teachers m
u
st
necessarily adapt the m
e
thod
or
learn
i
ng
m
o
d
e
l
with
t
h
e m
a
terial to
b
e
taug
h
t
.
Di
rect
i
n
st
ruct
i
o
n
m
odel
i
s
a l
earni
ng
m
odel
t
h
at
has
be
en
c
o
m
m
onl
y
used
i
n
t
eac
hi
n
g
a
n
d
pr
o
v
en
t
o
b
e
ef
f
ectiv
e in
i
m
p
r
ov
ing
studen
t
learn
i
ng
o
u
tco
m
es b
o
t
h
i
n
ph
ysics [9
]-
[11
]
and
no
n-
physical su
bj
ects
[
1
2
]
,
[13]. Acc
o
rdi
n
g to
[14]
direc
t
instruction is
a teaching m
odel that
is teacher ce
ntere
d
,
whic
h m
eans that the
teacher is responsi
b
le for identifyi
ng learning objectives, and then
play
an active role in explaining the
conte
n
t or skills to students
.
By this
m
odel, the teacher
de
m
onstrates
knowledge or sk
ills to students st
ep by
step
. Fu
rth
e
rmo
r
e, stu
d
e
n
t
s are g
i
v
e
n
th
e
op
portun
ity to
a
p
p
l
y th
e con
c
ep
ts o
r
sk
ills th
ey learn
e
d
,
and
th
e
teacher gives feedbac
k
. As
st
ated
by
[9] that the advanta
g
e
of
direct in
structional m
odel
is whe
n
the te
aching
l
earni
n
g
p
r
oce
ss occ
u
rre
d,
t
h
ere i
s
a
c
o
m
m
uni
cat
i
o
n t
h
at
enables
efficient e
x
cha
n
ge
of
i
n
f
o
rm
ati
on b
e
t
w
ee
n
teachers a
nd st
ude
nts. T
h
e purpose of the c
u
rre
nt study
wa
s to determ
ine the level
of st
udent m
a
stery on the
conce
p
t
of
m
e
asurem
ent
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
di
rect
i
n
st
r
u
ct
i
onal
m
odel
.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Descri
p
tiv
e research
with
actio
n
in
th
e class was u
s
ed
in th
is research
t
o
d
e
term
in
e th
e lev
e
l o
f
st
ude
nt
m
a
st
er
y
on t
h
e m
easurem
ent
conce
p
t
of t
h
e
p
h
y
s
ical scien
ces in
o
r
d
e
r to
ac
hie
v
e com
p
etency. The
sam
p
l
e
s were 25 se
ve
nt
h
gra
d
e st
u
d
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e seco
nd
se
m
e
st
er of aca
d
e
m
i
c y
ear 201
2/
2
0
1
3
of
11
Am
bon
St
at
e Juni
or
Hi
gh
Sc
ho
ol
s. T
h
e i
n
st
r
u
m
e
nt
used i
s
t
h
e
t
e
st
i
t
e
m
s
t
o
m
easur
e m
a
st
ery
of c
once
p
t
s
,
nam
e
ly
:
(1
)
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce t
e
st
s t
o
m
easur
e pr
o
f
i
c
i
e
ncy
i
n
t
h
e
use
of
m
easuri
n
g t
o
o
l
s
m
a
de fo
r t
e
achi
n
g a
n
d
l
earni
ng
activities to ta
ke place.
(2)
daily test
s
to
measure t
h
e leve
l of m
a
stery of
the concept
of
m
easurem
ent. Total
ab
ou
t twen
ty i
t
e
m
s in
th
e tests in
th
e form
o
f
obj
ectiv
e tests (m
u
ltip
le ch
o
i
ces)
with
wieg
h
t
1
for a co
rrect
answ
er a
nd
0
fo
r a w
r
o
n
g
a
n
swe
r
)
.
Dat
a
r
e
sul
t
s
of
pe
rf
o
r
m
a
nce t
e
st
s to m
easure pr
o
f
i
c
i
e
ncy
i
n
t
h
e
use o
f
measu
r
ing
too
l
s were an
alyzed
b
y
calcu
lating
a qu
alitativ
e
d
e
scri
p
tiv
e (a)
av
erag
e,
(b) st
an
d
a
rd
d
e
v
i
atio
n, (c)
t
h
e ra
nge
o
f
t
h
e dat
a
,
(d
) t
h
e
num
ber
of cl
as
ses, (e
) t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
of
t
h
e cl
ass
,
(
f
)
di
st
ri
b
u
t
i
on
f
r
eq
ue
ncy
,
(g
) t
h
e
m
e
di
an, a
nd
(
h
) m
ode,
w
h
er
eas m
a
st
ery
of t
h
e co
nce
p
t
d
a
t
a
obt
ai
ne
d t
h
r
o
ug
h t
h
e
dai
l
y
t
e
st
s, anal
y
zed
by
q
u
a
n
titativ
e d
e
scrip
tiv
e.
Perfo
rm
an
ce test sco
r
es and
d
a
il
y tests are co
nv
erted
in
to
t
h
e categ
ory o
f
excellen
t
,
g
ood
, suf
f
i
cient an
d poo
r.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Using
Direct
In
stru
ction
Model
to
In
crea
se Ph
ysica
l
S
c
ie
nce Compete
n
ce
of
Studen
ts
..
..
(
H
endrik We
nno)
17
1
3.
RESULTS
A
N
D
DI
SC
US
S
I
ON
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e obt
ai
ne
d dat
a
, t
h
e avera
g
e va
l
u
e i
s
89.
6
1
, st
anda
r
d
de
vi
at
i
on i
s
4
7
.
9
2
,
ra
nge
d o
f
t
h
e
d
a
ta (r) is 19
, th
e to
tal
n
u
m
b
e
r of classes is
7
,
in
terv
al
cl
a
ss l
e
n
g
t
h
(p
) i
s
3,
t
h
e m
e
di
an
i
s
87
.3
an
d t
h
e
m
ode
is 84
.4
. Th
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
d
i
str
i
bu
tio
n of
p
e
rfo
rman
ce r
e
su
lts is show
n in
Table 1
.
Tab
l
e 1
.
Distri
b
u
tion
of
Perform
a
n
ce
Cap
a
b
i
lities
Nu
m
b
er L
e
vel
of
m
a
ster
y
Absolute
fr
equenc
y
Relative fr
equency (
%
)
1
81 – 83
5
20,
0
2
84 – 86
6
24,
0
3
87 – 89
4
16,
0
4
90 – 92
2
8,
0
5
93 – 95
3
12,
0
6
96 – 98
2
8,
0
7
99 – 100
3
12,
0
T
o t a l
25
100
B
a
sed
on
Ta
bl
e 1,
t
h
e
dat
a
o
f
25
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e cl
assi
fi
e
d
i
n
7
g
r
o
u
p
s.
5
st
ude
nt
s sc
o
r
ed
bet
w
ee
n
8
1
-
83
, o
r
20
.0%
,
6 st
u
d
e
n
t
s
sco
r
ed bet
w
ee
n 8
4
-
86
o
r
2
4
.
0
%,
3
st
ude
nt
s sc
ore
d
8
7
-
8
9
or
12
.
0
%,
2 st
u
d
e
n
t
s
score
d
bet
w
ee
n
90
-
9
2
or
8
.
0%
,
2 st
ude
nt
s sc
ore
d
bet
w
ee
n
93
-
9
5
,
o
r
8.
0%,
5 s
t
ude
nt
s sc
ore
d
bet
w
ee
n
9
6
-
9
8,
o
r
20
.0
%, a
nd
3
st
ude
nt
s sc
ore
d
bet
w
een
9
9
-
1
0
0
,
o
r
1
2
.
0
%
.
The r
e
sul
t
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
ed t
h
r
o
ug
h pe
rf
o
r
m
a
nce t
e
st
s
con
d
u
ct
ed i
n
t
h
e l
ear
ni
n
g
pr
o
cess o
f
sci
e
nce
p
h
y
s
i
c
s
usi
n
g
di
rect
i
n
st
ruc
t
i
onal
m
odel
i
s
sh
ow
n i
n
Ta
bl
e 2.
Tabel
2. Sco
r
e on
St
u
d
e
n
t
s
’ P
e
rf
orm
a
nce
Nu
m
b
e
r
Na
m
e
of
Studen
t
s
S
u
b
j
ec
t a
n
d
P
e
r
f
orm
a
nc
e Sc
or
e
T
o
ta
l
Sco
r
e
Te
r
m
slide
Sc
re
w
m
i
cro
m
et
er
Ohaus
e
balan
c
e
Stopw
at
ch
A
m
ount of
derivatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
AE
BS
CT
DM
FL
HH
JL
IM
KN
LP
I
EB
SK
SL
YP
RY
SS
WT
YT
SN
RA
SM
MT
RP
IN
93
93
100
100
100
100
71
100
100
100
86
79
100
100
86
93
79
100
100
100
93
100
86
86
86
88
86
100
86
100
100
86
100
100
100
71
86
100
100
86
100
86
100
86
100
86
100
71
86
86
80
80
100
80
100
100
80
90
100
90
80
80
80
100
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
66,
7
100
75
91,
7
91,
7
66,
7
91,
7
100
91,
7
75
66,
7
83,
3
100
66,
7
83,
3
66,
7
100
83,
3
83,
3
66.
7
66,
7
66,
7
66,
7
66,
7
86,
8
85,
14
100
88,
2
98,
34
98,
34
80,
74
96,
34
100
96,
34
82,
4
82,
34
92,
66
100
83,
74
91,
26
82,
34
96
89,
86
92,
66
85,
14
89,
34
80,
74
83,
74
83,
74
From
Table
2, it can
be see
n
that t
h
e
highest
sc
ore
on
measurem
ents using a m
easuring device,
sto
p
watch.
In
o
v
e
rall all th
e stud
en
ts were ab
le t
o
c
onduct
m
easurements, whe
r
ea
s in t
h
e
form of the
conve
r
sion sc
ore for eac
h m
e
asurem
ent
can
be
prese
n
ted as
in Ta
ble
3.
Tabl
e
3.
C
o
nv
ersi
o
n
of
Pe
rf
orm
a
nce Test
s
Sco
r
e
L
e
v
e
l of
m
a
stery
Frequen
c
y
Pe
rc
ent
a
ge
(%
)
Qual
if
ic
at
ion
90 – 100
75 – 89
65 – 74
< 65
11
14
-
-
44,
0
56,
0
-
-
E
x
ce
ll
e
n
t
Good
Suf
f
i
ci
ent
Fai
l
ed
25
100
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
3,
No
. 3,
Se
pt
em
ber
2
0
1
4
:
1
6
9
– 17
4
17
2
From
Tabl
e
3,
i
t
can
be see
n
t
h
at
t
h
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
gai
n
e
d
s
c
ore
o
f
7
5
-
8
9 (
5
6
.
0
%
)
we
re
1
4
st
ude
nt
s
and t
h
o
s
e w
h
o
obt
ai
ne
d
9
0
-
1
0
0
(
4
4%)
wer
e
11
st
u
d
ent
s
.
T
h
e res
u
l
t
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
ed
fr
om
t
h
e p
e
rf
orm
a
nce t
e
st
have
p
u
t
th
e stud
en
t
s
in
th
e v
e
ry well lev
e
l,
as evidence
d by the lowest sc
ore of
80
.7
4 an
d t
h
e hi
g
h
est
score i
s
10
0
.
Th
us i
t
can b
e
sai
d
t
h
at
t
h
e
25 st
ude
nt
s
wh
o e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
Phy
s
i
c
s at
t
h
e su
bje
c
t
s
o
f
m
easurem
ents have
com
p
l
e
t
e
d t
h
e l
e
sson sat
i
s
fact
ori
l
y
. Aft
e
r t
h
e
im
pl
em
ent
a
ti
on o
f
st
ude
nt
l
earni
ng
per
f
o
r
m
a
nce by
usi
ng
di
rect
in
stru
ction
a
l m
o
d
e
l, th
e
fo
rm
ativ
e tests (test
d
a
y)
were
co
n
duct
e
d a
n
d
t
h
e
res
u
l
t
s
can
be
seen i
n
Ta
bl
e
4
.
Table 4.
C
o
nve
r
sion
Sc
ore of Form
ative
Test
L
e
v
e
l of
m
a
stery
Frequen
c
y
Pe
rc
ent
a
ge
(%
)
Qual
if
ic
at
ion
90 – 100
75 – 89
65 – 74
< 65
12
11
-
2
48,
0
44,
0
-
8,
0
E
x
ce
ll
e
n
t
Good
Suf
f
i
ci
ent
Poor
25
100
Based on the results obtaine
d in Table 4 it
is expl
aine
d tha
t
there were 2
stude
nts received the score
<65
(
8
.
0
%)
are
1
1
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
sco
r
es ra
n
g
e
d f
r
o
m
75-
89
(4
4.
0%
), a
n
d
1
2
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
sc
ore
bet
w
e
e
n
90
-
10
0
(4
8.
0%
).
The t
e
st
res
u
l
t
s
(dai
l
y
tests) are
categorize
d
as very well.
Th
is is sh
own b
y
23
stud
en
ts w
e
re
succee
ded,
while only 2 students
who
were
not
succee
de
d. Thus it ca
n
be
said
t
h
at as many as
23
or m
o
st
of
th
e stu
d
e
n
t
s categ
or
ized
in
h
a
nd
s-
on
learn
i
ng
th
oro
ughly w
h
ile o
n
l
y 2
stu
d
e
n
t
s did
n
o
t
co
m
p
lete th
e
req
u
i
r
em
ent
s
(
f
ai
l
e
d).
The
n
t
h
e res
u
l
t
s
obt
a
i
ned f
r
om
t
h
e
st
udy
o
f
phy
si
cs sci
e
nce at
cl
ass 7.1 w
h
e
r
e di
rect
i
n
st
ruct
i
o
nal
m
odel
was a
ppl
i
e
d o
n
t
h
e
su
b
j
ect
of m
easur
em
ent
wi
t
h
ev
al
uat
i
on t
e
c
hni
que
s o
f
pe
rf
o
r
m
a
nce
test and form
a
tive tests as a
whole ca
n
be
ob
tain
ed th
e resu
lt as
p
r
esen
ted
in Tab
l
e 5.
Tabl
e
5. T
h
e
R
e
sul
t
s
o
f
Per
f
o
r
m
a
nce Test
a
n
d
Dai
l
y
Test
Nu
m
b
e
r
Na
m
e
Per
f
or
m
a
nce Sco
r
e
(0
,3
)
Da
il
y te
st
S
c
ore
(0
,7
)
T
o
ta
l Sc
ore
F
i
nal
S
c
ore
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
AE
BS
CT
DM
FL
HH
JL
IM
KN
LP
I
EB
SK
SL
YP
RY
SS
WT
YT
SN
RA
SM
MT
RP
IN
26,
04
25,
54
30,
0
26,
46
29,
50
29,
50
24,
22
28,
90
30,
0
28,
90
46,
60
24,
72
27,
80
30,
0
25,
12
27,
38
24,
70
28,
80
26,
96
25,
54
25,
54
26,
80
24,
22
24,
22
24,
22
56,
0
56,
0
70,
0
56,
0
66,
5
66,
5
56,
0
63,
0
66,
5
63,
0
57,
4
52,
5
59,
50
70,
0
59,
50
59,
50
59,
50
66,
5
63,
0
63,
0
63,
0
63,
0
35,
0
38,
50
59,
5
82,
04
81,
54
100,
0
82,
86
96,
0
96,
0
80,
22
91,
90
96,
50
91,
90
82,
0
77,
22
87,
3
100,
0
84,
62
86,
88
84,
20
95,
3
89,
96
88,
54
88,
54
65,
80
59,
22
62,
72
83,
72
82,
0
82,
0
100,
0
83,
0
96,
0
96,
0
80,
0
92,
0
97,
0
92,
0
82,
0
77,
0
87,
0
100,
0
85,
0
87,
0
84,
0
95,
0
90,
0
89,
0
89,
0
66,
0
59,
0
63,
0
84,
0
From
Tabl
e
5,
i
t
i
s
seen t
h
at
t
h
e
hi
g
h
est
fi
na
l
score
we
re
ga
i
n
ed
by
2 st
ude
nt
s,
whi
c
h i
s
1
0
0
an
d t
h
e
l
o
west
fi
nal
sc
ore
ac
hi
eve
d
b
y
1 st
ude
nt
s,
w
h
i
c
h i
s
5
9
,
w
h
i
l
e 22
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
obt
ai
ne
d t
h
e
fi
nal
sc
ore
bet
w
een
63
-
9
7
.
T
h
ese
r
e
sul
t
s
can
be
p
e
rcent
a
ge
usi
n
g C
r
i
t
e
ri
on
R
e
f
e
rence
assessm
ent
as s
h
ow
n i
n
Ta
bl
e
6.
B
a
sed o
n
Tabl
e 6 i
t
i
s
show
n
t
h
at
st
udent
s wh
o sco
r
e
d
< 65 i
s
as
m
u
ch as 2 st
ude
nt
s (
8
.
0
%)
, w
h
i
l
e
stude
nt
who received gra
d
es
65-74 is 1 st
ude
nt (4.0%),
the stude
nt
s who
receive
d grades 75-89 we
re 13
st
ude
nt
s
(5
2
,
05
),
an
d st
ud
e
n
t
s
wh
o sc
o
r
e
d
90
-
1
0
0
a
r
e a
s
m
a
ny
as 9 st
ude
nt
s
(3
6.
0%
). T
h
ese
res
u
l
t
s
sh
o
w
that there
are
23 st
ude
nts
who
belong t
o
s
u
ccess
f
ul
group(c
om
plete
d
), while
the
r
e
are 2 stude
n
ts who
qual
i
f
i
e
d as
fai
l
ed (
n
ot
fi
ni
s
h
e
d
)
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Using
Direct
In
stru
ction
Model
to
In
crea
se Ph
ysica
l
S
c
ie
nce Compete
n
ce
of
Studen
ts
..
..
(
H
endrik We
nno)
17
3
Tabl
e
6.
C
o
nv
ersi
o
n
of
Sc
ore
o
f
Pe
rf
orm
a
nce Test
s a
n
d
F
o
r
m
at
i
v
e Test
L
e
v
e
l
of
m
a
stery
Frequen
c
y
Pe
rc
ent
a
ge
(%
)
Qual
if
ic
at
ion
90 – 100
75 – 89
65 – 74
< 65
9
13
1
2
36,
0
52,
0
4,
0
8,
0
E
x
ce
ll
e
n
t
Good
Suf
f
i
ci
ent
Poor
25
100
Discussion
Based
on
th
e resu
lts o
f
form
a
tiv
e test i
t
sh
o
w
s th
at th
e
mastery lev
e
l o
f
stu
d
e
n
t
learn
i
ng
ou
tco
m
es
ont
he m
easurem
ent
conce
p
t
by
usi
n
g
di
rect
i
n
st
ruct
i
o
nal
m
odel
has i
n
cr
eased w
h
e
r
e as
m
a
ny
as 23 st
ude
nt
s
categ
orized
in
ex
cellen
t
an
d
g
ood
lev
e
l. Therefo
r
e, it can
b
e
said
th
at d
i
rect in
stru
ctio
nal
m
o
d
e
l in
th
i
s
stu
d
y
was s
u
ccee
de
d in e
n
hanci
n
g
stude
nts learni
ng outc
om
es an
d the
level
of m
a
stery of
the
students
themselves.
Thi
s
i
s
due t
o
t
h
e fact
t
h
at
in t
h
i
s
l
earni
n
g
m
odel
,
st
ude
n
t
s are not
ju
st
gi
ve
n t
h
e su
bj
ect
m
a
t
t
e
r, but
al
so
d
i
rected
to
cond
u
c
t d
i
rect learn
i
ng
activ
ities, th
u
s
en
co
urage th
e
m
to
ex
p
l
o
r
e and
exp
e
rien
ce th
e learn
i
n
g
b
y
th
em
selv
es. Throug
h
th
is learn
i
ng
m
o
d
e
l, stu
d
e
n
t
s will b
e
co
m
e
m
o
re act
iv
e and
m
o
tiv
ated
to
b
e
i
n
vo
l
v
ed
i
n
learning activi
ties. Additiona
lly, in
accorda
n
ce with
the
dem
a
nds of
a
com
p
etency-ba
s
ed c
u
rricul
um
, th
e
st
ude
nt
s are re
qui
red t
o
be
m
o
re act
i
v
el
y
seek, d
o
t
a
sks
on t
h
ei
r o
w
n,
and ex
pl
o
r
e i
n
f
o
rm
at
i
on rel
a
t
e
d t
o
learning m
a
terials, whe
r
e
b
y
the previ
o
us
m
odel of
learning that m
a
kes teacher
as
the cente
r (te
acher
centere
d), t
u
rn to e
m
phasize the
m
o
re role
of studen
ts
(s
tude
nt centere
d), and
the teacher
only acts as a
facilitato
r or med
i
ato
r
who
serv
es to
gu
id
e an
d d
i
rect stud
en
ts to p
e
rfo
r
m
learn
i
ng
activ
it
ies.
In rel
a
ti
on t
o
di
rect
i
n
st
ructi
on
m
odel
,
i
t
can be said t
h
at
l
e
arni
ng i
nvol
ves acqui
si
ti
on of
co
m
p
e
t
encies
that achieve
d over ti
mes
through experience
s where part
of that experiences are the
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
f
r
o
m
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
r
e
,
a
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
b
y
[
1
5
]
,
st
udy
by
m
odel
i
ng
o
ccurs
by
ob
ser
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
i
t
s
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
.
Accordi
ng t
o
B
a
ndura as cit
e
d i
n
[15]
, th
e
r
e
a
r
e
f
o
u
r
p
h
a
s
e
s
in
vo
lv
ed
i
n
the learn
i
n
g
throu
g
h
m
o
d
e
ls
n
a
mely
: atten
tio
n, reten
tio
n,
rep
r
od
u
c
tion
,
an
d m
o
tiv
atio
n. Th
us
th
e d
i
rect in
stru
ctio
n
a
l m
o
d
e
l also
sho
w
s t
h
e activ
ity
of the stude
nts who are at least follow t
h
e four steps
p
r
op
o
s
ed
b
y
Ban
d
u
r
a, wh
erein
th
e atten
t
i
o
n
p
h
a
se, stu
d
e
n
t
s will p
a
y th
eir atten
t
i
o
n
to
th
e attit
u
d
e
or
beha
vior
of those around them
, such as teach
ers or
their frie
nds
in
learni
ng activities.
Furt
herm
ore,
st
ude
nt
s re
vea
l
ret
e
nt
i
on
an
d re
pr
o
duct
i
ve
pha
se w
h
e
r
e
by
pay
i
n
g
at
t
e
nt
i
on a
n
d
o
b
s
erv
i
ng
, th
e stu
d
e
n
t
will b
e
d
i
rected
to p
r
o
d
u
ce so
meth
in
g, fo
r exa
m
p
l
e b
y
fo
llo
wi
n
g
t
h
e ex
am
p
l
e
to
m
easure,
desc
r
i
be, a
nd
so
o
n
.
The
n
fi
nal
l
y
t
h
e st
u
d
e
n
t
s
are
m
o
tivated to learn, s
o
th
ese
facto
r
s if i
n
trig
ued
with
in
t
h
e st
u
d
en
ts, it
will g
i
ve sign
ifican
t i
m
p
act o
n
th
eir
learn
i
ng
ou
tcomes.
Due t
o
the advantages
of
dire
ct in
stru
ction
,
th
is
m
o
d
e
l can
also
be im
ple
m
ented on a
wide
r scale,
m
a
ki
ng i
t
espe
ci
al
l
y
useful
f
o
r di
st
ance l
ear
n
i
ng wi
t
h
ol
de
r st
ude
nt
s. As e
d
ucat
i
on e
x
p
a
n
d
s
t
o
m
o
re areas
and
is d
i
ssemin
a
ted
to
in
creasingly d
i
v
e
rse learn
e
rs, th
is m
e
th
o
d
o
f
i
n
stru
ction
is lik
ely to
b
e
u
s
efu
ll. It allo
ws
for
stu
d
e
n
t
s
fro
m
all rang
e
o
f
ages to
i
n
teract
with
an
i
n
stru
ctor an
d ob
tain
v
a
lu
ab
le info
rm
at
io
n
[1
6
]
.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
B
a
sed
on
t
h
e
r
e
sul
t
s
an
d
di
sc
ussi
o
n
,
i
t
can
b
e
co
ncl
u
ded:
1
.
Mastery level o
f
th
e stud
en
ts
o
n
m
easurements concept
s
is cate
g
orize
d
in
t
o
ex
cellent an
d
g
ood
level with
th
e
p
e
rcen
tag
e
o
f
th
e fin
a
l resu
lts
of form
ati
v
e
st
ude
nt tests
are
48.0% a
n
d
44.0%,
res
p
e
c
tively.
2. Direct instructional m
odel was success
f
ul in im
provi
ng
stude
nt learni
ng outcom
es and the level of s
t
ude
nt
mastery, espec
i
ally for m
easurem
ent conce
p
ts.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
S
udib
y
o E
., “
B
e
b
erapa M
ode
l P
e
m
b
elaj
aran Da
n S
t
rateg
i
Bel
a
j
a
r Dalam
P
e
m
b
ela
j
aran IP
A F
i
s
i
ka”
,
Depdikn
as
,
Jakarta,
2003.
[2]
Laili S.W.D.
& Suly
anah
, “Pe
ngaruh Pener
a
pan Model Pembelajar
an
Lan
g
sung Dengan Mengintegr
a
sikan
Pendekatan Keterampilan
Proses Terhad
ap Ko
mpetensi Belajar Si
swa Kelas X
Semester II SM
AN 1 Wonoay
u
”,
Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika
, vol/issue: 02(0
3
), pp
. 80-84
,
2
013.
[3]
Rusilowati A
.
, “Profil Kesulitan
Belajar Fisik
a
P
okok Bahasan
Kelistrik
an Si
swa
SMA Di Kota Semarang”
,
J
u
rnal
Pendidikan
Fisika Indonesia
, vo
l/issue: 4
(
2), 200
6.
[4]
Sim
a
ngunsong I
.
T, & Sani R.A
., “
A
nalisis Pem
a
ham
a
n Konsep dan Kem
a
mpuan Pe
m
ecaha
n
Masalah Fisika
Dengan Menggunakan Model
Problem Ba
sed Instruction (PBI) dan Di
rect
Instruction (DI)
”,
Jurnal online
Pendidikan Fisika,
vol/issue: 1(2)
, Program Studi
Pendidi
kan
Fisika Universitas M
e
dan, 2012.
[5]
Kardiawarm
an,
dkk., “
D
iagnosa
Kesulitan
Bel
a
j
a
r IPA-Fi
sika di
SLTP Ditinj
a
u
Dari Kem
a
m
puan Mem
b
aca d
a
n
Keterbacaan”, In
stitusi Keguru
a
n
dan I
l
m
u
Pendi
dikan, Bandung
, 1997.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
IJER
E
V
o
l
.
3,
No
. 3,
Se
pt
em
ber
2
0
1
4
:
1
6
9
– 17
4
17
4
[6]
Prabowo, “Pembelajaran
Fisi
ka Dengan
Pendek
a
tan Terp
adu
D
a
la
m Menghad
a
pi Perkembangan IPTEK”,
Media
Pendidikan dan
Ilmu Peng
etahu
an
, Jakarta, 200
1.
[7]
Bud
y
ono, “Kurikulum Berbasis
Komp
etensi”, Depdiknas, Jakar
t
a,
2004.
[8]
Karhami A.K
.
S., “Panduan Pem
b
elajaran
Fi
sika
SLTP”, Depd
ikn
a
s, Jak
a
rta,
199
8.
[9]
Cohen M. T, "The effect of direct
instruction versus discover
y
learning
on the understanding of scien
ce lessons by
second grade students",
NERA Conferenc
e
Proceedings
2008,
2008.
Paper 30.
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu
/
nera_2008
/30
.
[10]
Sari S.W., “Pengaruh Model Pembel
ajar
an Dan
Tipe Kepr
ibadi
a
n Terhad
ap Has
i
l Bel
a
jar F
i
s
i
k
a
P
a
da S
i
s
w
a S
M
P
S
w
as
ta Di Ke
ca
m
a
tan M
e
dan
Ar
ea”
.
J
u
rnal Tabularasa Pps Unime
d
,
vo
l/issue: 9(
1), 2012
.
[11]
Damanik M. L., “Peningkatan
Ha
sil Belajar Fisika Siswa Melalui Pe
n
e
rapan
Model
Pembelajaran Langsung
Berbantu
an LKS Kelas XII IPA
4
SMA Negeri 1 Rantau Utara”,
Suara Pendidikan
ISSN 0852
-016X, vol/issue:
30(2), 2012
.
[12]
Setiawan W. Fitrajay
a E. & Mardiy
anti
T., “Pener
apan Model Pengajar
a
n Lan
g
sung (Direct In
struction) Untuk
Meningkatk
an Pemahaman
Belajar Siswa Dalam Pembelajar
an
Rekay
a
sa P
e
rangkat Lunak
(RPL)”,
Jurnal
Pendidikan Tekn
ologi In
formasi dan Komunikasi, ISSN 1979-946
2,
vol/issue: 3(1)
, 2010
.
[13]
Darwin. “Meningkatkan Aktiv
itas
Belajar Siswa Pada
Pembelajaran Sen
i
Rupa
Melalu
i
Penerapan Mod
e
l
Pembelajar
an Langsung di Kelas
VII-7 SMP Ne
geri 29 Medan
”
,
Suara Pendidikan ISSN 0852-
016X
, vol/issue:
30(2), 2012
.
[14
Kardi S
.
, “
S
eri
M
odel P
e
m
b
ela
j
aran F
i
s
i
k
a
S
L
T
P
”
,
Depdikn
as, Jakarta, 2001.
[15]
Dahar R
.
W.,
“Teori-Teori Be
lajar”, R
i
nek
a
Cip
t
a, B
a
ndung, 199
6.
[16]
Magliaro S.G,
Locke
e
B.B,
&
Burton, J.K.
,
“
D
irect instruction rev
i
sited
:
A ke
y
m
odel
for instruction
a
l
techno
log
y
”,
Jo
urnal of
Educat
i
onal R
e
search T
echnolog
y and
Developmen
t,
vo
l. 53
, pp
.
41-55, 2005.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.