DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Beichner, R. J. (1996). Test of Understanding Graph of Kinematics version 2.6

167

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (eds). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Assessing. A Revision of Bloom‟s Taxonomy of education Objectives. New York: Addisin Wesley. Ball, D.L. & McDiarmid,G.W. (1990). “The Subject Matter Preparation of Teachers” Handbook of Research on Techer Educacation. A Project of Associate of Teacher Education Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1999).The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement standards-based mathematics curricula.Kappan, 80, 503-512. Beichner, R. J. (1996). “The Impact of Video Motion Analysis on Kinematics Graph Interpretation Skills”. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1272 – 1277. Beichner, R. J. (1996). Test of Understanding Graph of Kinematics version 2.6 Beichner, R. J (1994).“Testing Students‟ Interpretation of Kinematics Graphs”. American Journal of Physics, 62 (8), 750 – 762. Berland, L..& Reiser, B. (2009).“Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation”.Science Education. 93, 26 – 55. Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). “Conceptualizations of Argumentation from Science Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for The Practices of Science Education”. Science Education, 92, 473 . 498. Brooks, K. (2002). “Reading, Writing, and Teaching Creative Hypertext: A Genre-Based Pedagogy”. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 2 (3), 337–358.\ Carter, L. M. (1997). Arguments in Hypertext: Order and Structure in nonsequentialEssays. Disertasi pada University ofTexas, Austin. Charles, M., Eliot R. S.,&Lousie, H. K. (1991). Research Methods in Social Relations: International Edition(6th ed).London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). “Personally-Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation”. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253–277

Sondang R Manurung, 2013 Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Dengan Media Hiperteks Berdasarkan Skema Pemecahan Masalah Berintikan Argumentasi Toulmin Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu

168

Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1987). “gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Team Design Deliberation”.Proceedings of Hypertext ‘87. Chapel Hill, NC: Association of Computing Machinery, 247- 268. Cox Suzy (2006) A Conseptual Anallysis of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Department of Instructional Psychology &Technology Brigham Young University July 2006 Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches( 2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Dahar, R.W. (1989), Teori-Teori Belajar. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga De Vries, E.,&De Jong, T. (1999). “The Design and Evaluation of Hypertext Structures for Supporting Design Problem Solving”. Instructional Science 27, 285–302.Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”. Science Education.84, 287312. Duke,

K. (2005). Real-life Projects Energize Learning. Tersedia: http://www.riviewjournal.com/wrg.home/2005/opinion/682710 [10 Januari 2012]

Duschl, R. (2008). “Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria”, dalam Erduran, S& Jiménez- Aleixandre, M. P (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 159 -169. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse”. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Eckstein, S. G., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1997). “Parallelism in the Development of Children's Ideas and the Historical Development of Projectile Motion Theories”.International Journal of Science Education, 19(9), 1057 1073. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). “TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin‟s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse”. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. Evans, A., Hawksley, F., Holland, M. R. & Caillau, I. (2008).“Improving Subject Knowledge and Subject Pedagogic Knowledge in Employment Based Secondary Initial Teacher Training in England”. Makalah disajikan


169

padaThe Annual Conference of the Association of TeacherEducation in Europe, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Eylon, B., & Reif, F. (1984). “Effects of Knowledge Organization on Task Performance”.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 5-44. Foltz, P.W. (1996). “Comprehension, Coherence and Strategies in Hypertext and Linier Text”, dalam Route, J.F (Ed) Hypertext and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ford, M. (2008). “Disciplinary Authority and Accountability in Scientific Practice and Learning”.Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. Frank, B.W. (2009). The Dynamics Of Variability In Introductory Physics Students’ Thinking: Examples From Kinematics. Disertasi pada University of Maryland Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Science Education, (5th Ed.) NY. McGraw – Hill, Inc.

Gerace, W. J. (2001) “Problem Solving and Conceptual Understanding”, dalam S. Franklin, J., Marx & K. Cummings (Eds) Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, 33 -45.New York: PERC Publishing, 33. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999a). “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Introduction and Orientation”, dalam J. Gess-Newsome& N. Lederman (Eds.) Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The Netherlands: Kluwer Grinnel, Jr., R. M. (1988). Social Work Research and Evaluation. Illionis: F.E. Peacock Pub. Inc. Grossman, P. L. (in press). “Subject Matter Knowledge and the Teaching of English”, dalam J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. New York: The Teachers College Press. Halliday,D.,Resnick, R.,& Walker,J. (2011). Fundamental of Physics(10th ed). Singapore:John Wiley & Sons, Ptc Ltd Haryanto, Zeni. (2006). Tahap Perkembangan Intelektual Siswa SMP dan SMA Dengan Kaitanya Dalam Pembelajaran Fisika dan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah. Disertasi pada Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.Bandung : Tidak diterbitkan


170

Hasweh, M. (1987). “Effects of Subject-Matter Knowledge in the Teaching of Biology and Physics”.Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991).Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity, dalam L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. 331-348. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hayes-Roth, B. and Hayes-Roth, F. (1979) “A Cognitive Model of Planning”, Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310. Heller, K & Heller, P. (2010). Cooperative Problem Solving in Physics A User’s Manual. Tersedia: http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed [10Januari 2011] Heller, P & Hollabaugh, M (1992b). “Teaching Problem Solving Through Cooperative Grouping: Designing Problems and Structuring Groups”.American Journal of Physics, 60 (7). 637-644. Hollabaugh, M. (1995). Cooperative Learning Groups, Disertasi pada The University of Minnesota Ingraham, B. D. (2002). Scholarly Rhetoric in Digital Media.A Paper. Center forLifelong Learning, The University of Teesside, Middlebrough, UK. Tersedia: http//:www. acm.com. [5 April 2010]. Inherder, B & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext/hypermedia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). “Designing hypertext for learning”, dalam E. Scanlon & R. T. O'Shea (Eds.),New directions in educational technology, 123– 130. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). “Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and IllStructured Problem Solving Learning Outcomes”. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 45(1), 65-94. Jonassen, D.H., &Grabinger, R.S. (1990). “Problems and Issues in Designing Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning”, dalam D.H. Jonassen & H. Mandl, (Eds), Designing Hypermediafor Learning, 123- 130.Berlin Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag.


171

Kelly, G. (2008). “Inquiry, Activity and Epistemic Practice”, dalam R. A. Duschl.,& R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation, 99-117. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Kolbs, D. (1995). Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy, Eastgate Systems, Cambridge. Tersedia: http://www.acm.com [6 Januari 2012] Kuhn, D. (2010). “Teaching and Learning Science as Argument”.Science Education, 4(5), 810-824. Lawson, A.E., Lawson, D. I., Lawson, C. A. (1984). Proportional Reasoning and The Linguistic Abilities Required for Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21 (2), 119–131. Lawson,

A.E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Develpment Thinking.Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

of

Lorenzo, M. (2005). “The Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Problem Solving Heuristic”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 33-58 Magnusson, S., Krajcik , J. & Borko, H. (2002). “Nature, Sources, and Development of PCK for Science Teaching”, dalamJ. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds), Examining PCK: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education, 95 - 132. New York: Kluwer Academic Press. Mallia,

G. (2009). “Hypertextual Processing and Institutional Change:Speculations on the Effects of Immersed New Media Users on the Future of Educational Institutions”.The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review2(3), 80- 97.

MacKay, R.S. (2008). Nonlinearity in Complexity Science. Mathematics Institute and Centre for Complexity Science. University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K. Maloney, D.P. (1994). “Research on Problem Solving: Physics”, dalam D.L. Gabel (Ed.)Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,327-354. NewYork: Macmillan. Manurung, S.R. (2010), Pengembangan Pembelajaran Fisika Dasar untuk meluruskan kesalahan konsep Mahasiswa jurusan Fisika Universitas Negeri Medan. Laporan penelitian didanai P3M Dikti Depdiknas. Tidak dipubikasikan.


172

Manurung, S.R., & Rustaman, N.Y. (2011). Laporan Field Study. Tugas Mata Kuliah Pengembangan Program Pedidikan IPA. Tidak dipublikasikan. Martinez, M. E. (1998). “What is Problem Solving?, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 605609. Matlock- Hetzel, S (1997). “Basic Concepts in Item and Test Analysis”. Makalah pada the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin. McDermott, L.C., Rosenquist, M.L&., van Zee, E.H. (1987). “Student Difficulties in Connecting Graphs and Physics: Examples from Kinematics”. American Journal of Physics, 55 (6), 503 513 McDermott, L.C. (1990). “A Perspective on Teacher Preparation in Physics and Other Science: The Need for Special Science Course for Teachers”. American Journal of Physics.58 (8), 734-742 McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). “Curvilinear Motion in the Absence of External Forces: Naive Beliefs About the Motion of Objects”. Science, 210(4474), 1139-1141 Meltzer, D. E. (2002). “ The Relationship between Mathematics Preparation and Conceptual Learning Gain in Physics: „ hidden variable‟ in Diagnostic Pretest Scores”.American Journal Physics. 70(12), 1259 -1267. Meskill, C. (1996). Computers, Creativity and Communivative Competence: An Association Machine. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(2-3), 115 – 123 Nelson, T.H. (1987) Literary Machines.N.p.: Theodore Nelson. Newmann, S. E. & Marshal, C. C. (1998). Pushing Toulmin Too Far: Learning from an Argument RepresentationScheme. Tersedia: http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/toulmin.pdf [5 April2012]. Nguyen,

T-H.(2002). Hypertext Structure and Student’s StrategiesTersedia: http//:www. acm.com. [5 April 2010].

Learning

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academic Press. OECD, PISA 2006.Tersedia: http://www.aapt.org/Conferences/newfaculty/upload/Coop-ProblemSolving-Book-2.pdf. [ 10 Maret 2010]


173

Piaget, J. (1964) The Development of Thought: The Equilibrtion of cognitive Structures, New York: Viking Reif, F., Larkin, H., Brackett, C. (1976). “Teaching general learning and problemsolving skills”. American Journal of Physics,44, 212-217. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N., & Ndlovu. T (2008) “ThePlace of Subject Matter Knowledge in Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study of South African Teachers Teaching the Amount of Substance and Chemical Equilibrium”. International Journal of Science Education 30(10), 1365–1387 Sadler, T.D.,& Zeidler, D.L. (2005). “Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision- Making”.Journal of Research in Science Education, 42 , 112-138. Santyasa, I. W. (2006). Pengembangan Pemahaman Konsep dan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Fisika bagi Siswa SMA dengan Pemberdayaan Model Perubahan Konseptual Berseting Investigasi Kelompok. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). “Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions”. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. Sanders, L.R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). “Secondary Science Teachers‟ Knowledge Base when Teaching Science Courses in and Out of Their Area of Certification”. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 30(7), 723–736. Schommer – Aikin, M. (2004). “Explaining the Epistemological Belief of System Introducing the Embeded systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach”. Educational Psychologist, 39(1).19-28. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the Structure of the Disciplines dalam I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays, 229-272. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Seroto, J.(2012). “Student Teachers‟ Presentations of Science Lessons inSouth African Primary Schools: Ideal and Practice”. International Journal Education of Science, 4(2), 107-115. Shapiro, A. M. and Niederhauser, D. (2004). “Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings”, dalam D. H. Jonassen (Ed)Handbook of Research


174

on Educational Communications and Technology, (2nd ed), 605–620. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D.S. (in press). Learning from Hypertext: Research Issues and Findings, dalam D. Jonassen (Ed.)Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, (2nd ed), MacMillon Shulman, L.S. (1986). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). “Learning to Teach Argumentation; Research and Development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260 Siregar, N., Rustaman, N. Y. & Hidayat, E.M. (1995).Studi Penerapan Pedagogi Materi Subjek dalam Penulisan Buku Teks MIPA untuk Mengembangkan Keterampilan Intelektual Mahasiswa FPMIPA IKIP Bandung.Penelitian IKIP Bandung: Tidak dipublikasikan. Siregar, N. (1998). Penelitian Kelas: Teori, Metodologi, dan Analisis. Bandung: IKIP Bandung Press Siregar, N. (2000). Penelitian Kelas dan Penelitian Pendidikan: Suatu Tinjauan Epistemologi. Mimbar Pendidikan Siregar, N., & Dahar, R.W. (2000). “Pedagogi Materi Subyek: Suatu Upaya untuk Meletakkan Dasar keilmuan dari PBM”. Makalah pada Seminar Staf Dosen FPMIPA UPI. Siregar, N., Kurnia., & Setiawan, Setiawan, W. (2009) . Pedagogi E-Learning: Antar-Muka Pembaca Sebagai Dasar. Penelitian FPMIPA UPI. Tidak dipublikasikan. Smith, D. C.,& Neale, D. (1991). “The Construction of Subject Matter Knowledge in Primary Science Teaching”, dalam J. Brophy (Ed.) Advances in Research on Teaching, 2. London: JAI Press. Smith, J. B., Weiss, S. F., & Ferguson, G. J. (1987). “A Hypertext Writing Environment and Its Cognitive Basis”, dalam Proceedings of Association forComputing Machinery‟s Hypertext.Tersedia: http//:www.acm.com. [10 Mei 2010] Spillane, J. P. (2000).“A Fifth Grade Teacher‟s Reconstruction of Mathematics and Literacy Teaching: Exploring Interactions among Identity, Learning, and Subject Matter”, Elementary School Journal , 100(4), 273-307. Sondang R Manurung, 2013 Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Dengan Media Hiperteks Berdasarkan Skema Pemecahan Masalah Berintikan Argumentasi Toulmin Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu

175

Spiro, R., & Jehng, J. (1990). “Cognitive Flexibility and Hypertext: Theory and Technology for The Non-Linear and Multi-Dimensional Traversal of Complex Subject Matter”, dalam Nix,D &Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, Education, Multimedia: Exploring Ideas in High Technology, 163-205. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). “Cognitive Flexibility, Constructivism and Hypertext:Random Access Instruction for Advanced Knowledge Acquisitionin Ill-Structured Domains”. Tersedia: http://phoenix.sce.fct.unl.pt/simposio/Rand_Spiro.htm. [23 April 2012] Tobin, Kenneth G.; Capie, William (1981) The Development and Validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 (2), 413-423 Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Dijk,T. & Kintsch,M. (1984). Strategis of Discourse Comprehension.New York: Academic Press Van Driel, J. H.,& Verloop, N. (2002). “Experienced Teachers Knowledge of Teaching and Learning of Models and Modelling in Science Education”. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1255-1272. Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2005). “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes”, Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145: 339-370. Wenning, C. J. & Wenning, R. E. (2006). “A generic model for inquiry-oriented lab inpostsecondary introductory physics”. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online.3(3). 24-33. Available at: http://www.phy.ilstu. edu/jpteo Whitaker, R. J. (1983). “Aristotle is not dead: Student Understanding of Trajectory Motion”. American Journal of Physics, 51(4), 352-357. Widodo, W. (2010). Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran ‘MiKiR” pada Perkuliahan Fisika Dasar untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Generik Sains dan Pemecahan Mahasiswa Calon Guru SMK Program Keahlian Tata Boga. Disertasi pada SPs UPI. Tidak dipublikasikan.


176

Zohar, A.,& Nemet, F. (2002). “Fostering Students‟ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills through Dilemmas in Human Genetics”.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 689–725.


DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Beichner, R. J. (1996). Test of Understanding Graph of Kinematics version 2.6

Recommend Documents