Article Sidebar

Download
View Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aims to determine the differences in the (1) theoretical, and (2) practical students’ learning outcomes basics of electricity, as well as (3) to examine both results simultaneously. The experimental methods used to teach students were affective domain-based and conventional teaching which involved 36 and 37 participants, respectively, amounting to a total of 73. Moreover, data were analyzed using statistical multivariate analysis of variance (Manova). The results found there were differences in (1) theoretical and (2) practical learning outcomes, as well as (3) both results simultaneously for students who taught using those two methods.

Keywords

Affective domain-based teaching basics of electricity

Article Details

In submitting the manuscript to the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE), the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

License and Copyright Agreement

Authors who publish with International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the International Journal on Integrated Education (IJIE) published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
[1]
Ponto, H. 2022. The Effect of Affective Domain-Based Teaching on Theoretical and Practical Outcomes of Learning the Basics of Electricity at Vocational High Schools in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. International Journal on Integrated Education. 5, 6 (Jun. 2022), 8-20.

References

  1. 1. Frederiksen JR, White BY, Gutwill J. (1999). Dynamic Mental Models in Learning Science: The Importance of Constructing Derivational Linkages Among Models. J Res Sci Teach Off J Natl Assoc Res Sci Teach. 36(7):806–836.
  2. 2. Härtel H. (1982). The Electric Circuit As A System: A New Approach. Eur J Sci Educ. 4(1):45–55.
  3. 3. Herman R. (2001). An Introduction To Electrical Resistivity In Geophysics. Am J Phys. 69(9):943–952.
  4. 4. Hindarto N. (2017). Study On Latent Misunderstanding On Electrical Current Concept And Its Impact. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. IOP Publishing, p 12012.
  5. 5. Ismail II, Samsudin A, Suhendi E, Kaniawati I. (2015). Diagnostik Miskonsepsi Melalui Listrik Dinamis Four Tier Test. Pros Simp Nas Inov dan Pembelajaran Sains. 3(1):381–384.
  6. 6. Koudelkova V, Dvorak L. (2015). High School Students’ Misconceptions In Electricity And Magnetism And Some Experiments That Can Help Students To Reduce Them. nuovo Cim C. 38(3):1–7.
  7. 7. Küçüközer H, Kocakülah S. (2007). Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions About Simple Electric Circuits. J Turkish Sci Educ. 4(1):101–115.
  8. 8. Ponto H. (2020). Methods of Learning the Concept of Basic Electric Circuits: A Comparative Study between Lecture, Discussion and Collaboration www.ijicc.net. Int J Innov Creat Chang. 12(1):1–16.
  9. 9. Reiner M, Slotta JD, Chi MTH, Resnick LB. (2000). Naive Physics Reasoning: A Commitment To Substance-based Conceptions. Cogn Instr. 18(1):1–34.
  10. 10. Bloom BS, Engelhard MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, D.R. K. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. London. doi: 10.1300/J104v03n01_03.
  11. 11. Kasilingam G, Chinnavan E. (2014). Assessment Of Learning Domains To Improve Student’s Learning In Higher Education. J. Young Pharm. 6:.
  12. 12. Krathwohl DR, Bloom B, Masia B. (1964). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals - Handbook II: Affective Domain. .
  13. 13. Bisman C. (2004). Social Work Values: The Moral Core Of The Profession. Br J Soc Work. 34(1):109–123.
  14. 14. Ponto H, Tasiam FJ, Wonggo D. (2018). Designing Affective Domain Evaluation Instrument For Basics Electrical Subject in Vocational High School. Int J Eng Technol. 7(25):395–398.
  15. 15. Shephard K. (2008). Higher Education For Sustainability: Seeking Affective Learning Outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ. 9(1):87–98.
  16. 16. Gronlund, N. E. & Bookhart SM. (2009). Writing Instructional Objective (8th ed). Upper Saddie River. NJ Pers. Educ.
  17. 17. Allen KN, Friedman BD. (2010). Affective Learning: A Taxonomy For Teaching Social Work Values. J Soc Work Values Ethics. 7(2):1–12.
  18. 18. Sönmez V. (2017). Association of Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor and Intuitive Domains in Education, Sönmez Model. Univers J Educ Res. 5(3):347–356.
  19. 19. Tyler RW. (1973). Assessing Educational Achievement in the Affective Domain. NCME Measurement in Education. NCME Meas Educ. 4(3):1–8.
  20. 20. Ponto H. (2016). Evaluasi Pembelajaran Pendidikan Kejuruan. Yogyakarta: Deepublish.
  21. 21. Yanofsky SD, Nyquist JG. (2010). Using The Affective Domain To Enhance Teaching Of The ACGME Competencies In Anesthesiology Training. J. Educ. Perioper. Med. JEPM 12:.
  22. 22. Wu W-H, Kao H-Y, Wu S-H, Wei C-W. (2019). Development and Evaluation of Affective Domain Using Student’s Feedback In Entrepreneurial Massive Open Online Courses. Front Psychol. 10:1109.
  23. 23. Dorji, P. & Yangzom Y. (2021). Affective Domain: The Uncharted Are of Teaching and Learning in Tertiary Education. Asian Res J Arts Soc Sci. 13(1):51–65.
  24. 24. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl DR. (2001). A Taxonomy For Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
  25. 25. Kuboja JM, Ngussa BM. (2015). Affective Learning and Cognitive Skills Improvement: Experience of Selected Schools in Arusha, Tanzania. Int J Acad Res Progress Educ Dev. 4(2):38–53.
  26. 26. Olatunji MO. (2013). Teaching and Assessing of Affective Characteristics: A Critical Missing Link in Online Education. Int J New Trends Educ Their Implic. 4(1):96–107.
  27. 27. Olubor RO, Ogonor BO. (2007). Instructional Activities of Staff Personnel in the Affective Domain in Selected Secondary Schools in Southern Nigeria. Int Educ J. 8(1):82–88.
  28. 28. Sanders JA, Wiseman RL. (1990). The Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Teacher Immediacy on Perceived Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Learning in The Multicultural Classroom. Commun Educ. 39(4):341–353.
  29. 29. Saxon DP, Levine-Brown P, Boylan HR. (2008). Affective Assessment for Developmental Students, Part 1. Res Dev Educ. 22(1):1–4.
  30. 30. Xiao M, Zhang J. (2016). Theoretical Overview on The Improvement of Interest in Learning Theoretical Course for Engineering Students. Int Educ Stud. 9(8):15–18.
  31. 31. Maina EM, Onyango CA, Openda NO. (2019). Effect of Complementing the Conventional Method of Teaching Agriculture with Video On Performance of Agriculture Theoretical Tests in Secondary Schools (A Case Study of Molo Sub-County, Kenya). Int J Res Sci Innov. 6(6):45–48.
  32. 32. Sadeghi R, Sedaghat MM, Ahmadi FS. (2014). Comparison of The Effect of Lecture and Blended Teaching Methods on Students’ Learning and Satisfaction. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2(4):146–150.
  33. 33. Abah JA. (2020). An Appeal in the Case Involving Conventional Teaching: Emphasizing the Transformation to Enhanced Conventional Teaching in Mathematics Education. VillageMath Educ. Rev. 1:.
  34. 34. Mohammad Jani F, Tonkaboni F. (2015). A Comparison Between the Effect of Cooperative Learning Teaching Method and Lecture Teaching Method on Students’ Learning and Satisfaction Level. Int Educ Stud. 8(9):107–112.
  35. 35. McCarthy JP, Anderson L. (2000). Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science. Innov High Educ. 24(4):279–294.
  36. 36. Devinder, S. & Zaitun AB. (2006). Mobile Learning in Wireless Classrooms. Malaysian Online J Instr Technol. 3(2):26–42.
  37. 37. Ibrahim. (2017). Perpaduan Model Pembelajaran Aktif Konvensional (Ceramah) Dengan Cooperative (Make A Match) Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan. J Ilmu Pendidikan, Sos Sains Dan Hum. 3(2):199–211.
  38. 38. Djaafar. (2001). Kontribusi strategi pembelajaran terhadap hasil belajar. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
  39. 39. Thomas G. (2017). Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press.
  40. 40. Merriam-Webster. (2022). Definition of Theory.
  41. 41. Dictionary CE. (2022). Theory.
  42. 42. Dolev N, Leshem S. (2016). Teachers’ Emotional Intelligence: The Impact of Training. Int J Emot Educ. 8:75–94.