Running head: THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 1

The Effect of Scientific Approaches and Cognitive Style on Learning Outcomes

Hartati Muchtar

State University of Jakarta

Zulrahmat Togala

Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 1 Kendari

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Hartati Muchtar, Depatement of

Educational Technology, State University of Jakarta, Rawamangun, Jakarta 13220 Indonesia.

Zulrahmat Togala, MAN 1 Kendari (Senior High School), Jl. Pasaeno No. 3 Kendari, Kendari

93117 Indonesia.

Contact: Hartati Muchtar: hartatimuchtartp@gmail.com. Zulrahmat Togala:

zultogalatp12@gmail.com.
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 2

Abstract

This study aimed at determining the effect of learning approach and thinking style towards the

learning outcomes of electronics skills by controlling prior knowledge. There were 36 students

choosen as participants of this study and they were divided into two treatment classes. The

results analyzed using Analysis of Covariat (ANCOVA) showed: (1) the use of scientific

approach enables students to get a better improvement for their electronics learning achievement

than the use of expository approach; (2) there is an interconnection effect between learning

approach and students thinking style towards the learning outcomes they achieved for the

electronics skill subject, by controlling students prior knowledge; (3) students whose more

divergent thinking style are better taught using scientific approach by controlling prior

knowledge; (4) the expository learning approach is more effective for students whose convergent

thinking styles by controlling prior knowledge.

Keywords: scientific approach, expository approach, divergent/convergent thinking, prior

knowledge
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 3

The Effect of Scientific Approaches and

Cognitive Style on Learning Outcomes

Survey of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) under the

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its findings in

December 2013 that Indonesia was ranked bottom of 65 countries surveyed in mapping

capabilities math, reading, and science. While the Human Development Index (HDI) Indonesia

in 2013 is ranked 121 of 187 countries in the world. This fact shows that the implementation of

education in Indonesia generally and particularly the implementation process of learning requires

serious attention and effort in order to solve this problem.

The success of education is determined by various factors such as curriculum, teacher,

student, learning, administration, learning tools, management system. Among those factors, the

learning process and students individual differences are regarded more important than others.

The learning process in this case refers to scientific and expository approaches. In terms of

characteristic of individual differences of students, two issues are considered essential to be

analyzed, cognitive style (divergent and convergent) and students prior knowledge.

Literature Review

Teaching and Learning

According to Gagne (1977: 3) learning is a change in human disposition or capability,

which persists over a period of time, and which is not simpliy ascribable to processes of growth,

Driscoll (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012: 36); Smaldino, Lowther, and Russel (2011: 13) the

consequences of changes in the ability that comes from experience and interaction with the

world. Richey, Klein, and Tracey (2011: 61); Schunk (2012: 39); Sims and Sims (2009: 2)
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 4

learning is defined as a relatively permanent change in an attitude or behavior that occurs as a

result of repeated experience.

Based on the description above, I may conclude that the essential meanings of learning

are: (1) learning is a consequence of changes that is caused by the ability resulted from student's

experience and interaction; (2) learning should be long lasting and can be applied any time,

anywhere and in any contexts; and (3) the acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes can be

measured to ensure the changes.

The competent teachers should be able to assess the learning outcomes and adapt the

learning objectives appropriately as the implementation of the assessments results (Santrock,

2007: 638). According to Slavin (2011: 255) learning objectives are statements about the ability

or concept that is expected to be mastered by the learner at the end of the learning period.

Bloom et al. (1979: 7) classify learning outcomes into three domainds: (1) cognitive; (C2)

psychomotor; and (3) affective. Which aspects to measure is depended on the purposes of the

assessment of the learning. Further, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001: 31) revise the proposed

taxonomy of Blooms cognitive domains refers to: remember, understand, apply, analyze,

evaluate, and create. Aronson and Briggs (Reigeluth, 1983: 98) describes that the learning

outcomes is the performance that can be observed and which indicates that certain capability has

been acquired by the learner.

Instructional objectives according to Gronlund (Woolflok, 2007: 479) refers to

performance; while Gagne (Gredler, 2011: 180-181) assumes it as the capabilities owned by the

learners after the learning process; Briggs (1979: 149) refers the instructional objectives to a

whole skill and everything that is acquired through the process of teaching and learning in

schools, expressed numerically, and measured by an achievement test.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 5

Scientific approach

Scientific knowledge must be based on the observation and experimental data, it means

that the explanation of the phenomena occured must be proved by empirical data (Bybee, 2006:

2-3). The fundamental characteristic of the scientific method is that an observation, collection of

data to establish the basic conclusions about the nature of the data being observed (Cozby, 2003:

5). Abruscato and De Rosa (2010: 11) argues that knowledge refers to a process of

systematically collecting information using the scientific process to gather knowledge. Kerlinger

(1986: 37) defines the scientific approach as a systematic investigation, controlled, empirical, ...

guided by theories and hypotheses about the relationship between phenomena.

Acquiring knowledge must be built through the experience of life, especially through

participation and interaction with others in meaningful activities. Teachers need to engage

students in learning activities in which they are actually doing by themseves with some

experiences the teacher has created. (Yerrick and Roth, 2005: 126-127)

This opinion is supported by Dewantara who states that "... the teacher's task is not only

providing necessary knowledge and punishment but also learners must find it for themselves and

then use it for public use"; and Mohammad Syafei "... the process of learning must be changed

where students occupy their position as subjects. Teachers assign students to examine what the

crux of the problem. "(Tilaar, 2015: 145-146).

Suchman (Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun, 2009: 213-214) suggests that learning through

scientific inquiry can deliver the students the habit of doing strategies, values, attitudes and skills

such as observing, collecting and processing data, identify and control variables, formulate and

test hypotheses, and draw conclusions.

Expository Approach
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 6

Expository approach is identical with direct instruction (Killen, 2009: 116-117).

Expository teaching is a way that teacher is explaining a new concept or skill to students (Joyce,

Weil, and Calhoun, 2009: 369). Furthermore, according to Diaz, Pelletier, and Profenzo (2006:

306); Orlich et al. (2010: 34-35) expository approach is a form of learning in which teacher

delivers learning material directly to students by emphasizing on the mastery of knowledge and

skills.

Cognitive Style

By multiple ways, it is possible to characterize types of learning and types of learners. In

terms of learner style, one way to differentiate learners as the implication result of an

instructional design is based on their learning style (Spector, 2012: 100). Cognitive style

identifies the ways individuals react to different situations. It is one way to characterize

individual differences (Saracho, 1977: 3). Cognitive styles are individual differences in

organizing, managing information and solving problems (Sternberg, 1997: 134); (Li and

Sternberg, 2006: 99); (Riding and Rayner, 2012: 15); (Chang, Weng and Zakharova,

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/10732). Cognitive styles are

individual characteristics in perceiving, remembering, thinking, and reflecting assessment of the

regularity of information processed (Messick, 1996: 9).

Divergen and Convergent Thinking

Guilford (See De Cecco, 1968: 455); Badgett and Christmann (1981: 81) suggests that

divergent thinking is the ability to provide a variety of responses to a given problem, while

convergent thinking is the ability to produce one correct answer. Kolb state that individuals

whose divergent thinking styles has two tendencies in the way they think, they would rather

engage in a new experience (concrete experience), observe and reflect on their experiences from
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 7

different aspects (reflection observation). While individual convergers have the ability to create

any concepts that integrate observations into sound theory (abstract conceptualization) and use

the concepts to solve problems (active experimentation) (Reid, 1995: 56-58). Divergent thinking

has four dimensions: fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration (Eggen and Kauchak, 2007:

150); (Cohean and Swerdlik, 2010: 342); (Kauffman, Plucker and Baer, 2008: 18). The fourth

dimension is used by researchers to make research instruments.

Prior Knowledge

Judging from the context of educational technology, there are several important steps

which must be done by a teacher before planning his learning process, one of which is to conduct

an analysis on the students. According to Keller (2010: 70), two major products are expected

from the stage of Identifying Entry Behaviors and Characteristics. One is a set of identified

entry behaviors or skills that should have already been mastered by the target audience before

beginning the instruction. The other one is the characteristics of students prior knowledge. Prior

knowledge has some difinitions, it is entry skills (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2009: 93), entry

competencies (Morrison et al., 2007: 56), and prerequesite skill (Richey, 2013: 243). Eventhough

the definitions look different, they are basically refers to the students prior knowledge that

should be owned or known before starting a new learning process.

Research Questions

This study aims at answering the problems of the effect of learning approach and thinking

styles divergent and convergent- towards the learning outcomes, by controlling the students

prior knowledge. The problem statements are: (1) whether there are differences in the results of

students learning achievement for electronics subject between the instruction using scientific

and expository approach by controlling prior knowledge; (2) whether there is difference in the
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 8

student learning outcomes between they whose divergent and convergent thinking style by

controlling prior knowledge; (3) whether there is an interaction effect between cognitive style

and learning approach in the students learning outcomes after controlling prior knowledge; (4)

whether there are differences in the learning outcomes between the use of expository approach

and scientific one toward the students whose divergent thinking style, after controlling prior

knowledge; (5) whether there are differences in the students learning achievement for

electronics subject taught by expository and scientific approach on the students with convergent

thinking style, after controlling their prior knowledge; (6) whether there are different learning

outcomes between divergent style students and the convergent one taught by scientific approach,

after controlling prior knowledge; and (7) whether there are different learning outcomes gained

between students with divergent thinking style and they whose convergent one taught by

expository approach, after controlling prior knowledge.

Method

This study uses a quasi-experimental method with 2 x 2 factorial designs. The research

variables consist of: (1) the dependent variable which belongs to the students learning outcomes

for electronic subject; (2) the independent variable that belongs to the treatment variables

(scientific approach and expository approach) and attribute variables (divergent and convergent

thinking styles); and (3) the covariate variable which belongs to the students prior knowledge.

The target population of this research is all students of MAN Model Kendari that consist of 860

students. It was decided that samples of this study were the 11th year students classified into an

experimental and control class by random sampling. The number of each experimental and

control class are 32 students. The students whose divergent and convergent thinking styles in

each treatment class were measured by using verbal and figural test instruments developed by
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 9

Guilford and Torrance. The indicators of the test are: fluency, flexibility, originality and

elaboration. The verbal and figural testing scores show that the number of divergent and

convergent thinker is 36 students.

Hypothesis test is done by two-way Ancova with 2x2 factorial designs (Kadir, 2015: 431-

437) and post hoc is done by Tukey's test (Glass and Hopkins, 1984: 371). The requirement

analysis which consists of: (1) normality; (2) homogeneity (Kadir, 2015: 146-147, 160-162); (3)

a regression linearity test (Sudjana, 2005: 330-337); (4) The significance test of regression effect;

and (5) homogentity slopes (Agung, 2006: 284) was done before testing the hypothesis.

Result

The calculation results of Ancova presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of hypothesis testing with Ancova

JK RJK
Variance Db Fo F-table
y res y res
A 61.52 1 61.52 5.50** 4.15
B 30.33 1 30.33 2.71ts 4.15
Interraction
95.61 1 95.61 8.55** 4.15
AxB
Prior
986.55 1 986.55 88.26 4.15
Knowledge
Res 346.49 31 11.17
Total 533.96 34

The hypothesis test shows the interaction between learning approaches and thinking style,

then post hoc is done by Tukey test. The Tukey test result is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of Tukey test

testing Qo Qt Conclutions
Q(A1B1)(A2B1) 5,30 4,41 Significant
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 10

Non-
Q(A1B2)(A2B2) 0,61 4,41
susgnificant
Non-
Q(A1B1)(A1B2) 1,20 4,41
susgnificant
Q(A2B1)(A2B2) 4,71 4,41 Significant

Table 3.

Calculation of average residue

No. Group (res)

1 A1 77,07 77,18
2 A2 74,71 74,57
3 B1 76,83 74,82
4 B2 74,94 76,93
5 A1B1 80,48 77,86
6 A1B2 73,65 76,52
7 A2B1 73,22 71,95
8 A2B2 76,19 77,20

Differences in students Electronics achievement are shown after they were taught using

scientific and expository approach by controlling prior knowledge. (Main effect)

Based on the Ancova calculation (Table 1) the variance between A source indicates that

the price of Fo= 5.50 > Ft= 4.15 (= 0.05), Ho is refused and H1 is accepted. It means that there is

a difference in students learning achievement for Electronics subjects after the teaching using

scientific and expository approach. The evidence shown by the average result of group of

students who are taught by the scientific approach= 77.07 and a group of students who are taught

by expository approach= 74.71; Thus, the students learning outcomes who are taught by the

scientific approach is higher than they who are taught by the expository one by controlling their

prior knowledge.
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 11

Differences in students Electronics achievement are shown between the students whose

divergent and convergent thinking style by controlling their prior knowledge. (Main effect)

Based on the Ancova calculation (Table 1) on the source of variance between B shows

that Fo= 2.71 < Ft= 4.15 (= 0.05), Ho is refused and H1 is accepted. It means that there is no

difference in the students electronics outcomes between they who have the divergent and

convergent thinking styles. On the other hand, the acquisition value of the group of students with

divergent thinking styles have an average= 76.83. It is greater than the acquisition value of the

group of students who have convergent thinking style of mean= 74.29. The data show that

although the average value of students learning outcomes for the divergent thinkers are higher

than the average value of students learning outcomes for the convergent thinkers, the difference

is not significant.

The interaction between instructional approach and students thinking style towards the

learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects are shown after controlling students prior

knowledge. (Interraction effect)

Based on the calculations of ANCOVA (Table 2) on the source of variance due to

interaction of A x B shows that the Fo= 8.55 > Ft= 4.15 at = 0.05, Ho is refused and H1 are

accepted. This means that the learning approach has an influence on the learning outcomes for

Electronics skill subjects depending on the style of thinking, after controlling for prior

knowledge.

The differences between the learning outcomes for Electronics skills subjects of students

who are taught by scientific approach and they who are taught by the expository one on the

divergent thinker style after controlling for prior knowledge. (Simple effect)
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 12

The results of a further test by Tukey's test in Table 2 shows that the value of Qtest= 5.30

> Qtable= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is refused and H1 are accepted, based on the test results on average

residue (Table 3) obtained value= 77, 86 > 71.95. Thereby, the learning outcomes for Electronics

skills subjects that the students are gained by the use of scientific approach is higher than the

student learning outcomes by the use of expository approach on the divergent students after

controlling their prior knowledge.

Differences in the learning achievement for the Electronics subjects of students taught by

the use of scientific approach and expository one on the convergent students are shown by

controlling the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)

Based on the results of a further test by Tukey's test in Table 2, it is obtained that the

value of Qtest= 0.61 < Qtabel= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is accepted and H1 are refused. So, there was no

significant difference in the students learning outcomes of the Electronic subjects on students

who were taught by scientific approach and by expository one on the convergent students by

controlling the prior knowledge. On the other hand, though the average test results residues

(Table 3) obtained by the value= 76.52 < 77.20, statistically the difference was not significant. It

can be concluded that there is no differences in students learning achievement for the Electronic

skill subjects by the use of scientific and expository approach on the students who have a

tendency to convergent thinking style after controlling their prior knowledge.

Differences are in the students Electronics achievement for they whose thinking style

tends to be divergent and convergent by the use of scientific teaching approach after controlling

the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)

The further test results by Tukey's test in Table 2 obtained the value of Qtest= 1.20 <

Qtable= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is accepted and H1 is refused, thus no significant difference in the
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 13

Electronics skills subjects of divergent and convergent students are found if they are taught by

the scientific approach after controlling the prior knowledge. In the other words, though the

average test results residues (Table 3) obtained by the value 77.86 > 76.52, but statistically, the

difference was not significant. Further, the Electronics learning achievements of students whose

thinking style tends to be divergent or convergent has no different if being taught by the

scientific approach.

Differences are shown in the students learning outcomes for the Electronics subjects of

students who have divergent and convergent thinking style taught by expository approach after

controlling the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)

A further test results by Tukey's test in Table 2 shows the value of Qtest= 4.71 > Qtable=

4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is refused and H1 is accepted. Based on the test results of the average residue

(Table 3) obtained by the value= 71.95 < 77.20. Thereby, the learning outcomes for Electronic

skill subjects the divergent students have been achieved are lower than the students whose

convergent thinking style when expository teaching approach is used by controlling the students

prior knowledge.

Discussion

The first hypothesis testing results show that the learning outcomes for Electronic skill

subjects the students have achieved are higher if they are taught by scientific approach than the

achievement gained by the group of students who are taught by expository one after controlling

their prior knowledge. Thus, it can be inferred from this research that the use of scientific

approach in the Electronic skill instruction can improve students learning outcomes better than

the use of expository approach. This finding supports the research hypothesis stating that the
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 14

learning outcomes of students who are taught by the scientific approach is better than students

taught by expository one.

Proving the hypothesis based on empirical studies conducted by the researchers of this

study is supported by theories and concepts from many experts, such as, Suchman state that

learning through scientific inquiry enables student to gain habit of doing strategies, values,

attitudes and skills for observing, collecting and processing data, identifying and controlling

variables, formulating and testing hypotheses, and then, drawing conclusions (Joyce et al., 2009:

213-214). Barrow and Lynda (2007: 7) likewise argue that applying a scientific approach to

learning allows students to acquire new knowledge and skills when facing real challenges and

problems. Besides, being able to renew (up-to-date) knowledge and skills, it also helps students

overcome the knowledge gap through independent study and learn together, thus enabling them

to work effectively with others.

Results of this study were also strengthened by a research conducted by Akinoglu and

Tandogan (http://ejmeste.com/v3n1/EJMSTEv3n1_Akinoglu.pdf.) which found that learning

facilitating activity of students may affect students achievement. In the research, they compared

learning strategy that prioritizes the activity of students with traditional learning strategy. The

result shows that although there was an increasing in learning outcomes for both strategies (seen

in the pre-test and post-test), the learning strategy which emphasis on activity of student tends to

be higher than traditional strategy. Another similar study done by Aktamis and Ergin (2008: 1)

revealed that learning with scientific process skills can improve student achievement. Similarly,

a research conducted by Cobern, Schuster, and Adams, entitled Experimental Comparison of

Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science concludes that learning by scientific approach may

offer significant potential benefits to the learning process. They suggest that in doing the
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 15

teaching and learning process, teacher is demanded to create student-centered activities such as

conducting investigations, interpretation of data, group discussion and cooperative learning. This

strategy can help develop mental skills and mastery of concepts for students.

(http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514406.pdf).

The second hypothesis testing shows that there are no differences in the students learning

outcomes of Electronics skills subjects for the groups of students who have divergent thinking

styles and they whose convergent one, after controlling the prior knowledge. These findings are

relevant with the opinion of Li, et al. (2012: 235-236) there is a significant relationship between

the thinking style of divergent and convergent with academic achievement. Further, they explain

that if comparing both styles of thinking (divergent and convergent) on the learning outcomes, it

is not only dominated by one thinking style but by both. Similarly. Kolb and Kolb state divergent

thinkers have higher personal effectiveness than the convergent one, students with convergent

thinking style are considered to have the ability to customize the materials better than the

divergent students. This is because students have a tendency to apply what they have learned and

see the results in a positive learning

(http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf.).

The third hypothesis testing shows the interaction between the selection of learning

approaches and cognitive styles. To improve the learning outcomes for the Electronics skills

subjects of divergent students, they are better learnt by scientific approach, while for students

with convergent thinking styles are better learnt by expository approach. Accuracy in selecting

appropriate learning approaches, strategies and methods may provide clear direction to the

teaching process. In addition, teachers can design and set up rules or general principles for their

ideal instruction. In terms of students internal conditions of learning, particularly the students
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 16

thinking style, it can also define their learning outcomes. This is in line with a research

conducted by Chang, entitled "A Study of the Relationship between Cognitive Styles and

Learning Strategies," it concludes that there is a significant influence between style thinking

style and learning approach (http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/10732).

The fourth hypothesis testing shows that students whose divergent thinking styles are

gained higher learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects by scientific approach than by

expository one, after controlling their prior knowledge. Learning by scientific approach in this

research tends to improve students learning outcomes for Electronics skills subjects better than

by expository learning approach for the divergent thinker students by controlling their prior

knowledge.

Learning by scientific approach is an approach that refers to the process of acquiring

knowledge, skills and attitudes based on the scientific method. In other words, students are

directed to construct or find the knowledge by their own. The scientific approach is done by

identifying the problem, making hypotheses, and conducting investigations related to the

problems. The key word of the investigation process is to ask significant questions, shape the

behavior directed at scientific attitudes using certain methods, conduct a survey of problems

related to the proposed high-needed creativity in exploring learning environment.

Divergent thinking is a person's ability to respond to and process the information to

develop ideas to order to find various alternative solutions to resolve the problems synonymously

with the characteristics of creative thinking. Individuals who have divergent thinking styles will

quickly adjust to the scientific learning environment. With the creative potency they own, they

are able to explore learning to find their own knowledge, but of course in the teachers guidance,

direction, and direction.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 17

On the other hand, learning by expository approach will lead to a teacher centered model

that would be difficult for students with divergent thinking style. They might feel like in the

situation in which their creativity will be constrained because of being lack involved in the

learning process which in turn will affect their learning achievement.

The fifth hypothesis testing shows that there is no difference in the learning outcomes the

students achieved when learning by scientific or by expository approach to students with

convergent thinking style after controlling their prior knowledge. Expository approach is a kind

of learning that prioritizes the delivery of information by the way of explaining concepts and

procedures to students. This approach will be very effective if being implemented in the right

procedure. On the other hand, scientific approach requires the skill to process information with a

variety of ideas and solutions in solving the problems faced, and this skill is more possessed by

students whose divergent thinking styles than the convergent thinkers. However, it would be

possible for the convergent students to be able to adjust to the scientific learning if they are

explored and trained appropriately under the teachers direction and guidance. This is in line

with what Kolb and Kolb (http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf)

have stated that a convergent individual has the ability to customize the higher material and has a

tendency to apply what he or she has learnt and to see the target learning in a positive way.

The results of this study are also supported by the research conducted by Koe entitled

"An Investigation of the Effects of Convergent/Divergent Teaching Method on The

Mathematical Problem Solving Abilities of Grade Ten Student", which investigates the

divergent/convergent effects on the problem-solving learning task of which an individual with

convergent thinking style scored significantly higher than individuals with divergent thinking

styles (http://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/71989/UBC_1979_A8%20K64.pdf).
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 18

The sixth hypothesis testing showed that there was no difference between the learning

outcomes of students who have divergent thinking styles and students who have convergent

thinking styles when being taught by scientific approach, after controlling their prior knowledge.

However, the results of this study were not significant enough to state that divergent thinkers are

better than the convergent one if being taught by scientific approach. Although the calculation of

average shows that the divergent students scored higher than the convergent students, the

difference was not statistically significant.

These results are in line with the views expressed by Sharpes (2002: 73) that convergent

thinking is a way of thinking of an individual in which he or she try to look for the right answer.

A convergent thinker student may get benefit in the multiple-choice tests because there is only

one correct response that should be selected. In general, teachers can plan an instruction by using

a combination of divergent and convergent thinking style to develop students' ability to think

independently and in a variety of ways.

Results of other studies that support this research is a study conducted by Premuzic and

Reichenbacher entitled "Effect of personality and threat of evaluation in divergent and

convergent thinking". It is found that under a certain condition, there is a variable that allows the

performance of divergent thinkers vulnerable to the threat of evaluation, namely high

neuroticism and low extraversion

(http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/ThreatDivergentThinking_JRP_2008.pdf.).

The seventh hypothesis testing shows that the Electronics learning outcomes of students

whose divergent thinking styles is lower than the divergent students if they are taught by

expository approach, by controlling their prior knowledge.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 19

Expository approach is a learning approach which promotes activities for teachers during

the learning process and puts the teacher as the main source of information for students. In this

case, the role of students is to listen and to observe all the teacher activities in order to master the

subject matter presented. The explanation process is structured and focused on the learning

materials. Hence, most of the learning process emphasizes on how to remember factual

information. Such learning is suitable for the convergent students that tend to process the

information they receive to ensure a definite and precise conclusions.

The results are in line with the opinion of Riding and Reyner (2012: 27) that state

students who have a convergent thinking style prefer confronting a formal and structured task

demanding logical thinking and they tend to give logical answers or conclusions (reasoning) to

respond to the information provided. Their responses mostly emphasize on achieving single and

most appropriate answers (Reid, 1995: 58). On the other hand, students who have particularly

divergent thinking style, will find it difficult to follow such a learning process, because they

prefer to be in a learning atmosphere which explores their creativity and potency. This is in

accordance with Sattler quoted in Woolflok (2004: 21) that states the characteristics of students

with divergent thinking style is that they have a curiosity, a high concentration, adaptability, high

energy, sense of humor, independence, an interest in complex things and mystery, but not

tolerate on boredom and inventiveness.

Conclusion and Future Study

Based on the research findings, data analysis, hypothesis testing and discussion of the

results on the effects of learning approach and thinking style towards the learning outcomes for

Electronics skill subjects by controlling the prior knowledge, it is concluded as follows:

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 20

First, students Electronic skills achievement taught by scientific approach was higher

than groups of students who are taught by expository approach by controlling students prior

knowledge. Thus, the scientific approach is considered to enable of providing a better impact

for the improvement of students learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects.

Second, there is an interaction effect between learning approach and students thinking

style towards their achievement of Electronic skill subjects by controlling the prior knowledge.

Therefore, the learning outcomes the students achieved through scientific approach are different

among the divergent and convergent thinking students after controlling their prior knowledge. It

means that learning approaches and cognitive style are two factors that may determine the

learning outcome for Electronics skill subjects.

Third, for the group of students whose divergent thinking styles, their Electronics

achievement are higher when being taught by scientific approach than the group of students who

are taught by expository one after controlling their prior knowledge. Hence, it can be inferred

that to improve the students Electronics achievement for the divergent thinking students,

scientific learning approach are considered more effective.

Fourth, for the group of divergent thinking students learning by expository teaching

methods, their Electronics learning achievement are lower than students whose convergent

thinking style after controlling the prior knowledge. It is therefore, the expository learning

approach is more effective applied to students whose convergent thinking style after controlling

the prior knowledge.

To improve student learning, teachers should consider the differences in student

characteristics, eg, differences in cognitive styles (divergent and convergent) and the level of
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 21

prior knowledge of students, it is important in the learning process, so that the teachers really

understand the needs of their students.

Comparing with other studies, this study has also some disadvantages that cannot be

controlled by the researchers. The most substantive one is that a form of achievement test given

to students with divergent and convergent thinking style. Therefore, it is recommended that it

would be better to conduct further research of this matter in order to assess student learning

outcomes considering the characteristics of individual differences.

References

Abruscato, J., De Rosa, D. A. (2010). Teaching Children Science: A Discovery Approaches

Seventh Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 11.

Agung, IG. N. (2006). Statistika Penerapan Model Rerata-Sel Multivariat dan Model Ekonometri

dengan SPSS. Jakarta: Yayasan Sad Satria Bhakti, 284.

Akinoglu, O., Tandogan. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science

Education on Students' Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia

Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education. 3 (1), 71-81. Retriefed From

http://ejmeste.com/v3n1/EJMSTEv3n1_Akinoglu.pdf. diakses, 12 Maret 2015.

Aktamis, H., Ergin, O. (2008). The Effect of Scientific Process Skills Education on Students'

Scientific Creativity, Science Attitudes and Academic Achievements, Asia-Pacific Forum

on Science Learning and Teaching. Volume 9, Issue 1. Article 4, 1.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Leraning, Teaching and Assessing:

A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison

Wesley Longman, Inc., 31.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 22

Badgett, John L., Christmann, Edwin P. (1981). Designing Elementary Instruction and

Assessment. Corwin: A SAGE Company, 81.

Barrow, H. S., Lynda, Wee K.N. (2007). Principles & Practice of aPBL. Jurong-Singapore:

Pearson Education South Asia Pte. Ltd., 7.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. (1979). Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longman Group LTD.,

7.

Briggs, L. J. (1979). Instructional Design: Principles and Application. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Inc., 149.

Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific Inquiry And Nature Of Science: Implications for Teaching,

Learning, and Teacher Education, ed. Flick Lawrence B. and Lederman Norman G.

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 2-3.

Chang, J. S. A Study of the Relationship between Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies.

Retriefed From http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/10732.

Chang, M., Weng, C., Zakharova, A. (2013). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Cognitive

Styles among Junior High School Students in Taiwan. Retriefed From

http://www.iafor.org/offprints/ acll2013offprints/ACLL2013_Offprint_0271.pdf.

Cobern, W., Schuster, D., Adams, B. (2010). Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct

Instruction in Science. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514406.pdf.

Cohean, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychology Testing and Assessment 7th edition. New

York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 342.

Cozby, P. C. (2003). Method in Behavioral Research, 8th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies Inc., 5.
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 23

De Cecco, J. P. (1968). The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: Educational Psychology.

New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 455.

Diaz, C. F., Pelletier, C. M., Profenzo, Jr.,E. F. (2006). Touch the FutureTeach. New York:

Pearson Education, Inc., 306.

Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, L. (2009). The Systematic Design of Instruction. New Jersey:

Pearson Education, Inc., 93.

Eggen, P., Kauchak, D. (2007). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms, 7th edition.

New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 150.

Gagne, R. M. (1977). The Conditions of Learning 3th Edition. New York: Rinehart And

Winston, 3.

Glass, G. V., Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical Method in Education and Psyshology 2nd

Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 371.

Gredler, M. E. (2011). Learning In Instruction: Theory in to Practice 6th Edition, Translate: Tri

Wibowo, B.S. Jakarta: Kencana Perdana Media Group, pp. 180-181.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of Teaching 8th Edition, translate: Fawaid dan

Mirza. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, pp. 213-214, 369.

Kadir. (2015). Statistika Terapan: Konsep, Contoh, dan Analisis Data dengan Program

SPSS/Lisrel dalam Penelitian. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, pp. 431-437, 146-147, 160-162.

Kauffman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. New Jersey:

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 18.

Keller, John M. (2010). Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCH Model

Approach. New York: Springer Science, 70.

Kerlinger, F. E. (1986). Asas-Asas penelitian Behavioral. Yogyakara: UGM Press, 37.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 24

Killen, R. (2009). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and Practice 5th ed.

Melbourne: Chengange Learning, 116-117. Retriefed From

http://217quiz1pdfs.wikispaces.com/file/view/Killen+teaching+strategies.pdf.

Koe, C. D. (1967). An Investigation of The Effects of Convergent/Divergen Teaching Methods

on The Mathematical Problem-Solving Abilities of Grade Ten Students. Retriefed From

http://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/71989/UBC_1979_A8%20K64.pdf.

Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A., (2010). Learning Style InventoryVersion 3.1, Retriefed From

http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf.

Li, F. Zhang, Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Style. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Ins., 99.

Li, F. Zhang, Sternberg, R. J., Rayner, S. (2012). Handbook of Intellectual Styles: Preferences in

Cognition, learning, and Thinking. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, pp.

235-236.

Messick, S. (1996). Report Research: Bridging Cognition and Personality in Education: The

Role of Style in Performance and Developmen. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service,

9. Retriefed From http://www.ets.org/Meclia/Research/pdf/RR-96-22.pdf.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E. Kalman, H. K. (2007). Designing Effective

Instruction 5th Edition. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons, 56.

Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., Brown, A. H. (2010). Teaching

Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction, 9th Edition. Boston: Wadsworth, pp. 34-35.

Premuzic, T. C., Reichenbacher, L. Effect of Personalitiy and threat of Evaluation on Divergen

and Convergent thinking. Journal of Research in Personality. Retriefed From

http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/ThreatDivergentThinking_JRP_2008.pdf.
THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 25

Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Style in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Massacusetts: Heinle & Heinle

Publisher, pp. 56-58.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional Design, Theories and Models: An Overview of Their

Current Status. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 98.

Reiser, R. A., Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trend and Issue in Instructional Design and Technology.

Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 36.

Richey, R. C. (Ed.). (2013) Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and

Technology. New York: Springer, 243.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., Tracey, M. W. (2011). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base:

Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Routledge, 61.

Riding, R., Rayner, S. (2012). Understandi Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. New

York: Routledge, 15, 27.

Santrock, J. W. (2007). Educational Psychology Second Edition, Translate: Tri Wibowo.

Jakarta: Kencana Perdana Media Group, 638.

Saracho, O. N. (1977). Teachers and Students Cognitif Style in Early Childhood Education.

Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 3.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective 6th Editions,

Terjemahan: Hamidah dan Fajar. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 39.

Sharpes, D. K. (2002). Advanced Educational Foundations for Teacher: The History, Phylosopy

and Culture of Schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer, 73.

Sims, R. R., Sims, S. J. (2009). The Importance Of Learning Styles: Understanding The

Implications For Learning. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE 26

Slavin, R. E. (2011). Educational Psychology, Theory and Practice 9th Edition. Translate:

Samosir M. Jakarta: PT. Indeks, 255.

Smaldino, S.E., Lowther, D.L., Russell, J. D. (2011). Instructional Technology and Media for

Learning 9th Editions, Translate: Arif Rahman. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group,

13.

Spector, M. J. (2012). Foundations of Educational Technology: Integrative Approaches and

Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 100.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 134.

Sudjana. (2005). Metode Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito, pp. 330-337.

Tilaar, H. A. R. (2015). Pedagogik Teoretis untuk Indonesia. Jakarta: Kompas Media Nusantara,

pp. 145-146.

Woolflok, A. (2004). Educational Psychology. Nedham Heights MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 21.

Woolflok, A. (2007). Educational Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 479.

Yerrick, R., Roth, WM. (2005). Establishing Scientific Classroom Discourse Communities

Multiple Voices of Teaching and Learning Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc., pp. 26-127.