Korelasi Kesadaran Metakognisi dan Hasil Belajar Kognitif Peserta Didik dalam Pembelajaran Kimia selama Pandemi Covid-19
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36312/ej.v3i1.767Keywords:
kesadaran metakognisi, Hasil Belajar Kognitif, pandemi covid-19, metacognitive awareness, Cognitive learning outcomes, the covid-19 pandemicAbstract
Peneltian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi hubungan antara kesadaran metakognisi dan hasil belajar peserta didik dalam pembelajaran kimia selama masa pandemic Covid-19 pada Tahun Pelajaran 2021-2022. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan pendekatan ex-post facto dengan kerangka penelitian korelasional. Penelitian dilaksanakan di SMAN 1 Bolo dengan melibatkan 66 orang peserta didik kelas X sebagai subjek penelitian yang diambil secara jenuh. Data dianalisis secara deskriptif dan analisis korelasi product moment. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa rata-rata kesadaran metakognisi peserta didik sebesar 71. Hasil belajar peserta didik kelas pada semester ganjil dan genap berturut-turut 70 dan 63. Akan tetapi tidak ada korelasi antara kesadaran metakognisi dan hasil belajar kognitif peserta didik. Korelasi metakognisi terhadap hasil belajar peserta didik baik pada semester ganjil maupun genap, dengan nilai product moment berturut-turut -0,025 dan -0,094, lebih rendah daripada r kritis sebesar 0,239 pada DK 64 dan nilai signifikansi (p) 5 %. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa pembelajaran Kimia di SMAN 1 Bolo selama masa pandemic covid-19 tidak seiring dengan pengembangan kesadaran metakognisi peserta didik terhadap pembelajaran.
Correlation between Students Metacognitive Awareness and Cognitive Learning Outcomes on Chemistry Learning While Covid-19 Pandemic
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the relationship between metacognitive awareness and student learning outcomes in chemistry learning during the Covid-19 pandemic in the 2021-2022 Academic Year. This research was carried out using an ex-post facto approach with a correlational research framework. The research was conducted at SMAN 1 Bolo involving 66 students of class X as research subjects who were taken saturated. Data were analyzed descriptively and product moment correlation analysis. The results showed that the average metacognitive awareness of students was 71. The average of students’ cognitive learning outcomes in odd and even semester was 70 and 63 respectively. However, there is no correlation between metacognitive awareness and students' cognitive learning outcomes. The correlation between metacognitive awareness and students' cognitive learning outcomes both in odd and even semester, with r product moment value -0.025 and -0.094 respectively, was lower than r critical 0,239 with df 64 and significance value (p) 5%. This shows that learning Chemistry at SMAN 1 Bolo during the COVID-19 pandemic is not in line with the development of students' metacognitive awareness of learning.
Downloads
References
Asy'ari, M., Ikhsan, M., & Muhali, M. (2018).Validitas instrumen karakterisasi kemampuan metakognisi mahasiswa calon guru fisika. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 6(1), 18-26.
Coll, R. K. & Taylor, N. (2002). Alternative conceptions of chemical bonding held by upper secondary and tertiary students. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2), 171-191.
Crawford, J. (2009). Learning theories that encompass distanceeducation. Diperoleh dari http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/crawfordj/portfolio/files/5_Learn_theories.htm
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Darminto, E. (2006). Teori-teori konseling. Surabaya: UNESA University.
Dinatha, N. M., & Laksana, N. L.. (2017). Kesulitan belajar siswa dalam mata pelajaran IPA terpadu. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Nusantara, 2(2), 214-223.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2012). Strategi dan model pembelajaran. Jakarta: Indeks.
Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J.A., & Posner, M.I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288-307.
Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant's comments: What is memory development the development of? Human Development, 14 (2), 272-278.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Natalia, Setianingrum, D.V.Zulianingsih, P. 2020. Dampak Covid-19 terhadap Ekonomi dan Pendidikan melalui Tinjauan Pendekatan Environmental Justice. Diakses pada 28 Desember 2020. http://himasylva.fp.unila.ac.id/?p=175
Jacobs, J., & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading. Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_4
Jacobse, A. E., & Harskamp, E. G. (2012). Towards efficient measurement of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7(2), 133-149.
Kemendikbud. (2013). Peraturan menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan nomor 81a tentang implementasi kurikulum. Jakarta: Kemendikud.
Kemendikbud. (2013). Peraturan menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan nomor 69 tentang kerangka dasar dan struktur kurikulum sekolah menengah atas/madrasah aliyah. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31-64). New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kurniawan, A. (2011). SPSS Serba-serbi Analisis Statistika dengan cepat dan mudah. Indonesia: Jasakom.
Louca, E.P. (2008). Metacognition and Theory ofMind.Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G.E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp.79–102). Hoboken: Wiley.
Meichenbaum, D. S., Burland, L., Gruson, R. & Cameron. (1985). Metacognitive assessment. New York: Academic Press Inc.
Muhali, M. (2013). Analisis kemampuan metakognisi siswa dalam pembelajaran kimia SMA. Hydrogen: Jurnal Kependidikan Kimia, 1(1), 1-7.
Muhali. (2018). Pengembangan model pembelajaran reflektif metakognitif untuk meningkatkan kemampuan metakognisi siwa SMA. Disertasi. Surabaya: Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Muhali, M. (2019). Pembelajaran inovatif abad Ke-21. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, 3(2), 25-50.
Mustapa, Cawang, & Qurbaniah, M. (2017). Hubungan antara kesadaran metakognisi dengan hasil belajar siswa pada mata pelajaran kimia kelas XI SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Ketapang. Ar-Razi Jurnal Ilmiah, 5(2), 204-215.
Niedringhaus, K. L. (2010). Teaching Better Research Skills by Teaching Metacognitive Ability. Vol. 18 Winter/Spring.
Nur, M. (2011). Strategi-strategi belajar. Surabaya: Pusat Sains dan Matematika Sekolah UNESA.
Ristiyani, E. & Bahriah, E. S. (2016). Analisis kesulitan belajar kimia siswa di SMAN X Kota Tangerang Selatan. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 2(1), 18-29.
Rohmah, B. N., & Sumarsih, S. (2017). Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran Game Edukatif Fun Spreadsheet Quiz Berbasis Adobe Flash CS6 Pada Mata Pelajaran Spreadsheet Kelas X Akuntansi SMK Negeri 4 Klaten Tahun Pelajaran 2016/2017. Yogyakarta (ID): Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Siswono, T. Y. E. (2016). Berpikir Kritis dan Berpikir Kreatif sebagai Fokus Pembelajaran Matematika. In Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika (pp. 11-26).
Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology. Tokyo: Pearson Education, Inc.
Solso, Maclin, Maclin. (2008). Psikologi Kognitif. edisi kedelapan. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Subandi, S., Choirudin, C., Mahmudi, M., Nizaruddin, N., Hermanita, H., & Hermanita, H. (2018). Building interactive communication with Google Classroom. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(2) 13-23.
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta.
Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif. Bandung : Alfabeta.
Syah, M. (2005). Psikologi pendidikan dengan pendekatan baru. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Theffidy, S. G. (2020). Pendidikan Era Revolusi Industri 4.0 di Tengah COVID-19. Diambil kembali dari https://ombudsman. go. id/artikel/r/artikel--pendidikan-era-revolusi-industri-40-di-tengah-covid-19.
Woolfolk, A. (2009). Educational Psychology Bagian Kedua Edisi Kesepuluh. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Muhali Muhali, Mila Ulfanita, Khaeruman Khaeruman, Yusran Khery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Empiricism Journal agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in Empiricism Journal, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agrees to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish 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) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
