Implementation Of The Thematic Learning Process Using A Constructivist Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v1i3.73Keywords:
Thematic Learning Process, Constructivist ApproachAbstract
The aims of this study were to describe the implementation of the thematic learning process using a constructivist approachin the third grade of SDN 05 Alang Rambang Pesisir Selatan. This study uses the classroom action research method and is completed across several stages of planning, implementation, observation, and reflection. The subjectsof the research were the third grade of SDN 05 Alang Rambang Pesisir Selatan. The data collection in the study used two assessments: namely,observation and the assessment sheet. The progress and improvementobtained during the two-cycle learning process shows that through theimplementation of constructivism approaches in the thematic learning process, it canimprove learning outcomes. The research findings show that the use of a constructivist approach can improve the thematic learning process. This increase can be seen from the average percentage of assessment of lesson plans in the first cycle is 73.2, teacher aspect assessment is 57.5, the implementation of student aspects in cycle I is 59.5, while mathematics learning outcomes are 59.7, social studies are 62.73, and Indonesian 65.75. Cycle II the average percentage of assessment of lesson plans in cycle II is 80.25, teacher aspect assessment is 80, student aspect implementation in cycle II is 82, while mathematics learning outcomes are 87.6, Social Studies is 78.5, and Indonesian language is 81.1. The research findings show that the use of a constructivist approach can improve the thematic learning process
References
Agustin, I. (2019). The Implementation of Identification, Assessment and Learning for Children with Special Needs in Elementary School Inclusion Education Providers. Edustream: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar. (Online), Volume 3, No. 2.
Bada Steve Olusegun, & Olusegun Steve. ″Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning.″ Journal of Research & Method in Education 5, 6, (2015): 66-70, doi: 10.9790/7388-05616670.
Emmer, E.T., & Gerwels, M.C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: Teaching practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (1), 75-92.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice, (pp. 154-170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon Press.
Mohammad Nur. 2004. Pengajaran Berpusat Kepada Siswa dan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme dalam Pengajaran. Jakarta: Universitas Negeri Surabaya .
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role ofmodality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.
Mufdalifah, M. (2017). Personalized Learning dan Multimedia Berbasis Komputer Perlukan Guru? (Jurnal Inovasi Dan Teknologi Pembelajaran) Kajian Dan Riset Dalam Teknologi Pembelajaran, pp. 50–57.
Kincheloe, J. 1999. “The Foundations of a Democratic Educational Psychology.”Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting Psychological Assumptions about Teaching and Learning, edited by J.L. Kincheloe. et al. Routledge, NewYork.
Kamii, C and Ewing, J. K. 1996. “Basing Teaching onPiaget’s Constructivism.” Childhood Education,vol. 72, no.5.
Marlowe, B.A. and Page, M.A.2005. Creating andSustaining the Constructivist Classroom, Corwin Press.
Stephenson, P. & Warwick, P. (2002). Using Concept Cartoons to Support Progression in Students’ Understanding of Light. Physics Education, 37 (2).
Suharsimi Arikunto, dkk. 2007. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Thayer-Bacon, B. 1999. “The Thinker Versus a Quilting bee: Contrasting Images.”Educational Foundations, vol. 13, no. 4.
Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (6), 359-364.
Windschitl, M. 1999. “The Challenges of Sustaining aConstructivist Classroom Culture.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 80, no. 10.
