Journal of Primary Education

9 (4) (2020) : 364–376

https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/jpe

The Effect of The Problem Based Learning Model Using Quizizz

Evaluation on Student’s Cognitive Science Learning Outcomes in
Elementary School

Nafisa Risma Zuhara , Kasmadi Imam Supardi, Endang Susilaningsih

Pascasarjana,Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Article Info Abstract

________________ ___________________________________________________________________
History Articles Cognitive learning outcomes of elementary school students are still less than
Received: optimal. The learning process still used conventional models with lectures,
5 March 2020
questions and answers, taking notes, listening, and giving assignments. The
Accepted:
teacher still uses the lecture method by cramming various concepts of science
3 June 2020
Published:
into a system of listening, note taking, and memorizing. The purpose of this
30 Septemeber 2020 study was to analyze the effect of the Problem Based Learning’s model using
________________ Quizizz evaluation on student cognitive learning outcomes and to determine
Keywords: the difference in the effect of the Problem Based Learning’s model using
Cognitive Learning Quizizz evaluation with conventional learning on student cognitive learning
Outcomes, Problem outcomes. The approach used a a quantitative research, namely a quasi-
Based Learning, experimental method. The research design used a pretest-posttest control group
Quizizz
design. This design involved two groups of subjects, one was given
____________________
experimental treatment (experimental group) and the other was not given
treatment (control class). The results was the Problem Based Learning’s model
using Quizizz evaluation affects students' cognitive learning outcomes and
there are differences in student cognitive learning outcomes between the
experimental class and the control class. In conclusion, the Problem Based
Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation has a positive impact on cognitive
learning outcomes of fifth grade students of SDIT Al-Madina


Correspondence address: p-ISSN 2252-6404
Gedung A Kampus Pascasarjana Jalan Kelud Utara III, Semarang
e-ISSN 2502-4515
50237
E-mail: [email protected]

364
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

INTRODUCTION learning resources used during learning did not

use media, the teacher only used books as a
Science learning is knowledge obtained learning resource. Some students also stated that
and developed based on experiment (inductive) science learning is one of the subjects that is
and based on theory (deductive). There are two difficult to understand. Scientific names also
things that are inseparable from science, namely make science very complicated and confusing.
science as a product and science as a process. When children are asked to provide
Science as a product is factual, conceptual, examples of cases in everyday life related to
procedural, and meta cognitive knowledge, and learning topics, students find it difficult to
Science as a process, namely scientific work. answer them and it is seen that students first
According to Juhji (2016), science is a rational open their notebooks or science textbooks to
and objective knowledge of the universe and look for answers. The learning methods applied
everything in it. are less varied because the teacher always uses
Science learning is related to how to lectures in learning. This can be seen when
systematically find out about nature so that it is discussing the subject matter, students tend to be
not only the mastery of a collection of passive in following the lesson, only 3 students
knowledge but also a process of discovery asked questions and none of them expressed
(Andrian, 2017). So, Natural Science Learning their opinion regarding the subject matter. In
in elementary school is learning about line with the research facts found by Widiawati
knowledge related to nature and daily activities (2015) that the average science score of students
around students that involve scientific activities, is low because students acquire the concept of
namely observing, exploring, asking, science without going through a meaningful
associating, and concluding. The opinion process.
expressed by Hacieminoglu (2016) reveals that The data obtained about student learning
science learning in elementary schools is not outcomes in the cognitive domain in fifth grade
only about knowledge but also needs to be SDIT AL-Madina, from 27 students fifth grade
applied skills because elementary school A for science content, there were 7 students or
students need learning in the form of activities 26% who achieved minimum criteria while the
in the scientific process. In line with the opinion remaining 20 students or 74% had not yet
expressed by Asrial (2018) that science in reached the minimum criteria. Furthermore,
elementary schools is the beginning of students students in fifth grade B totaled 28 students,
getting knowledge and scientific process skills there were 10 students or 36% who reached the
that are formed through the practice of science minimum criteria, the remaining 64% or 18
competencies. students had not reached the minimum criteria.
Based on the results of interviews with There were 27 students in fifth grade C, there
class teachers, the results of interviews with were 7 students or 26% who reached the
students, and the results of observations on the minimum criteria, while the remaining 20
science learning process in fifth grade SDIT Al students or 74% had not reached the minimum
Madina in August 2019, several problems can criteria. Finally, namely fifth grade D, which
be identified, namely when carrying out amounts to 29 students, there are 12 students or
practicum activities there are 15 out of 28 41% who have reached the minimum criteria
students who are still confused, they are not while the remaining 17 students or 69% have
know what to do. Students are not able to make not reached the minimum criteria.
hypotheses, identify and conclude what is Based on the findings of problems in the
learned. field, learning is needed that makes students
Based on the results of interviews with actively involved in learning. In order to
several students, 12 students found it difficult to encourage the thinking potential of students in
take part in science learning, because the the implementation of learning and evaluation,

365
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

teachers must manage their activities in a which is expected to increase students'

planned manner to empower students' cognitive enthusiasm in participating in learning, namely
learning outcomes. Yuliana (2016) suggests that by applying the Quizizz evaluation.
learning outcomes are abilities obtained by Quizizz is a game-based educational
individuals after the learning process takes application, which brings multiplayer activities
place, which can provide behavioral changes. to the classroom and makes classroom practice
The solution offered in this research is interactive and fun. By using Quizizz, students
using the Problem Based Learning’s model. can do classroom exercises on their electronic
Problem Based Learning presents authentic devices. Unlike other educational applications,
problems to be formulated and solved together Quizizz has game characteristics such as
in groups. Agraw (2017: 858) suggests that avatars, themes, memes, and entertaining music
Problem Based Learning is an instructional in the learning process (Purba, 2019).
method where relevant problems are introduced Amornchewin (2018) explained that Quizizz is
at the beginning of the instruction cycle and are a learning tool or media that is believed to
used to provide context and motivation in motivate students in learning with interesting
learning. Meanwhile, Apriyani (2017) suggests features. Quizizz can help teachers in
that the Problem Based Learning’s model is a conducting evaluations without being limited by
learning model based on existing problems, places, attractive displays and set time settings
which places students as learning subjects, so will guide student concentration in learning.
that learning is more student-centered. The purpose of this study was to analyze
Nugraha (2017) states that the Problem the effect of the Problem Based Learning’s
Based Learning’s model is a learning model that model using Quizizz evaluation on student
applies cognitive and constructivist theories cognitive learning outcomes and to determine
because it constructs existing knowledge and the difference in the effect of the Problem Based
skills in students. Fitriono (2015) also revealed Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation with
that Problem Based Learning has the principle conventional learning on student cognitive
of real learning in everyday life. learning outcomes. The benefit obtained from
Etiuobon & Anthonia (2016) states that this research is to add to the existing knowledge
the steps of the Problem Based Learning’s treasury, especially regarding the
method are 1) orienting students, 2) organizing implementation of the Problem Based
students to learn, 3) guiding individual / group Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation in
investigations, 4) developing and presenting improving critical thinking skills and cognitive
work, 5) analyzing and evaluating the process learning outcomes of elementary school
solution to problem. students.
The use of the Problem Based Learning’s
model is in line with research conducted by METHOD
Nafiah (2014) which shows that student learning
outcomes after the application of problem based This study used a quantitative research
learning increased by 24.2%. The use of the approach, namely a quasi-experimental method.
Problem Based Learning’s model facilitates The research design used a pretest-posttest
student learning by emphasizing problems and control group design.
problem solving so that students are able to The population in this study were all fifth
improve more meaningful learning skills, think grade students at SDIT Al-Madina Semarang
at higher levels and be able to solve problems City. Fifth grade has 4 parallel classes, namely
correctly (Astuti, 2016). classes A, B, C, and D. Fifth grade A totals 27
In addition to using the Problem Based students, Fifth grade B consists of 28 students,
Learning’s model, researchers also want to Fifth grade C has 27 students, and Fifth grade D
apply an attractive evaluation tool for students has 29 students. So that the total population in
366
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

this study were 110 grade V students at SDIT Al determine the effect of the Problem Based
Madina Semarang City. Learning (PBL) model using Quizizz evaluation
The sample chosen in this study was on student cognitive learning outcomes in
determined using purposive sampling technique. science learning class V SD on learning theme 8
The purposive sampling technique was used in "Environment Our Friends”, sub-theme 1“
this study due to several considerations, namely Humans and the Environment ”(lessons 1, 2
the control and experimental groups came from and 5). Learning activities in research in the
one school, the number of students was experimental group used Problem Based
balanced or the same, the student learning Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation,
outcomes showed relatively the same results. while in the control group using conventional
Based on these considerations, 27 students in learning.
Fifth grade A and 27 children in fifth grade C
were selected as research samples. 1. Prerequisite Test
Data collection techniques in this study A) Normality Test
used test. The instrument used was a multiple The first stage after the pretest data on the
choice test item to measure cognitie learning cognitive learning outcomes of the experimental
outcomes. Indicators used in cognitive learning class and control class were collected, then the
outcomes are remember (C1), understand (C2), data normality test was carried out using the
apply (C3), analyze (C4), evaluate (C5), and normality test formula through the Liliefors test
create (C6). (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) using SPSS version 21.
The data analysis technique used in this The form of the hypothesis for the normality test
study was the normality test, homogeneity test, are as follows. H0: data comes from samples
mastery test, improvement test, and influence that are normally distributed.
test, as well as the ANOVA test with Post Hoc. H1: The data do not come from normally
distributed samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The criteria used to reject or not reject H0
based on the P-value are as follows. If the P-
The results of the research that will be value <𝛼, then H0 is rejected. If the P-value ≥ 𝛼,
described in this chapter are oriented towards then H0 is accepted. The results of the normality
research objectives that have been described in test for the control class and experimental class
the background of the problem, namely to can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Pretest Normality Test for Cognitive Learning Outcomes

Normality Test Experiment Class Control Class
Sig. Kolmogorov-Smirnov 0.200 0.200
𝛼 0.05 0.05
Normally distributed Normally distributed

Based on Table 1, it can be seen that the 0.05, this indicates that the pretest data for the
pretest results of the cognitive learning control group was normally distributed or H0
outcomes of the experimental class students was accepted. Therefore, it can be said that the
have a normality test Sig value of 0.200 which is experimental class and control class data are
greater than the value of 𝛼 = 0.05. This shows normally distributed.
that the experimental group pretest data comes
from data that is normally distributed or H0 is B) Homogeinity Test
accepted. In the control class, after the The homogeneity test is carried out to
normality test was carried out, the Sig value was investigate whether or not the homogeneity of
0.200, which was greater than the value of 𝛼 =
367
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

the variance or groups is fulfilled or not. The The criteria used to determine pretest
hypothesis for the homogeneity test are: homogeneity are as follows. H0 is accepted if
H0: The two variances are the same. the significance is ≥ 0.05. H1 is rejected if the
H1: The two variances are different. significance is <0.05. The following shows the
results of the homogeneity test in Table 2.

Table 2. Pretest Homogeneity Test for Cognitive Learning Outcomes

Levene’s Test for equality of Variances
F Sig.
Pretest Equal variances assumed
0.345 0.922
Equal variances not assumed

Based on Table 2 the homogeneity test of A. Completeness Test of Experimental Class

the experimental group and the control group Completeness test in science learning in
has a Sig value of 0.922, this shows that H0 is elementary school fifth grade A (experimental
accepted because Sig > 0.05, meaning that the class) SDIT Al-Madina was carried out to
experimental group and the control group come determine student cognitive learning outcomes,
from the same variance. both individual and classical completeness.
Individual completeness cognitive learning
2. Hypothesis Test outcomes are presented in Figure 1.

%
50
44
45 40
40
33
35 30
30
Value

25 22
19 Pretest
20
15 Posttest
10 7
4
5 0 0
0
Very Good Good Enough Less Very Less
Criteria

Figure 1. Individual completeness cognitive learning outcomes

Figure 1 shows the implementation of were 10 students or 37% who obtained very
the pretest in cognitive learning outcomes, there good category results, there were 11 students or
are 1 student or 4% who get very good category 41% who were in the good result category, there
results, there are 6 students or 22% who are in were 5 students or 18% who were in the
the good result category, there are 12% students moderate result category, there are 1 or 4% of
who are in the moderate result category, there students who are in the less result category, and
are 8% students who are in the poor result there are no students with very less result
category, and there are no students with very categories
poor result categories. After the implementation Furthermore, the results of classical
of learning with the PBL model using the completeness can be seen in Figure 2 below.
Quizizz evaluation of the posttest results, there

368
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

100 93

80
Value
60 5248

40 Completed
20 7 Uncompleted
0
Pretest Posttest
Test

Figure 2. Completion of the Pretest-Posttest%

Based on Figure 2, it can be seen that the completeness has reached 93% while students
average score of the results of the critical who have not completed reach 7%.
thinking ability of the pretest is 66.25 and B) Completeness Test for Control Class
classical completeness has only reached 52%, Completeness test in science learning in
while the students who have not completed fifth grade C (control class) SDIT Al-Madina
reach 48%. was conducted to determine student cognitive
The mean value of post-test cognitive learning outcomes, both individual and classical
learning outcomes is 81.70 and classical completeness. Individual completeness cognitive
learning outcomes are presented in Figure 3.

%
50
44
45 40
40
33
35 30
30
Value

25 22
19
20 Pretest
15 Posttest
10 7
4
5 0 0
0
Very Good Good Enough Less Very Less
Criteria

Figure 3. Individual Completeness of Cognitive Learning Outcomes

Based on Figure 3 it can be seen that after the implementation of the posttest in cognitive
the implementation of the pretest in cognitive learning outcomes, there were 6 students or 23%
learning outcomes there were 2 students or 7% who obtained very good category results, there
who obtained very good category results, there were 9 students or 33% who were in the good
were 5 students or 19% who were in the good result category, there were 11 students or 40%
outcome category, there were 12 students or who were in the moderate result category, there
44% who were in the result category Enough, were 1 or 4% of students who are in the less
there are 8 or 30% of students who are in the result category, and there are no students with
poor result category, and there are no students very less result categories.
with very less result categories. Whereas after
369
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

Furthermore, the classical completeness 4.

results of the control class can be seen in Figure

100
78
80
60 5248
Value

40 22 Completed
20 Uncompleted
0
Pretest Posttest
Test

Figure 4. Completeness of the Pretest-Posttest

Based on Figure 4, it can be seen that the The enhancement test using the Gain
average value of pretest cognitive learning Score Test was conducted to determine the
outcomes is 66.40 and classical completeness difference between the pretest and posttest
has only reached 52% while students who have scores in the control class and the experimental
not completed reach 48%. The average value of class.
posttest cognitive learning outcomes 75.96 and The following are the results of the N-
classical completeness reached 78% while Gain cognitive learning outcomes of the
students who had not completed reached 22%. experimental class and control class students
presented in Figure 5.
C) Enhancement Test

%
80 70
70
60 52
50 44
Value

40
Experiment
30
20 15 15 Control
10 4
0
Low Medium High
Criteria

Figure 5. N-Gain Cognitive Learning Outcomes

Based on Figure 5, it can be seen that the category in the control class were 52%, while
cognitive learning outcomes of students in the those in the experimental class were 15%.
control class in the high category are 4%, while Furthermore, in the control class the
those in the experimental class are 15%. Student average N-Gain is 0.28 and is in the low
cognitive learning outcomes in the moderate category, while in the experimental class the
category in the control class were 44%, while average N-Gain is 0.46 and is in the medium
those in the experimental class were 70%. category. This shows that the acquisition of
Students' cognitive learning outcomes in the low cognitive learning outcomes of students in the
370
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

experimental class is better than the control H0 is rejected, so it can be said that there is an
class. influence on student cognitive learning
outcomes with the PBL model using Quizizz-
3) Effect Test based evaluation.
A. Paired Sample t-Test
Paired Sample t-Test is used to determine B. Independent Sample t-Test
whether there is an effect of the Problem Based Independent sample t-test was used to
Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation on determine the difference in the effect of the
students 'cognitive learning outcomes in Problem Based Learning’s model using Quizizz
elementary school science learning in grade V evaluation with conventional learning on
on theme 8 "Our Friends' Environment", sub- student cognitive learning outcomes in
theme 1 "Humans and the Environment". elementary school science learning.
The results of the paired smaple t-test, the Following are the results of the
Sig value obtained is 0.00 <0.05, meaning that independent sample t-test presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Independent Sample t-Test

Sig. 2 tailed 𝛼 Mean
Experiment Control
0.00 0.05 81.51 75.96
There is a difference in the average cognitive learning
outcomes of students

Based on the test table above, it can be C. ANOVA test with Post Hoc
seen that the significance value shows the This test was conducted to determine the
number 0.00 <0.05. This proves that there is a difference in the effect of the Problem Based
difference in the average value of students' Learning’s model using Quizizz evaluation and
cognitive learning outcomes in the experimental conventional learning on groups of low,
class and the control class after learning. In the medium and high level students on cognitive
mean box it can be seen that the mean of the learning outcomes. If the calculation results
experimental class shows a result of 81.51, while prove that there is a difference in the effect of
the control class shows a result of 75.96. This each lesson, then continue with the Post hoc test
shows that the average cognitive learning to see in more detail which group the effect is
outcomes of students in the experimental class significant.
are higher than the average cognitive learning
outcomes of students in the control class.

Table 4. ANOVA Test

Group Sig.

Very High 0.00

High
Medium

Based on the results in Table 4, it can be a significant effect on the very high, high, and
seen that there are differences in the influence of medium groups in the experimental class.
the very high, high, and medium groups. Furthermore, it is known that a
Obtained a Sig value of 0.00 <0.05, then there is significant influence is in the experimental class,
then it is followed by the Post Hoc test to
371
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

determine the magnitude of this influence is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Post Hoc

Group Sig. Mean

Very High High 0.00 14.015

Medium 0.00 30.472
High Very High 0.00 -14.015
Medium
Very High 0.00 16.458
Medium High 0.00 30.472

0.00 -16.458

Based on the data in Table 5, it can be difference with the moderate group. Meanwhile,
seen that the group of students with very high the medium group had a Sig value of 0.00
cognitive learning outcomes has a Sig value of against the very high group and the high group,
0.00 for the high group, and the very high group meaning that the medium group had a
has a Sig of 0.00 for the moderate group, significant difference from the very high group
meaning that the very high group has a to the high group.
significant difference with the high group and Next, look at the mean box to see which
the medium group. . The group of students with group has the most significant difference. It can
high learning achievement had a Sig value of be seen that the very high group has a very
0.00 against the very high group, meaning that significant difference compared to the medium
the high group had a significant difference with group with the mean acquisition of 30,472.
the very high group, while the high group had a Figure 6 and Figure 7 shows the quizizz
Sig value of 0.00 against the moderate group, and the results of the quizizz presentation done
meaning that the high group had a significant by students.

Figure 6. Quizizz Performance from Experiment Class

Based on Figure 6, it can be explained

in Figure 7 below.

372
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

30 27 27 26
24 25 25
25
20
Score

15 Correct
10 Incorrect
5 3 2 2 Unattempled
0 0 1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
No item

Figure 7. Answers of experimental students

In question number 1, which is "erosion namely natural water sources and artificial
that occurs by sea water is called ..." the correct water sources. which is a natural source of water
answer is abrasion. There were 24 students who is… ”The correct answer was springs, there
answered correctly because they already were 25 students who answered correctly while
understood the concept of the question, while the rest, namely 2 students, answered
the other 3 students answered incorrectly, incorrectly. This happens because students who
namely erosion. This is because they pay less answer wrong are not accurate enough. Problem
attention to the learning that is being followed. number 4, namely "closing roads with asphalt or
Furthermore, in question number 2, namely "in blocks can cause various problems, except ...."
everyday life, the use of water for washing, the correct answer is that rain water soaks in
bathing, cooking, etc. must be ..." the correct well. There were 27 students who answered
answer is economical, there were 27 students correctly while there were no students who
who answered correctly while no student answered incorrectly. This is because students
answered wrong. This is because students have understood the concept of water
already understand the concept of how to save infiltration.
water in everyday life. Problem number 3, Furthermore, here are the answers from
namely "water sources are divided into 2, the control class students in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Quizizz Performance from Control Clas

373
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

Based on Figure 8, it can be explained in Figure 9 below.

30
24
25
20
20 18 17 16 16
Score

15 Correct
9 10 10
10 8 Incorrect
6
5 Unattempled
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
No item

Figure 9. Answer of Control Students

In question number 1, which is "erosion an answer. This is because students have

that occurs by sea water is called ..." the correct understood the concept of water infiltration.
answer is abrasion. There were 18 students who This shows that the experimental class performs
answered correctly because they already better than the control class.
understood the concept of the question, while 8 Based on the data obtained, the quizizzes
other students answered incorrectly, namely that were done by the experimental class
erosion, and 1 student did not give an answer. students got better scores than the questions in
This is because they pay less attention to the the quizizzes that were done by the control class
learning that is being followed. Furthermore, in students. This is because through the problem-
question number 2, namely "in everyday life, the based learning model, students are required to
use of water for washing, bathing, cooking, etc. try and experiment so that material they get is
must be ..." the correct answer is economical, more durable than the lecture model.
there are 24 students who answered correctly During the Problem Based Learning’s
while 2 students answered incorrectly and 1 model with Quizizz-based evaluation, students
student did not give answer. This is because seemed enthusiastic and happy. The Problem
students already understand the concept of how Based Learning’s model with Quizizz-based
to save water in everyday life. Problem number evaluation seems to provide direct experience to
3, namely "water sources are divided into 2, students through a practice, so that the
namely natural water sources and artificial water experience will be imprinted for a long time in
sources. which is a natural source of water is… students' memories. This is in accordance with
”the correct answer was springs, there were 9 Paloloang (2014) who states that in the Problem
students who answered correctly while 17 Based Learning’s model, the teacher does not
students answered incorrectly and 1 student did only stand in front of the class and acts as a
not give the answer. This happens because student guide in solving problems by providing
students who answer wrong are not accurate ready-made solution steps, but the teacher goes
enough. Problem number 4, namely "closing around the class to facilitate discussions, ask
roads with asphalt or blocks can cause various questions, and helping students to become more
problems, except ...." the correct answer is that aware of the importance of learning.
rain water soaks in well. There were 16 students
who answered correctly while 10 students
answered incorrectly and 1 student did not give
374
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

CONCLUSION Etiubon, R & Anthonia, N. 2016. “Problem

Based Learning and Stidents Academic
Based on the research results that have Achievement on Thermodynamics (A
been described, it can be concluded there are Case Study of University of Uyo, Akwa
differences in the effect of the problem based Ibom State, Nigeria)”. IQSR Journal of
learning (PBL) model using quiziz evaluation Research & Method in Education. 6 (5): 36-
and conventional learning and the effect of the 41.
problem based learning (PBL) model using Fitriono, Y., Rochmad., & Wardono. 2015.
quiziz evaluation is greater than conventional “Model PBL dengan Pendekatan PMRI
learning on cognitive learning outcomes. Berpenilaian Serupa PISA untuk
Meningkatkan Kemampuan Literasi
REFERENCES Matematika Siswa”. Unnes Journal of
Mathematics Education Research. 4 (1): 56-
Agraw, A.S. 2017. “The Effect of Problem 65.
Based Learning (PBL) Instruction on Hacieminoglu, E. 2016. “Elementary School
Students’ Motivation and Problem Student Attitude Toward Science and
Solving Skills of Physics”. Journal of Related Variables”. International Journal of
Mathematics Science and Technology Enviromental & Science Education. 11 (2):
Education. 13 (3): 857-861. 35-52.
Amornchewin, R. 2018. “The Development of Juhji. 2016. “Peningkatan Keterampilan Proses
SQL Language Skills in Data Definition Sains Siswa Melalui Pendekatan Inkuiri
and Data Manipulation Languages Using Terbimbing”. Jurnal Penelitian dan
Exercise with Quizizz for Student.s Pembelajaran IPA. 2 (1): 58-70.
Learning Engagement”. Indonesian Journal Nugraha, A., Hardi S., & Endang S. 2017.
of Informatics Education. 2(2): 85-90. “Analisis Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis
Andrian., Kasmadi, I.S., & Putut, M. 2017. Ditinjau dari Keterampilan Proses Sains
“Keefektifan Model Project Based dan Motivasi Belajar melalui Model
Learning Terbimbing untuk PBL”. Journal of Primary Education. 6 (1):
Meningkatkan Keterampilan Proses Sains 35-43.
dan Hasil Belajar IPA”. Journal of Primary Purba, L. 2019. “Peningkatan Konsentrasi
Education. 6 (2): 120-125. Belajar Mahasiswa Melalui Pemanfaatan
Apriyani, L. 2017. “Penerapan Model PBL Evaluasi Pembelajaran Quizizz pada
untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Mata Kuliah Kimia Fisika I”. JDP. 12 (1):
Berpikir Kritis Ditinjau dari Kemampuan 29-39.
Akademik Siswa pada Materi Biologi”. Wanga, P H. 2015. “Influence of Implementing
Jurnal Quagga. 9 (1): 41-54. Inquiry-Based Instruction on Science
Asrial. 2018. “Analisis Kompetensi Pedagogik Learning Motivation and Interest: A
dan Kompetensi IPA terhadap Calon Perspective of Comparison”. Journal -
Guru Sekolah Dasar PGSD FKIP Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174: 1292–
Universitas Jambi”. Jurnal Wahana Ilmiah 1299.
Pendidikan Dasar. 4 (2): 41-49. Widiawati. 2015. “Analisis Pemahaman Konsep
Astuti, M. 2016. “The Effect of Problem-Based dalam Pembelajaran IPA pada Siswa
Learning and Level Intelligence of Kelas IV SD di Gugus II Kecamatan
Students’ Critical Thinking on Kalamm Banjar”. E-Journal PGSD Pendidikan
Science”. Journal of Islamic Education. 21 Ganesha. 3 (1): 1-11.
(2): 155-164. Yuliana, L. 2016. “Penerapan Model Problem
Based Learning pada Materi Energi
Alternatif untuk Meningkatkan Hasil

375
 Nafisa Risma Zuhara et al./ Journal of Primary Education 9 (4) (2020) : 364 – 376

Belajar Siswa Kelas IV-B SDN Kabupaten Sumedang”. Jurnal Pena

Conggeang I Kecamatan Conggeang Ilmiah. 1 (1): 861-870.

376