JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115

Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/index.php/jpii

THE INFLUENCE OF V DIAGRAM PROCEDURAL SCAFFOLDING IN

GROUP INVESTIGATION TOWARDS STUDENTS WITH HIGH AND LOW
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito

Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia

DOI: 10.15294/jpii.v5i1.5799

Accepted: 18 January 2016. Approved: 27 March 2016. Published: April 2016

ABSTRACT

The learning achievement of high school students of Malang city in physics was still low, thus the appropriate
learning strategies was necessaryto optimize the physics learning achievement. V diagram procedural scaffoldin-
gin Group Investigation was designed with the aim to optimize student learning achievement. The purpose of this
study was to examine differences in learning achievement of groups of students who learn through Scaffolding
Procedural strategies in Group Investigation and groups of students who are studying with Group Investigation,
to examine differences in student achievement between thosewith high and low prior knowledge levels, and to
examine the interaction between learning strategies (procedural scaffolding in GI and GI) and initial knowledge
of students towardlearning achievement. The method used in this study wasquasi-experimental.The design used
in this study was Two Factorial Design consisted of two experimental classes and two control classes each. The
results indicated that learning achievement group of students who learn through proceduralscaffolding in Group
Investigation was higher than the group of students who are studying with Group Investigation. The learning
achievements of students with high prior knowledge surpassed those with low prior knowledge. Last, there was
an interaction between the learning strategies and prior knowledge of students toward learning achievement.

© 2016 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang

Keywords: Group Investigation, Learning Achievement, Prior Knowledge, Procedural Scaffolding, V Diagram.

INTRODUCTION prior knowledge in which some had high prior

knowledge, but others were low. Students with
The learning achievement is a major factor higher prior knowledge tend to score higher than
for the success of a lesson. The learning achieve- students whose prior knowledge initially low
ment is of paramount importance in determining (Laili, 2014). Koes (2013) also reported that stu-
the quality of students. However, academic achie- dents with higher level of initial knowledge ob-
vement of senior high school students in Malang in tained a higher average physics score than those
physics was still low. This could be seen from the with low initial levels of knowledge. Students
results of a national exam results which suggested who hadsufficient prior knowledge would be able
that the average score of physics in Indonesia was to follow the learning process well, causing them
not yet satisfactory. Average results of physics Na- to get better learning results.
tional Examination in Malang was lowest (Malang In a real class, students’ prior knowledge
City 32, Malang regency 34, and Batu 38) among varies greatly and making it difficult for teachers
38 cities and regencies in East Java (BSNP, 2013). in implementing the learning activities. Varia-
This wasprobably caused by teachers pro- tions of initial knowledge should serve as a gui-
vide inappropriate learning related with students’ deline for giving lessons. As the result, a teacher
might not be able to provide appropriate learning
*Alamat korespondensi:
Email: [email protected] to each student with different initial knowledge
110 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115

because of the large number of students in the learning (Kagan &Kagan, 2009). When the GI
class. This obstacle can be overcomed by the pro- modelis applied in the classroom, the studentsare
vision of scaffolding. responsible for choosing their own topic of inqui-
Scaffolding is a way to facilitate various ry, problem formulation, planning and conduc-
initial knowledge levels of students in the class. ting investigations in various ways, and sharingt-
Puntambekar & Hubscher (2005) states that the heir findings (Oh & Shin, 2005). Therefore, GI
scaffolding can help students to resolve comp- model can optimize students’ achievement.
lex problems, provide a structure for organizing The study consisted of three focuses: (1)
scientific arguments and explanations, or furt- How is the learning achievement of a group of
her highlight the process of science. Scaffolding students who learn through Procedural Scaffol-
can also help teachers in the classroom which all ding strategy in Group Investigation compared
groups cannot be monitored every time. to the group of students who are studying with
Procedural scaffolding is a relief that uti- only Group Investigation (2) How is the learning
lizes the available resources and tools (Yu et al., achievement of students who have a higher prior
2013). Procedural scaffolding isseries of procedu- knowledge than group students who have a low
ral steps that must be passed and followed by the level of prior knowledge (3) Is there any interac-
students. It also includes sequences that will be tions between the learning strategies (procedural
pursued in the search for a solution through expe- scaffolding in GI and pure GI) and initial kno-
riments. Procedural scaffolding is used to guide wledge of students toward student achievement.
students in doing experiments in the laboratory.
Procedural scaffolding can improve their under- METHOD
standing of physics concepts (Laili, 2014) and the
quality of student questions (Yu et al., 2013). The method used in this study is a quasi-
V diagram is one of the procedural scaf- experimental method (Quasi Experimental De-
folding. V diagram helps students to link the sign). The design of the study was Two Factorial
concepts of science and designing investigations Design consisted of the experimental group and
(Knaggs & Schneider, 2012), making learning the control group. The difference in treatment
more meaningful and effective, developing com- between the experimental class and control class
munication skill and scientific processing skills laid in the applied model to both classes. The ex-
(Keles & Ozsoy, 2009). V diagram is an ideal tool periment class would useProcedural Scaffolding
to help students understand how a concept can in Group Investigation, while the control class
be related to the others (Calals, 2009). V diag- only applied Group Investigation model.
ram can also develop students’ knowledge in an The study population was students ofscien-
organized and meaningful way (Tekes & Gonen, ce classes XI of SMA N 3 Malang in academic
2012). year 2015/2016 who are divided in seven paral-
V diagram can be applied in various lear- lel classes. The sample in this study was taken
ning, one of which is the cooperative learning. using cluster sampling technique. This study used
Jbeili (2012) suggests that the cooperative lear- samples of 2 experimental classes and 2 cont-
ning with scaffolding can improve conceptu- rol classes. Two classes of experimental were
al understanding and procedural capabilities. XI MIA 1 and XI MIA 2, while the two cont-
O’Donnell et al. (2002) also added that students rol classes were XI MIA 3 and XI MIA 4. The
who use scaffolding on cooperative learning can free variable in this research was the Procedural
learn more effectively. In cooperative learning, Scaffolding in Group Investigation and GroupIn-
students will learn more effectively when they vestigation, while the dependent variable was the
actively engaged in sharing ideas and working learning achievement. The moderator variable
together to accomplish a task (Ebrahim, 2012). was the initial knowledge.
Pickles and Tarhan (2008) discovered that during The instrument used in this study con-
the discussion during cooperative learning, stu- sisted of treatment instruments and measuring
dents use their prior knowledge and experience, instruments. The treatment instrument is pro-
to think, to discuss, to share knowledge, and to cedural scaffolding students worksheet Scaffol-
apply the concepts acquired in a variety of other ding in the form of Vdiagram. The measurement
conditions. instruments were the initial knowledge tests and
One model in cooperative learning is the achievement tests.Initialknowledge test was used
Group Investigation (GI). Group Investigation is to determine students’ prior knowledge before
a cooperative learning strategy in which students the experiment, thus we achieved data showed
work in small groups to investigate a topic of groups of students with low initial knowledge
 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115 111

and groups of students with high prior know- class with 62 students obtained a minimum score
ledge. In this study, we recorded students’ initial of 6.00, maximum score of 22.00, average score
knowledge of physics in vectors, Newton’s law, of 12.81, and a standard deviation of 3.54. Based
energy and effort. The achievement test was ma- on the table, we could conclude that the average
terial dynamics of rotation in multiple choice for- prior knowledge score in the experimental class at
mat. Before applied, the entire instrumentswere 13.28 was higher than the average score of prior
validated by two expert lecturers and the questi- knowledge in control class at 12.81.
ons were tried out. Description of the initial knowledge data
Test analysis consisted of normality and of experimental classes and control classes grou-
homogeneity tests. The analysis was performed ped into high prior knowledge and low prior kno-
using SPSS 16.0 for Windows with Kolmogorov- wledgewere summarized in Table 2.
Smirnovmethod. Homogeneity test was perfor- According to table 2, the high prior know-
med using Levene test through One WayAnova. ledge students in experimental classes high with
Afterthe premilinary analysis was completedand the amount of 33 students hadminimum score
the target was met, then the hypothesis was tested of 13.00, maximum score is 25.00, average score
using by two lanesAnova. Hypothesis test was to of 15.54, and standard deviation score of 3, 39.
test the differences in student achievement after While 26 low prior knowledge students in expe-
studied using Procedural Scaffolding on GI and rimental classesresulted on minimum score of
pure GI, as well as to see the interaction between 6.00, maximum score of 12.00, average score of
the learning using Procedural Scaffolding on GI 10.42, and standard deviation score of 1.53.
and prior knowledge on student achievement. 35 students with high prior knowledge in
control classesachievedminimum score of 13.00,
RESULT AND DISCUSSION maximum score of 22.00, average score of 15.08,
and standard deviation score of 2.67. While as
Description of Prior Knowledge Data many as 27 students with low prior knowledge in
The initial knowledge test was given to 59 control classesgot minimum score of 6.00, maxi-
students of experimental class and 62 students of mum score of 12.00, average score of 9.85, and
control class. Data from this test wasthen sorted standard deviation score of 2.03.
from the biggest score to the smallest one. Furt- Based on Table 2 can be explained that the
hermore, the initial knowledge test result data average score of high prior knowledge in expe-
were grouped into high initial knowledge and low rimental classesat 15.54 wasbetter than the high
prior knowledge groups. Grouping of initial kno- initial knowledge students in control classesat
wledge based on the combined average score of 15.08. In addition, the average score of low initial
all classes resulted of 13.04. Based on the classifi- knowledge in the experimental classes at 10.42
cation, 74 students had high prior knowledge and wasalso better than those on control class at 9.85.
those with low prior knowledge amounted for 47
students. The number represented the combined Description of Learning Achievement Data
students of experimental classes and control clas- The data were obtained from learning
ses. In experimental classes, there were 33 stu- achievement instruments in the form of 16 mul-
dents with high prior knowledge and 26 students tiple choice questions with the material of the
with low prior knowledge. While there were 35 rotational dynamics and rigid body equilibrium.
high prior knowledge students and 27 students Learning achievement test was conducted after
with low prior knowledge in control classes. The the treatment completed. This test was conducted
statistic of prior knowledge data can be seen in for 75 minutes. The description of learning achie-
Table 1. vement data in the experimental classes and cont-
Based on Table 1, the initial knowledge sco- rol classescould be seen in Table 3.
re in the experimental class with 59 respondents Based on Table 3, the learning achieve-
had a minimum score of 6.00, maximum score ment of 59 students in experimental classespro-
of 25.00, average score of 13.28, and a standard duced minimum score of 8.00, maximum score
deviation of 3.73. Prior knowledge on the control of 15.00, average score of 10.36, and standard

Table 1. Statistical Description of Prior Knowledge Data

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Experimental classes 59 6.00 25.00 13.2881 3.73266
Control classes 62 6.00 22.00 12.8065 3.54752
112 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115

Table 2. Statistical Description of Students with High Prior Knowledge and Low Prior Knowledge
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
High prior knowledge experimental 33 13.00 25.00 15.5455 3.39200
classes
Low prior knowledge experimental 26 6.00 12.00 10.4231 1.52769
classes
High prior knowledge experimental 35 13.00 22.00 15.0857 2.67198
classes
High prior knowledge experimental 27 6.00 12.00 9.8519 2.03250
classes

Table 3 Statistical Description of Learning Achievement in Experimental and Control Classes

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Experimental classes 59 8.00 15.00 10.3559 1.71969
Control classes 62 6.00 13.00 9.7581 1.93912

Table 4 Statistical Description of Learning Achievement Data of High and Low Prior Knowledge in
both Experimental and Control Classes
Std. Devia-
N Minimum Maximum Mean
tion
High prior knowledge experimental classes 39 8.00 15.00 10.4615 1.86161
Low prior knowledge experimental classes 20 8.00 12.00 10.1500 1.42441
High prior knowledge control classes 35 8.00 13.00 10.8000 1.38903
Low prior knowledge control classes 27 6.00 12.00 8.4074 1.71552

deviation of 1.72. Meanwhile, the learning achie- deviation score of 1.39, while learning achieve-
vement of 62 students in control classes obtained ment of 27 low prior knowledge students in cont-
minimum score of 6.00, maximum score of 13.00, rol classesreceived minimum score of 6.00, maxi-
average score of 9.76, and a standard deviation of mum score of 12.00, average score of 8.41, and
1.93. Based on the table it can be explained that standard deviation score of 1.72.
the average score of the learning achievement in The average learning achievement score of
the experimental class at 10.36 is higher than the students with high initial knowledge in the expe-
average score of the learning achievement in the rimental classesat 10.46 was higher than those in
control class at 9.76. the control class at 10.80. Also, the average lear-
Description of achievement data of both ning achievement score of studentswith low ini-
classes grouped into high prior knowledge and tial knowledge of the experimental classat 10.15
low prior knowledge were listed in Table 4. was higher than those in control classesat 8.41.
In table 4, we can observe the learning
achievement of 39 students with high prior kno- Normality and Homogeneity Tests
wledge in experimental classes gained minimum Based on the test of normality using Kol-
score of 8.00, maximum score of 15.00, average mogorov - Smirnov on learning achievement
score of 10.46, and standard deviation score of scores, the experimental classes learning achieve-
1.86, while learning achievement of 20 low prior ment scores were normally distributed with sig-
knowledge students in experimental classesrecei- nificance of 0.233> 0.05 and the control classes
ved minimum score of 8.00, maximum score of learning achievement scores were also normal-
12.00, average score of 10.15, and standard devi- ly distributed with significance of 0.352> 0.05.
ation score of 1.42. Based on the analysis the researchers concluded
The learning achievement of 35 students that the distribution of learning achievement data
with high prior knowledge in control classes in both experimentaland control classes were
gained minimum score of 8.00, maximum sco- normally distributed and metthe intended requi-
re of 13.00, average score of 10.80, and standard rements.
 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115 113

Based on homogeneity test using Levene’s materials rather than the procedures during prac-
test, thelearning achievement in the experimental ticum.
and control classes were homogeneous with sig- Students who solely studied using Group
nificance of 0.26> 0.05. Based on the results of Investigation could only explain the achieved
this analysis the test prerequisites were met. data afterpracticum. Studentscouldnot develop
the research result. They also did not have high
First Hypothesis Test Result curiosity because when the teacher gave reinfor-
Two line ANOVA analysis resulted on cement material, students simply observed and
Fcountof 5,228 with a value of 0,024 < 0.05. It can recorded without any question.
be concluded that the null hypothesis (Ho) was This research was supported by the fin-
rejected, meaning that the learning achievement dings of Cagiltay (2006) who found that the pro-
of groups of students who learned using Pro- cedural scaffolding supports the design and deve-
cedural Scaffolding in Group Investigation were lops self-learning activities. Yu et al. (2013) found
different with a group of students studying with that the use of procedural scaffolding supports
only Group Investigation. The average scores of students in learning activities. The results of stu-
learning achievement of groups of students who dents who use procedural scaffolding are better
learned through the Scaffolding Procedural with than students without using scaffolding-procedu-
Group Investigation at10.36 was higher than the ral (Yu et al., 2013). Hsu et al. (2014) revealed
group of students studying with Group Investiga- that the scaffolding greatly assists the process of
tion at 9.76. investigation and the developmentof understan-
Learning usingV diagram procedural scaf- ding toward a concept.
foldingprovided an opportunity for students to
have discussion. Formation of each group of stu- Results of Second Hypothesis Tests
dents with heterogeneous prior knowledge could Test results obtained from analysis of two
help the interaction between friends in a group. lanes variance Fcountwas 19.39 with significance
Students with high prior knowledge could assist of 0.00 < 0.05. It can be concluded that the null
students with low prior knowledge. The interrac- hypothesis (Ho) was rejected, meaning that the
tion could facilitate students to build knowledge learning achievements of students with high of
together, so they could get higher learning achie- prior knowledge were different from those with
vement. low prior knowledge. From the average score of
The interaction occured in a class could all students, it could be concluded that the avera-
help students in improving learning achievement. ge score of students’ learning achievement with
Fatokun & Omenesa (2015) states that classroom high prior knowledge at 10.62 was higher than
interaction can increase students’ interest and- the group of students studying with Group Inves-
material understandingleading to higher learning tigation at 9.15.
achievement. In addition, teachers also need to The results of observations in the class-
connect students’ initial knowledge with the lear- room displayed that the students with high ini-
ning process to help students to understand scien- tial knowledge showed tendency to dominate the
ce concepts. class. The students seemed to pay serious atten-
V diagram procedural scaffolding strate- tion to the learning process and askedanything
gies in GI brought positive impact on learning they had not yet understood. When teachers as-
achievement. That was because this strategy pro- kedthem tosolve the problems, students with high
vided an excellent mean for students to engage prior knowledge gave direct response and did the
fully in dialogue to solve the problem with high tasks.
success rate. This engagement clearly supported High prior knowledge students often as-
the increase in student achievement. kedmore complex questions. This was in line with
The results of classroom observations on Taboada & Guthrie (2006) that students’ questi-
learning using procedural scaffolding in GI sho- onsare positively associated with reading ability.
wed that students could explain the relevance Students with high initial knowledge in particular
within practicum and the material to be studied. domain tended to have a better question propor-
Based on the results, students were able to explain tion or higher level questions than those with low
some of the related material. Moreover, students prior knowledge.
could develop the results obtained. In addition, Prior knowledge is a prerequisite to learn
during the learning process students’ curiosity in new knowledge. The more relevant the prior
procedural scaffolding V diagram in GI was very knowledge of the students, it wouldease them to
visible since students often asked the about the learn new things. Prior knowledge is a prerequisi-
114 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115

te occurrence of meaningful learning. Initial kno- scaffolding strategy in GI could influence on stu-
wledge can serve as a foundation of learning that dent learning achievement of physics.
can help students’ understand a concept. Observation results showed that in the
High initial knowledge students wouldfind learning usingV diagram procedural scaffolding
it easy to transfer the knowledge they possessed in GI, students withhigh prior knowledgeable
to receive new knowledge and applied the phy- were faster in investigating sub topic by following
sics concepts in a problem that required some the scaffolding listed on the students’ worksheet
variation and suggested new things. Low initial those with low prior knowledge, thus it enabled
knowledge students still had difficulty to suggest them to help others in their groups. In addition,
some variation and novelty related to the concept students with low initial knowledge solved the
of physics. Thompson & Zamboanga (2004) sta- problems with the help of high prior knowled-
ted that prior knowledge affects students in accep- gestudents. That is why,students with high prior
ting new knowledge. Pror knowledge influences a knowledge indirectly increased students with low
person’s response whenfacing new situations and prior knowledge’s physics learning achievement.
contributing to learning of new knowledge. This ultimately caused the difference in learning
Ionas et.al. (2012) states that when stu- achievement among students with high and low
dents have an understanding of separated con- initial knowledge.
cepts, when trying to accept new information, These results are consistent with a study by
they do not pay attention to the relationships bet- Reisslein et al. (2007) who found that there isin-
ween concepts, thus students understand the new teraction between prior knowledge and learning
concepts separately and are not able to connect strategies.Reisslein also stated that the enginee-
between concepts. Therefore, in case of learning ring students with high prior knowledge on basic
new knowledge, students should look for the cir- electrical circuits showed better learning achieve-
cumstances, concepts or processes in theirmind ment in problem solving tasks than students with
to construct new knowledge or to solve new prob- low initial knowledge.
lems.
Seery (2009) states that the initial knowled- CONCLUSION
ge has a strong influence on student performance.
Based on the general description, hypothe-
It essentially constructsstudents’ frame of mind.
sis testings, and discussion the researcherscould-
In addition, students with high initial knowledge
put forward three research conclusions as fol-
will have the better confidence and tend to have
lows: (1) The learning achievement of groups of
a positive attitude. Ionas et.al. (2012) stated that
students who learn through Procedural Scaffol-
prior knowledge impacts on the effectiveness of
ding strategies in Group Investigation was higher
self-explanation in solving chemistry problem.
than the group of students studying with Group
The higherthe initial chemical knowledge, the
Investigation. This wasevidencedby the test re-
strongerhis self-explanation will get. Meanwhile,
sults obtained from two lanes Anova with F countof
students with low initial knowledge will experien-
5,228 with significance of 0,024 < 0.05. (2) The
ce difficulty in doing self-explanation.
learning achievement of students with high initial
knowledge was higher than those with low prior
Third Hypothesis Test Results knowledge. This was proven from the test results
The analysis oftwo lanes variance test re- obtained with two lanes Anovawith F countof 19.39
sulted on Fcountof 11.48 with significance of 0.001 with significance of 0.00 < 0.05. (3) There was
< 0.05. It could be concluded that the null hypot- interaction between the learning strategies and
hesis (Ho) was rejected, meaning that there was prior knowledge toward learning achievement.
an interaction between the learning strategies and This wasshowed from the analysis of test results
students’ prior knowledge to the learning achie- by two lanes Anovawith F countof 11.48 with signi-
vement.This might occur because theV diagram ficance of 0.001 < 0.05.
procedural scaffolding provides the opportunities
for students to understand and solve the prob- REFERENCES
lemsby themselves. All students were given equal
chances to be actively involved in the learning Acar, B. & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of Cooperative
Learning on Student’s Understanding of Me-
process, to take part ininvestigating subtopics,
tallic Bonding. Springer. Res Sci Edu., 38 (1),
and discussions. In discussion, students of both 401-420.
high and low prior knowledges help each other to BSNP. (2013). Laporan Hasil Ujian Nasional Tahun Pela-
construct new knowledge together. This optimal jaran 2011-2012. Jakarta: Balitbang
involvement caused the V diagram procedural Cagiltay, K. (2006). Scaffolding Strategies in Electronic
 R. Amelia, Supriyono Koes H., Muhardjito / JPII 5 (1) (2016) 109-115 115

Performance Support Systems: types and chal- saan Konsep Fisika Pada Siswa Berpengetahuan
lenges. Innovations in Education and Teaching In- Awal Tinggi dan Rendah. Tesis tidak diterbitkan.
ternational, 43(1), 93-103. Malang: Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Calals, G.J. (2009). The Vee Diagram As a Problem Negeri Malang.
Solving Strategy: Content Area Reading / O’Donnell, A.M., Donald, F.D. & Richard, H.H.
Writing Implications. National Forum Teacher (2002). Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cog-
Education Journal, 19 (3), 15-23. nitive Processing. Educational Psychology Review,
Ebrahim, A. (2012). The Effect of Cooperative Learn- 14 (1), 123-133.
ing Strategies on Elementary Students’ Science Oh, P.S. & Shin, M. (2005). Student’s Reflection on
Achievement and Social Skills in Kuwait. Inter- Implementation of Group Investigation in Ko-
national Journal of Science and Mathematic Educa- rean Secondary Science Classroom. Internation-
tion, 10 (1), 293-314. al Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3
Fatokun & Omenesa. (2015). Effect of Prior Knowl- (1), 327-349.
edge and Classroom Interactions on Student’s Puntambekar, S. &Hubscher, R. 2005. Tools For Scaf-
Achievement in Chemistry. African Educational folding Students in A Complex Learning En-
Research Journal, 3(3), 184-189. vironment: What We Gained and What Have
Hsu, Y.S., Lai, T.L. & Hsu, W.H. (2014). A Design We Missed?.Educational Psychologist 40(1): 1-12.
Model of Distributed Scaffolding Inquiry Reisslein, J., Reisslein, M. & Seling, P. (2006). Com-
Based Learning. Res Sci Educ. 1 (2), 23-30. paring Static Fading with Adaptive Fading to
Ionas, I.G..,Cernusa, & Harvest L.C. (2012). Prior Independent Problem Solving: The Impact on
Knowledge Influence on Self-Explanation Ef- the Achievement and Attitude of High School
fectiveness When Solving Problems: An Ex- Student Learning Electrical Circuit Analysis.
ploratory Study in Science Learning. Interna- Journal of Engineering Education 1 (2), 345-354.
tional Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Seery, M.K. (2009). The Effect of Prior Knowledge in
Education, 24(3), 349-358. Undergraduate Performance in Chemistry: A
Jbeili, I. (2012). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Correlation – Prediction Study. Dissertations.
with Metacognitive Scaffolding on Mathemat- Paper 23. http://arrow.dit.ie/ltcdis/23.
ics Conceptual Understanding and Procedural Taboada, A.& Guthrie, J.T. (2006). Contributions of
Fluency. International Journal for Research in Edu- Student Questioning and Prior Knowledge to
cation, 1(2), 34-40. Construction of Knowledge From Reading In-
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative formation Text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38
Learning. Kagan Publishing. (1), 1-35.
Keles, O. & Ozsoy, S. (2009). Pre-Service Teachers At- Tekes, H. & Gonen, S. (2012). Influence Of V-Diagram
titudes Toward Use of Vee Diagram in General On 10th Grade Turkish Students’ Achievement
Physics Laboratory. International Electric Journal In The Subject Of Mechanical Waves. Science
of Elementary Education, 2 (3), 45-52. Education International, 23(3), 1010-1021.
Knaggs, C.M. & Schneider, R.M. (2012). Thinking Like Thompson, R.A. & Zamboanga, B.L. (2004). Academ-
A Scientist: Using Vee-Maps To Understand Process ic Aptitude and Prior Knowledge as Predictors
And Concept In Science. Springer Science+Business of Student Achievement in Introduction to
Media. Psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Koes H, S. (2013). Pengaruh Strategi Scaffolding- 96 (4), 778-784.
Kooperatif dan Pengetahuan Awal Terhadap Yu, F., Tsai, H. & Wu, H. (2013). Effect of Online
Prestasi Belajar dan Sikap Pada Matakuliah Procedural Scaffolds and the Timing of Scaf-
Fisika Dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan Humaniora, folding Provision on Elementary Taiwanese
1(1), 245-255. Student’s Question-Generation in a Science
Laili, A.M. (2014). Pengaruh Problem Based Learning Class. Australian Journal of Educational Technol-
Dengan Procedural Scaffolding Terhadap Pengua- ogy, 29(3), 45-55.