Aikenhead, G. (2001).

Integrating western and aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science

teaching. Research in Science Teaching, 31, 337–355.
Aikenhead, G., & Olugbemiro, J. (1999). Transcending cultural borders: Implications for science
teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17, 45–66.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2007). Atlas of science literacy.
Washington, DC: AAAS.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson & Krathwol. (2001): A Revision Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell Publishers.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation:
Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science
Education, 94(5), 765–793. doi:10.1002/sce.20402
Bloom, B. S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational
Goals, Handbook I Cognitive Domain, 1956.
Boujaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of
Lebanon. International Journal Science Education, 24(2), 139-156.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Costu, B. (2008). Learning Science Through the PDEODE Teaching Strategy: Helping Students
Make Senseof Everyday Situations. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology
Education,4(1):3-9.
Costu, B., Ayas, A.,& Niaz, M. (2012). Investigating the Effectiveness of A POE-Based Teaching
Activityon Students’ Understanding of Condensation. Instructional Science, 40(1):47-67.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy
for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of
Science Education, 30(6), 837–861. doi:10.1080/09500690701411567
Diehl, C. L. (2000). Reasoner’s workbench” program supports students’ individual and
collaborative argumentation. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April 1–5.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young People's Images of Science.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation
in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-
237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. E. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school:
Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., &Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A
re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.
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. doi:10.1002/sce.20012
Forman, E. A. (1992). Discourse, intersubjectivity and the development of peer collaboration: A
Vygotskian approach. In L. T.Winegar&J.Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within
social contexts: Metatheoretical, theoretical and methodological issues Vol. 1, pp. 143–
159).
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-
Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data For Introductory Physics Courses. American journal
of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
Hazen, R. (2002). Why Should You Be Scientifically Literate? Retrieved September 30, 2015 from
http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hazen.html.
Heong, dkk. (2011). The Level of Marzano Higher Order Thinking Skills among Technical
Education Students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(2).
Indrawati M D & Sunarti T. (2018). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Literasi Sains Fisika
Peserta Didik Pada Bahasan Gelombang Bunyi Di SMA Negeri 1 Gedangan Sidoarjo. Jurnal
inovasi pendidikan fisika (7) 1 14-20
Jim´enez-Aleixandre, M., Rodr´ıguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing
science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (1997). “Doing the lesson”
or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kala, N., Yaman, F.,& Ayaz, A. (2012). The Effectiveness of Predict–Observe–Explain Technique
in ProbingStudents’ Understanding About Acid– Base Chemistry: A Case for The Concepts
of Ph, Poh, andStrength. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
11(3): 555- 574.
Karamustafaoglu, S., & Naaman, R. M. (2015). Understanding Electrochemistry Concepts Using
the Predict Observe-Explain Strategy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science &
Technology Education, 427-453.
Kearney. M, Treagust. D. F, Yeo. S and Zadnik. M. G. (2001) Student and teacher perceptions of
the use of multimedia supported predict–observe–explain tasks to probe understanding Res.
Sci. Ed. 31 589–615
Kearney M. (2004). Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks in
a Social Constructivist Learning Environment. Research in Science Education (34) 427-453
Kelly, G. J., & Brown, C. M. (2003). Communicative demands of learning science through
technological design: Third grade students’ construction of solar energy devices. Linguistics
& Education, 13, 483– 532.
Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university
oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342.
Kibirige, I., Osodo, J.,& Tlala, K. M. 2014.The Effect of Predict-Observe-Explain Strategy on
Learners’ Misconceptions about Dissolved Salts.Mediterranean Journal of Social Scienc-
es,5(4): 300-310.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215–228.
Kjaernsli, M & Lie, S. (2004). PISA and scientific literacy : similarities and differences between
the nordic countries. Scandinavian journal of educational research
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on
solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science education, 84(1), 71-
94.
Lawson, A. E. (2002). Science teaching and development of thinking. Wadsworth/Thomson
Liew, C W., Treagust, D F. (1998). The effectiveness of predict-observe-explain tasks in diagnosis
students’ understanding of science and in identifying their levels of achievement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, ERIC
Mancuso, V. J. (2010). Using discrepant events in science demonstrations to promote student
engagement in scientific investigations: an action research study. (Disertation). Warner
School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, New York.
Marks, J. B. (2014). The Predict-Observe-Explain technique as a tool for students' understanding
of electric circuits. [online] diakses dari
https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/23758
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a
scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education,
28 (13), 1499- 1521.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science,
7(3), 203– 223.
Munkham, S. (2008). Strategies for teaching analytical thinking. 4th ed. Bangkok : print
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Nurjanah A. (2011). Penerapan model pembelajaran predict-observe-explain (POE) untuk
meningkatkan pemahaman konsep tekanan dan keterampilan berpikir kreatif siswa MTs.
Tesis program studi pendidikan fisika pasca sarjana universitas pendidikan Indonesia.
Bandung : tidak diterbitkan
OECD. (2012b). PISA 2012 Technical Report. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
OECD. 2000. Measuring Student Knowledge And Skills : The PISA 2000 Assessment of
Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy
OECD. 2003. The PISA 2003 asseement framework-mathematics, reading, science and problem
solving knowledge and skills
OECD. 2006. Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA
2006
OECD. 2009. PISA 2009 assessment framework: key competencies in reading, mathematics and
science
OECD. 2012. PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading,
Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy
OECD. 2018. PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1200 New York Avenue,
Washington, DC 20005.
Palmer, D. (1996). Assesing Students Using The POE. Australian Primary & Junior Science
Journal. 12/3.
Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics.
Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395.
Radovanovic, J.,& Slisko, J. (2013). Applying A Predict- Observe-Explain Sequence in Teaching
of BouyantForce. Physics Education, 48(1): 28-34.
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2001). Defining and selecting key competencies. Hogrefe
& Huber Publishers.
Samudera, .V. M., Rokhmat J., Wahyudi. (2017). Pengaruh model pembelajaran Predict-Observe-
Explain terhadap hasil belajar fisika siswa ditinjau dari sikap ilmiah. Jurnal pendidikan fisika
dan teknologi, 3 (1)
Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation?. Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–
176.
Spaul, N. (2018). Who makes it into PISA? Understanding the impact of PISA sample eligibility
using turkey as a case study (PISA 2003–Pisa 2012). Assessment in education: principles,
policy & practice.
Stella, C. (2003). The Study Skills Handbook 2nd Edn. Palgrave-Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of
Psychology, 39(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139
Tsai, W. (2005). Effect of constructivist-oriented on elementary school student “cognitive
structures. Journal of Biological Education 39 3 pp 113-119
Usman, M U & Setiawati L. (1993). Upaya optimalisasi kegiatan belajar mengajar. Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London and New York: The Falmer
Press.
Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K.,& Shavelson, R. J. 2008. Diagnosing and Dealing withStudent Misconcep-
tions: Floating and Sinking. Science Scope, 31(8): 34-39.
Yip, D. Y. (1998). Teachers’ misconceptions of the circulatory system. Journal of Biological
Education, 32(3), 207-216.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through
dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35 – 62.