You are on page 1of 5

R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M.

Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307


JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 tary school level until middle school level in the scientific experiment in science and humanities
9th grade. In the high school level, Indonesian majors.
students choose their primary preferences, eit- The experiment is an activity involving
Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia her science class, humanities (social science) human intervention to understand about nature
class, or language and literature, class. Biology, (Harré, 2002). The meaning of scientific expe- chemistry, and physics are taught as indepen- riment has been a debate for the various philo-
dent subjects in a science major. However, non- sopher of science. Giurgea & Georgescu (2012)
IndonesIAn HIgH scHool students’ PercePtIon of science students can choose one or two prefe- had explained the history of the experiment ac-
scIentIfIc exPerIment usIng network AnAlysIs: rable specialization science subjects during high cording to the philosophers Francis Bacon and
dIfferences between scIence And HumAnItIes grouP school level. It indicates that science learning René Descartes. Both philosophers revealed that
also taught in a non-science major in Indone- methodologies using the experiment as the cent-
sia based on a previous academic level (middle ral method for the scientific method are to ge-
school) or preferable specialization science sub- nerate a causal explanation of a natural pheno-
r. Q. Aini1, y. sya’bandari2, A. n. rusmana3, J. k. lee4, s. shin5, m. Ha*6 jects during high school level. In particular, this menon. Later on, the ”experimental method”
science learning is expected to develop students’ was developed further in the nineteenth-century
Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea
ability for scientific inquiry and apply it in the where the experiment intends to look for casual
Division of Science Education, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea
science classroom as well as real-world situation relations. According to Harré (2002), there are
Department of Biology Education, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
context. three different roles of experiment based on the
In the context of the learning approa- history of science. First, inductivism, a scientist,
doI: 10.15294/jpii.v8i3.18943 ch that suggested from Indonesian curriculum produces laws and theories based on inducti-
(K-2013), scientific approach in teaching and ve as a result of the experiment. For instance,
Accepted: April 5th, 2019. Approved: September 28th, 2019. Published: September 30th, 2019 learning process is preferred. This approach Newton used the inductivist theory by ‘making
encourages students to undergo the process of a conclusion based on experiments and observa-
AbstrAct observation, to ask questions, collect informati- tion by induction. ’
on, associate the information, and communicate Bacon’s result also proposed the induc-
Understanding what students know about the scientific experiment is essential for their metacognition and their the results. It is applied from elementary to high tivist theory, whose role of the experiment is to
understanding of scientific inquiry. A total of 425 Indonesian high school students participated in this study.
school level for all subjects. In this case, teachers discover natural events and arrive at scientist’s
Using an open-ended question, this study examined science and humanities group students’ perception of a sci-
entific experiment by their narrative explanations. Language network analysis method was used to measure and act as the facilitator to develop students’ scienti- law and theories. Second, fallibilism. This view
visualize their perception by examining the relationship between each word of response and its patterns underly- fic skills and promote scientific literacy through is introduced by K. R Popper where scientist
ing the network. After the process of network analysis, nodes “prove,” “observation,” “problem,” “hypothesis” a scientific approach. should think that experiment is a test to exa-
only found in science students group while nodes “new” “object” “try” “test” found in humanities students People might assume that scientific skill mine the hypothesis rather than to confirm the
group. These results also perceived that science students group considered scientific experiment as an inquiry is only preferred for science students as they hypothesis. The role of experiment result is to
process while humanities students were more likely into the discovery process. The results of this study could conduct the scientific experiment in the class- provide an unprovable assumption. Third, con-
support how scientific experiment as a learning activity was taken differently in science and humanities class in room. However, scientific skill is also required ventionalism. The role of the experiment is to
high school. for non-science majors for life skills. This is in illustrate a set of scientist idea and enable them
line with Turiman et al. (2012) who argued that to demonstrate their own theory. In this view,
© 2019 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang
in preparing students to have the 21st-century experiments do not provide data and facts for
Keywords: experiment, Semantic Network Analysis (SNA), scientific, students’ perception skill for their competitiveness in the globaliza- inducting laws or falsifying a hypothesis. For
tion era, science process skill as scientific skills example, William Prout and Berzelious as
needs to be fostered. It is very crucial to develop biochemist scientists illustrated this views in the
the scientific skill for students in all major. To history of chemistry, where their experiments
IntroductIon text. Generally, scientific literacy is intended for prepare efficient and meaningful learning pro- are not shown if laws were true or false, but their
all students, regardless of whether the students cess, the teacher would be better to know how different prescriptions by empirical test showed
Preparing students to be scientifically lite- will become a scientist or not, to use scientific students perceive the scientific approach itself. distinct conventions for the words used.
rate is the aim of education in several countries. concept and science knowledge for personal Scientific experiment as a method for the scien- Understanding scientific experiment for
For instance, knowing how knowledge justified decision making. Based on the Indonesian Mi- tific approach is also known as a process of jus- the students is necessary for metacognition in
in science is one of the goals in the K-12 science nistry of Education and Curriculum or K-2013 tifying scientific knowledge (Lee et al., 2015). students’ scientific inquiry and nature of scien-
curriculum in the United States (National Rese- (2016), sciences is a systematic effort to create, If students have a sufficient understanding of ce (Lee et al., 2015). Thus, according to Lehrer
arch Council [NRC], (1996). Scientific literacy build, and organize knowledge about natural scientific epistemology and how science is con- & Schauble (2015), the idea of the experiment
also has been the main focus on PISA assess- phenomena and to solve problem. Therefore, ducted, they can have a better rational decision from students is essential because it reflects
ment (Organisation for Economic Cooperation science subject has an essential role in preparing about scientific project and technology (Peters- their classroom activity and reasoning. The rea-
and Development [OECD], 2016) which aims students to be scientifically literate and their Burton & Baynard, 2013; Liu et al., 2011). The soning is an act of thinking; an inferring from
for all the students across majors to use scien- thinking process. term ‘scientific experiment’ is more familiar for statements during the process of knowledge ac-
tific knowledge in the real-world situation con- According to Indonesian 2013 curriculum students due to their science learning experien- quisition (Evans, 2013; Zeineddin, &Abd‐ El‐
(K-2013), science learning has been started in ces in the classroom; therefore, this study inten- Khalick, 2010). By knowing students idea of the
*correspondence Address
E-mail: science subject since the 4th grade of elemen- ded to explore students’ perception about the scientific experiment, the way the students think
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
300 301

form one idea to another idea will be revealed. semantic network analysis method. Another distributed using an online questionnaire form were examined separately between science and
Furthermore, the students’ perception of the study by Lee et al. (2015) had discovered Ko- to high school students. To prepare the data humanities group class, but the same program
scientific experiment will also unveil their pro- rean students’ perception of the meaning of ex- analysis, the student answers were translated setting was applied in both science class and hu-
cess of generating knowledge. periment in science and biology. Peters-Burton into English using google excel aided by Goog- manities class. After the data texted imported
According to DiSessa (2013), individu- & Baynard (2013) also examined that scientist, le Translate functions. To validate the answers, into the program, the 2-mode network of SNA
als’ knowledge consists of “pieces,” where their science teacher, and students believe in the three researchers validated and checked the from the responses was analyzed. Afterward, the
perception of a particular object has a network scientific enterprise using network analysis. The students’ answers manually. Due to the system structure of students’ recognition network was
based on the connection with other concepts. results showed that the network analysis method analysis, the meaningless answers meaning such confirmed through the number of nodes from
These pieces of knowledge will form a men- is useful for framing the group of people’s view as “experiment”, “ I do not know”, and answers the words, the number of links, the network den-
tal model or structure of knowledge. In other because of its function to visualize the connecti- similar to internet source were excluded. A typi- sity, the degree of centrality, and the degree of
words, students’ perceptions of the scientific ex- on of narrative statements. However, there is no cal answer from the internet was seen from the betweenness centrality. Thus, the data were also
periment are likely to form a connection between research about Indonesian students’ epistemolo- same words and sentences. From a total of 883 analyzed based on the feature of the connection
the various pieces of concept (Arma‐ an, 2017; gical understanding of the scientific experiment students’ participated in filling the online questi- within the network.
Lee et al., 2015). Examining language and vo- yet. onnaire, a total of 425 data were selected.
cabulary used will report their standard of thin- It is also essential for humanities students results And dIscussIon
king system and understanding of the scientific to know how scientific research is conducted. data Analysis
experiment. Moreover, the language network Kayes (2010) argued that social science courses In this study, the language network ana- The research results presented the stu-
analysis has been used in the field of education like sociology, anthropology, and social science lysis method used the NetMiner 4 program. dents’ perception of scientific experiment based
as a method for analyzing and visualizing stu- could use the scientific method as a basic stan- The NetMiner 4 is the software that can ana- on the main words recognized in each group.
dents’ perception structure (Bodin, 2012; Bruun dard. Jackson & Cox (2013) also discussed the lyze both qualitatively and quantitatively the Those words were chosen based on the frequen-
& Brewe, 2013; Oshima et al., 2012; Schizas et history of the experiment in social sciences and students’ perception of a scientific experiment. cy, in-degree centrality, and node betweenness.
al., 2013). supported the use of the experimental design The constructed-responses by the students were Afterward, the circle nodes that represent the
Semantic Network Analysis or SNA is in social sciences. Furthermore, all students in- identified and generated into the visualization words are visualized in the network maps. The
one of the methods to capture students’ per- clude in social sciences also need to have a deep in the form of network map using the software. formed network maps presented several groups
ception from textual statements and present the understanding of science, not only recognize Qualitatively, this software explored the frequen- of nodes based on its connection. As a result,
connection between statements (Lee et al., 2015; science vocabulary (Kayes, 2010). Therefore, this cy and weight of word that can be determined this study discussed the group of an idea about
Peters-Burton & Baynard, 2013). This network study intended to investigate how science and by the researchers until the data and sufficient scientific experiment found within the science
analysis works by processing network language humanities group of students perceive ”scienti- information resulted and formed the network and humanities students’ responses. The discus-
and providing group information functioning fic experiment” that represents their process of maps. Quantitatively, the output of data analysis sion is based on the highlighted nodes/words
as the direction of their interaction (Carolan, generating knowledge. The research output also produced a statistical number of word including appeared in each group.
2013). The implication of network analysis in can expand scientific experiment epistemology frequency, degree of centrality, and degree of
education is to support teachers and education in the Indonesian context. In other words, the betweenness centrality. Therefore, this software words used between science and Humanities
researcher for understanding students’ cogniti- research question of this study was: How are the is appropriate for the objectives of this study. students
ve structure as well as help investigate a latent differences between students in science and hu- After the data were translated and checked The number of links that come into a
aspect of the students’ learning (Schizas et al., manities group perceive the concept of scientific in English, the network analysis was performed. node is called in-degree (Bruun&Brewe, 2013).
2013). Therefore, this study used the language experiment? The structural characteristics of the network In this study, in-degree centrality and between-
network method to identify the core concept were computed based on the general matrix and ness centrality were used as indicators of the
vocabulary used in high school students toward metHods calculated by words according to the frequency network status. Fifteen words that represent
scientific experiments and to understand con- of occurrence at the same time in a single res- students’ peace of knowledge about the scienti-
texts of experimental cognitive structures. The data collection ponse (Lee & Ha, 2012). To have a sufficient fic experiment are presented, and the degree of
network analysis presents interconnectedness A total of 237 Indonesian high school stu- result, the “frequency 3” was chosen, and only centrality between science and humanities stu-
of students’ ideas of a scientific experiment in dents in science class group (134 first-year stu- words that appeared more than 3 times in the dents group were compared (Table 1).
nodes provided as this analysis’ strength (Peters- dents, 61 second-year students, and 42 third-year text data were included in the network. Moreo- The words “prove”, “observation”, “prob-
Burton &Baynard, 2013). Multiple lines arise students, comprising of 87 male and 150 female ver, the “weight 5” was chosen, and the relation lem”, “hypothesis” were found in the science
between connected nodes indicate the connec- students) and 188 high school students in hu- between each word was examined. The phrases group students. Meanwhile, in the humanities
tion of more than one idea (Peters-Burton & manities class group (126 first-year students, 40 which appeared more than 5 times were inclu- group students, the words “new”, “object”,
Baynard, 2013). Another advantage of using the second-year students, and 22 third-year students, ded in the network. Furthermore, the program “try”, and “test” were found (Table 1). On the
network analysis is the ability to know object comprising of 54 male and 134 female students) also analyzed full-text units (document). Due to other hand, several in-degree centralities in the
position and how it is embedded within the net- involved in this study. the repetition of questions which might affect humanities group were smaller than the scien-
work (Brewe et al., 2012; Van der Hulst, 2009). An open-ended question, “please explain the results, the phrase “scientific experiment” from ce group. Among these, the word frequently
The previous study by Park et al. (2014) the definition of scientific experiment” was used to the student responses was replaced into “scien- mentioned was “scientific” for both science and
examined Korean high school students and te- investigate high school students’ perception of tificexperiment” and inputted as an exceptional humanities group. The science students group
achers’ perception of the purpose of science a scientific experiment. The question was trans- list in the program. Thus, the word was not in- participating in the study explained the meaning
learning using open-ended questionnaires and lated into Indonesian language (Bahasa) and cluded in the data analysis. The analysis results of “scientific” 64 times, while the humanities
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
302 303

group explained the meaning of “scientific” 41 which means that the number of links received
times. The next second most mentioned in the from one word to another is higher. Based on
science group was “prove” while in humanities the results, the science students group used a wi-
group was “research”. The average centrality in- der variety of words in a sentence to explain the
dex of each words science students group than meaning of scientific experiment than the huma-
in was higher than humanities group students, nities students group (Table 1).
table 1. The Degree of Centrality Analysis between Science and Humanities Group
science group Humanities group
node node
In-degree degree
no words f betweenness no words f betweenness
centrality central-
centrality ity centrality

1 scientific 64 1.818 0.364 1 scientific 41 1.036 0.123

2 prove 39 1.000 0.128 2 research 31 1.071 0.062
3 conduct 37 0.705 0.155 3 new 27 0.929 0.273
figure 1. Nodes Network of Scientific Experiment in Science Students Group
4 observation 34 1.091 0.092 4 find 26 1.321 0.160
5 science 31 0.705 0.157 5 object 19 0.857 0.050 A1. Scientific Experiment by Hypothesis Testing by Popper. The Popper’s framework of ‘falsifica-
In the first group (Figure 1, Group A1), tion” remains to have critics and debate because
6 theory 30 1.227 0.139 6 theory 19 0.964 0.205
the word “hypothesis” only appeared in scien- of the inconsistent with the substantive aim of
7 find 29 0.432 0.064 7 science 18 0.393 0.040 ce students’ result. The experiment is a part of experimental science (Glass, 2010).
8 activity 24 0.318 0.062 8 try 17 0.250 0.009 the scientific method where the hypothesis is
9 problem 22 0.409 0.054 9 conduct 14 0.107 0.000 an essential feature in this scientific investiga- A2. Scientific Method by Observation Driven
tion (NRC, 2002). The experiment aims to test In the second group (Figure 1, Group
10 research 21 0.432 0.000 10 know 14 0.107 0.000
the hypothesis (Gooding, 2012; Gyllenpalm A2), the “phenomenon” node appeared inde-
11 series 18 0.750 0.000 11 activity 13 0.179 0.000 &Wickman, 2011; Steffe & Thompson, 2000). pendently and connected with “predict” and
12 use 17 0.500 0.024 12 series 13 0.214 0.000 By connecting the node of “hypothesis” with “explain.” Thus, based on this group, it was also
13 hypothesis 15 0.159 0.000 13 study 12 0.107 0.000 “prove” and “theory” (Figure 1, Group A1), it found the node “observation” in which did not
was shown in students’ perceptions that hypot- appear in the humanities student group (Table
14 new 15 0.364 0.049 14 test 12 0.107 0.000
hesis verification is one of the processes of a 2). The node “observation” was also connected
15 produce 15 0.636 0.039 15 thing 11 0.321 0.063 scientific experiment. The hypothesis is one of with “theory.” There was an overlapping idea
Information: the variations to lead the scientific investigation whether the observation was included as a scien-
F = Frequency (Wong & Hodson, 2009), which is the principal tific experiment or not, where in this group, both
science students group framework for scientific experiment. “Falsifiab- terms aim to predict and explain phenomena.
Table 2 shows the density value of the
Figure 1 shows the visualization of a le” hypothesis, according to Karl Popper (Elgin, Moreover, according to Bogen (2009) and Malik
overall connection between the participants.
scientific experiment by the connection of no- & Sober, 2017; Glass, 2010) and “testable” hy- (2017), to get scientific evidence and generate
High or network density indicates the high co-
des and its interaction in science students group. pothesis is the requirement in scientific research, data to explain phenomena, the scientist uses
herency in the language used (Drieger, 2013).
The connection of the network was based on the precisely in the experiment. observation and experiment as a scientific tool.
The humanities student group showed a more
connectivity degree centrality. The size of the Deductive reasoning works for the testab- Observation is used under the more natural con-
significant density (0.086) than science students
node was determined based on in-degree centra- le phenomena by validating the hypothesis co- dition to notice phenomena and get empirical
group (0.075), which suggested that the respon-
lity. Stand on the modularity, eight groups were ming from the initial assumption (NRC, 2002). evidence; also, has a role in theory testing (Bo-
se closely collaborated. However, the average
found in science students group (Figure 1) with Another scientific principle is “pose significant gen, 2009), which differs with an experiment un-
degree of density in science students group was
“scientific,” “prove,” “conduct” “observation” questions” (Glass, 2010; NRC, 2002) and by der some modified conditions to test the hypot-
higher (1.644) than humanities student group
and “theory” become the center of their expla- using hypothesis testing, the questions will dis- hesis. According to scientific principles by NRC
(1.207) which indicated that in the whole net-
nations. Five groups in science class were found cover the phenomena and fill the knowledge gap (2002), inferential reasoning also occurs in sci-
work, the potential connection of science group
connected each with the same nodes. Overall, in (Glass, 2010; NRC, 2002). Thus, the important nece based on “what is known and observed.” It
was higher than the humanities group.
the science group, the highest degree was found questions should be considered as “solid under- also showed that observation is one of the tools
table 2. Density in “scientific” “prove” “conduct” “observati- standing of the relevant theoretical, methodolo- of scientific research for inference. Even though
on” “science” words (Table 1). It indicated that gical and empirical work that has come before” using a different type of reasoning to find out
science Humanities
those words played a crucial role in recognizing (NRC, 2002)”. This is relevant to the results phenomena, both experiment and observation
Density: O(m) 0.075 0.086 scientific experiment in science students. The where the students expressed the words “acti- “provide an empirical base for theories is central
most interesting part that the words “prove,” vity”, “method,” “prove,” “hypothesis.” Even to all theories of scientific method” (Gooding,
Average Degree: though the word “prove” is more likely into a 2012). Therefore, the research results indicated
1.644 1.207 “observation,” “problem,” and “hypothesis”
O(m) process of verification than a falsification as a that science students could explain the role of
only appeared in science students’ network.
modern-day of hypothesis framework proposed observation as a scientific method.
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
304 305

A3. Experiment as an Inquiry Process ry is scientific discovery, which can be processes, is going on”. This group clearly showed that hu- students to use the problem-solving process for
The third group (Figure 1, Group A3) is things, or theories. In other words, according to manities students employed theory to produce, learning through the process of scientific inves-
about “investigate” “procedure” “case” and “con- the science student group result, this discovery explain, and predict some phenomena. Another tigations. Based on the results, science student
duct.” In other words, the perception of scientific process refers to the new invention as presented idea of humanities student group was isolated. group had perceived scientific experiment as an
experiments commonly presented in sciences stu- in the results. For example, in Figure 2, group B5 had nodes inquiry process to promote the current curricu-
dents as an inquiry activity to investigate some “laboratory” and “test.” A previous study by lum while humanities student group had more
case. As described previously, the results of de- A5. Experiment as Problem-Solving Gyllenpalm & Wickman (2011) suggested that novice ideas where the scientific experiment is
signing experiment and observation are the main The highlight point in the group is presen- rather than scientific inquiry, the term “experi- more likely to a process of finding new things as
phase in the science lesson for generating inqui- ting the nodes “problem,” “solve,” “analyze,” ment” also had the same meaning of “laboratory a discovery process.
ry skills (Palmer, 2009). According to Sadeh & “knowledge”. However, according to Bazerman task” by teachers and students and more into the Given the result that science students have
Zion (2009), there are two types of Inquiry. First, (1988) and Lehrer & Schauble (2015), experiment teaching method. more opportunity to experiences scientific experi-
structured inquiry where the teacher gives questi- is more than testing hypothesis but also reveals ment in the classroom than humanities students,
ons for students to investigate. Second, open in- nature. The aims of the experiment are also for B2 and B3: Scientific Method by Discovery Process the idea of a scientific experiment in students also
quiry where students determine the phenomena, finding new things and problem-solving (Goo- Due to the isolated groups in the humani- depends on how teacher take the experiment as
build questions, hypothesizing as well as plan ding, 2012). The previous study by Sandi-Urena ties student group, the discussion of two groups a learning activity. Moreover, hours of science
the experiment. In this open inquiry, the students et al. (2012) showed the improvement in students’ merged for the more meaningful discussion. The learning in the school and students’ engagement
determined the case by themselves. The open in- problem-solving skills as the effect of a laboratory second and third group emphasized that huma- with science also produced difference perception
quiry also demanded the students to investigate project in the implementation of the experiment. nities student group perception of the scientific of a scientific experiment. Further research by
the topic questions and find a solution by their This implicates that science students group had experiment were more into the scientific met- examining students’ attitude toward science for
chosen method. This open inquiry method reflects aware of other objectives in the scientific experi- hod activity by the connecting nodes “find” and both science and non-science major can be a sug-
the type of research and experimental work per- ment for problem-solving. “new” as well as “scientific” and “research”. The gestion to understand the latent variable of their
formed by scientists (Sadeh& Zion, 2009). finding of new thing is to present the discovery perception.
Humanities student group activity, which as described before. This scientific
A4. Experiment as a Discovery Process There are seven groups found based on the discovery as a scientific method to generate new conclusIon
The experiment is a process, where these modularity with “scientific”, “research”, “new”, knowledge was also used by natural and experi-
days “experiment” is a short of “controlled expe- and “research” as the center of students’ expla- mental philosophy such as Bacon, Descartes, and This study aimed to investigate Indonesian
riment” to understand the relationship between nations. According to the results, humanities stu- Newton. high school students’ perception of the scienti-
phenomena under some conditions (Gyllenpalm, dent group had a simpler network where three fic experiment using qualitative network analy-
&Wickman, 2011). The fourth group (Figure 1, groups were connected with the node “new” the differences between science and sis method. In particular, this study examined
group A4) is present the “find” “new” “thing” while four groups are isolated (Figure 2). Noted Humanities group the center words used around the concept of a
nodes. Another aim of the experiment, according that the based on the most frequent words (Table Although humanities student group also scientific experiment in the students’ cognitive
to Gooding (2012), is to find new things. This fin- 1) produced, the words “new”, “object”, “try”, used a scientific approach and experienced in structure between science and humanities group
ding new thing can also be called as the process and “test” only appeared in humanities student science learning through middle school level or students. The concept of a scientific experiment
of discovery. A success process of scientific inqui- group. preferable specialization science subjects in high perceived by science students group was more co-
school, this study showed significant difference herence, while humanities group of students was
on how they perceived scientific experiment com- more isolated. As a result, the science students
paring with the science student group. Besides, group understood scientific experiment as more
the frequency of words was found in both groups, into inquiry activity and centered on “scienti-
and the students’ reasoning skills were also noti- fic” “prove” “theory” and “science.” With eight
ced based on several nodes provided. The speci- groups of the network, science student group had
fic perception of scientific experiment formed by nodes “prove” “observation” “problem” “hypot-
science students consisted of both deductive rea- hesis” which did not appear in humanities stu-
soning and inductive reasoning, where they had dents group. The results showed how the students
nodes “observations” that connected with “the- perceived scientific experiment and revealed that
ory” and the appearance of nodes “hypothesis” science students group had both deductive-rea-
that connected with “prove”. This is in line with soning and inductive-reasoning as a process of
Steffe & Thompson (2000) who argued that the scientific investigations. Moreover, science stu-
aim of the teaching experiment method in the dents also had a more sophisticated perception of
classroom is to encourage students’ reasoning. scientific experiment as they included problem-
Furthermore, science students’ perception of solving and investigation in their explanations. In
scientific experiments was presented as an inqui- the case of humanities group, their perception of
figure 2. Nodes Network of Scientific Experiment in Humanities Student Group ry activity to investigate some case as well. In the scientific experiment centered on nodes “scienti-
B1: Experiment by Theory-Driven and Laboratory menon”, “predict”, “explain”, “theory”, “accu- current Indonesian curriculum (K-2013), science fic” “research” “new” and “find”, where accor-
Task mulation”, and “produce”. Referring to Gooding inquiry as direct experience cannot be outcast in ding to the network, only the node “new” was
The first group of humanities group sho- (2012), experiment also reflects and comprises science learning (Hairida, 2016). According to connected in three groups. Humanities students
wed the connection between the nodes “pheno- “an accumulation of understanding about what Longo (2011), an inquiry program is made for comprehended scientific experiment in more no-
R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307 R. Q. Aini, Y. Sya’bandari, A. N. Rusmana, J. K. Lee, S. Shin, M. Ha/ JPII 8 (3) (2019) 298-307
306 307

vices where the core of the experiment was fin- Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020109. Students’ Scientific Epistemological Views and Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network
ding new things. They did not discern the deeper Carolan, B. V. (2013). Social Network Analysis and Educa- Thinking Patterns in Socioscientific Decision Analysis of Beliefs about the Scientific En-
meaning of scientific experiment as a scientific tion: Theory, Methods & Applications. Sage Publi- Making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. terprise: A Comparison of Scientists, Middle
method as well as the nature of science. cations. Longo, C. M. (2011). Designing Inquiry-Oriented School Science Teachers and Eighth-Grade
diSessa, A. (2013). A Bird’s-Eye View of the “Pieces” Science Lab Activities: Teachers Can Create Science Students. International Journal of Science
In general, this result of the study can sup-
vs “Coherence” Controversy. Vosniadou, S. In- Inquiry-Oriented Science Lab Activities that Education, 35(16), 2801-2837.
port how scientific experiment as learning activi- ternational Handbook on Conceptual Change, 31- Make Real-World Connections. Middle School Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2009). The Development of Dy-
ty is taken differently by science and humanities 49. Journal, 43(1), 6-15. namic Inquiry Performances within an Open
students in Indonesian high school. The students’ Drieger, P. (2013). Semantic Network Analysis as a Malik, S. (2017). Observation Versus Experiment: An Inquiry Setting: A Comparison to Guided
perception can be different based on the gained Method for Visual Text Analytics. Procedia-so- Adequate Framework for Analysing Scientific Inquiry Setting. Journal of Research in Science
knowledge and environmental support. This stu- cial and Behavioral Sciences, 79, 4-17. Experimentation?. Journal for General Philosophy Teaching, 46(10), 1137-1160.
dy also showed the students’ engagement with Elgin, M., & Sober, E. (2017). Popper’s Shifting Ap- of Science, 48(1), 71-95. Sandi-Urena, S., Cooper, M., & Stevens, R. (2012).
the activity. Since humanities students can also praisal of Evolutionary Theory. HOPOS: The Keyes, G. (2010). Teaching the Scientific Method in Effect of Cooperative Problem-Based Lab In-
take science subject, by comparing science and Journal of the International Society for the History the Social Sciences. Journal of Effective Teaching, struction on Metacognition and Problem-Solv-
of Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 31-55. 10(2), 18-28. ing Skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6),
humanities students’ perception about the scien-
Evans, J. S. B. (2013). The Psychology of Deductive Rea- Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). 700-706.
tific experiment, the teacher can prepare the ef- soning (Psychology revivals). New York: Psychol- Silabus Mata Pelajaran IPA: Sekolah Menengah Schizas, D., Katrana, E., & Stamou, G. (2013). Intro-
fective teaching and learning method for both ogy Press. Pertama (Science Subject Syllabus: Junior High ducing Network Analysis Into Science Educa-
groups. Moreover, this could become evidence Giurgea, M., & Georgescu, L. (2012). Redefining the School). Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian Pen- tion: Methodological Research Examining Sec-
for developing experimental teaching method in Role of Experiment in Bacon’s Natural His- didikan dan Kebudayaan. ondary School Students’ Understanding of ”
the classroom to more emphasize scientific expe- tory: How Baconian was Descartes Before National Research Council (1996). National Science Decomposition”. International Journal of Envi-
riment so that the students have more scientific Emerging from his Cocoon?. Early Science and Education Standards.Washington, DC: National ronmental and Science Education, 8(1), 175-198.
thinking through science. Medicine, 17(1-2), 158-180. Academies Press. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching ex-
This study showed that the network ana- Glass, D. J. (2010). A Critique of the Hypothesis, and National Research Council. (2002). Scientific Research periment Methodology: Underlying Principles
a Defense of the Question, as a Framework in Education. Washington, DC: National Acad- and Essential Elements. Handbook of Research
lysis method had expertly gathered the students’
for Experimentation. Clinical Chemistry, 56(7), emies Press. Design in Mathematics and Science Education,
pieces of knowledge and the idea of a scientific 1080-1085. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel- 267-306.
experiment. Besides, this method is useful for Gooding, D. C. (2012). Experiment and the Making of opment [OECD]. 2016. PISA 2015 Results (Vol- Turiman, P., Omar, J., Daud, A. M., & Osman, K.
assessment tools as well as the implication of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation ume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, (2012). Fostering the 21st Century Skills
teaching and learning. The results could be the and Experiment (Vol. 5). Springer Science & OECD Publishing, Paris. through Scientific Literacy And Science Pro-
evidence for developing teaching method which Business Media. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., & Matsuzawa, Y. (2012). cess Skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci-
emphasize more on scientific experiment to en- Gyllenpalm, J., & Wickman, P. O. (2011).“Experi- Knowledge Building Discourse Explorer: A So- ences, 59, 110-116.
courage the students’ scientific thinking. ments” and the Inquiry Emphasis Conflation cial Network Analysis Application for Knowl- Van der Hulst, R. C. (2009). Introduction to Social
in Science Teacher Education. Science Educa- edge Building Discourse. Educational Technology Network Analysis (SNA) as an Investigative
tion, 95(5), 908-926. Research and Development, 60(5), 903-921. Tool. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 101-121.
Hairida, H. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Inquiry- Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student Interest Generated Dur- Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the Horse’s
Based Natural Science Module with Authentic ing an Inquiry Skills Lesson. Journal of Research Mouth: What Scientists Say about Scientific
Armağan, F. Ö. (2017). Cognitive Structures of Ele- Assessment to Improve the Critical Think- in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147-165. Investigation and Scientific Knowledge. Science
mentary School Students: What is Science?. Eu- ing and Inquiry Skills of Junior High School Park, K. J., Chung, D. H., Ha, M., & Lee, J. K. (2014). Education, 93(1), 109-130.
ropean Journal of Physics Education, 6(2), 54-73. Students. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(2), High School Teachers’ and Students’ Percep- Zeineddin, A., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: the 209-215. tions on the Purpose of Science Learning Reasoning and Epistemological Commitments:
Genre and Activity of. Communication in linguis-
Harré, R. (2002). Great Scientific Experiments: Twenty Based on the Semantic Network Analysis. Jour- Coordination of Theory and Evidence among
tics-* t. Experiments that Changed Our View of the World. nal of the Korean Association for Science Educa- College Science Students. Journal of Research in
Bodin, M. (2012). Mapping University Students’ Epis- Courier Corporation. tion, 34(6), 571-581. Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064-1093.
temic Framing of Computational Physics Us- Jackson, M., & Cox, D. R. (2013). The Principles of
ing Network Analysis. Physical Review Special Experimental Design and their Application in
Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010115. Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 27-49.
Bogen, J. (2009). Theory and Observation in Science. Lee, J. K., & Ha, M. (2012). Semantic Network Analy-
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. sis of Science Gifted Middle School Students’
Retrieved from Understanding of Fact, Hypothesis, Theory,
archives/sum2017/entries/science-theory-ob- Law, and Scientificness. Journal of the Korean
servation/ Association for Science Education, 32(5), 823-840.
Brewe, E., Kramer, L., & Sawtelle, V. (2012). Inves-
Lee, JK & Shin, S. & Ha, M. (2015). Comparing the
tigating Student Communities with Network
Structure of Secondary School Students’ Per-
Analysis of Interactions in a Physics Learn- ception of the Meaning of ‘Experiment’ in Sci-
ing Center. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics ence And Biology. Journal of the Korean Associa-
Education Research, 8(1), 010101.
tion for Science Education. 35. 997-1006.
Bruun, J., & Brewe, E. (2013). Talking and Learning
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). The Development
physics: Predicting Future Grades from Net- of Scientific Thinking. Handbook of Child Psy-
work Measures and Force Concept Inventory chology and Developmental Science, 1-44.
Pretest Scores. Physical Review Special Topics- Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College