How to cite:

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso (2021). Analysis of

Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the

Pode Model In Elementary School. Journal Eduvest. 1(12): 1405-

1417

E-ISSN:

2775-3727

Published by:

https://greenpublisher.id/

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

p- ISSN 2775-3735 e-ISSN 2775-3727

ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS IN HANDS ON ACTIVITY IN

APPLICATION OF THE PODE MODEL IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Postgraduate Semarang State University, Semarang, Indonesia

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] ,

[email protected]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received:

November, 26

2021

Revised:

December, 17

2021

Approved:

December, 19

2021

The low learning outcomes of science in grade IV elementary

school. The learning process still uses conventional methods

which can cause students to be less directly involved in direct

practical activities and active discussion during learning. It is

necessary to apply the Hands On Activity approach in the

application of the PODE model to improve students' science

process skills. The purpose of this study was to analyze the

science process skills in Hands On Activity in the application of

the PODE learning model in elementary schools. This type of

research is a Quasi Experimental Design in the form of

Nonequivalent Control Group Design. The sample in this study

amounted to 60 fourth grade students. Data collection

techniques using observation sheets, indicators of science

process skills consist of observing, classifying, experimenting,

communicating and concluding. Data analysis used simple and

multiple linear regression test. The results showed that the

science process skills of the experimental class applying Hands

on Activity and the PODE model were 76.4% and 61.2%, while

the PODE model control class had an effect of 50.7%. The

results of multiple linear tests obtained results of 76.5%, the

results of Sig. Simultaneous effect test is 0.000 < 0.05 and

Fcount 43.897 > Ftable 3.33, and it can be concluded that there

is an effect of Hands on Activity (X1) and PODE model (X2)

simultaneously on science process skills.

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1406

KEYWORDS

Hands on Activity, PODE, Science Process Skills

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

INTRODUCTION

Science or science learning is learning that learns about the process of natural

phenomena and natural phenomena in the surrounding environment with problem solving

activities to find new theories and concepts of facts (Adriliyani, Dantes, & Jayanta, 2020).

Competence in learning science or science in SD/MI, namely: knowing various types,

natural or artificial environments and their relation to use in everyday life in developing a

series of activities called science process skills (Yunianto, 2021). The science learning

process in elementary schools is more meaningful if the learning materials are linked in

everyday life, so that students can acquire a series of factual scientific knowledge

processes and study natural science phenomena around them in order to realize

conceptual knowledge and develop students' skills and be able to solve problems with a

series of discovery process (Azam & Rokhimawan, 2020).

The initial observation study in the fourth grade of SDN Gugus Kartini, Mejobo

District, Kudus Regency, especially in science learning, the science learning process in

the teacher class still dominates or is teacher centered. Science learning rarely applies

practical methods so that students are not trained in solving problems, as well as a lack of

practical activities. During the learning process students are still passive, less active in

discussing, asking questions and expressing opinions. So that the mid-semester

assessment learning outcomes in science learning are still low below the KKM, which is

70. The results of the second semester science PTS IV in the Kartini Cluster get an

average score of 65.44.

Based on the average mid-semester assessment (PTS), it still does not meet the

KKM criteria. Judging from the low learning outcomes, students are less trained to do

thinking skills to solve a problem scientifically. The results of interviews with teachers

found that at the time of learning the teacher only focused on conceptual results rather

than the process, so that students' scientific skills were not trained and had never been

applied. Science learning is said to be effective if students study a problem with a series

of process skills activities by conducting practicals/experiments to find concepts. Science

process skills are scientific activities used to find a concept or theory to develop an

existing concept or negate previous findings (Ilmi, Nazwatul et al., 2016; Emda, Amna.,

2017).

The condition of the problem of science learning above, it is necessary to apply

an innovative learning activity that can involve students directly through the learning

process of active discussion activities, conducting experiments and inquiries. Science

learning that is currently developing in elementary schools, in the learning process

requires students to be more focused on finding and solving problems (Sudana &

Wesnawa, 2017). In this effort, teachers are more creative and innovative in formulating

learning strategies. Innovative learning planning using a learning strategy can affect

science process skills. One of the efforts to improve students' science process skills is to

apply the Hands On Activity approach in the Predict-Observe-Discuss-Explain (PODE)

learning model. The PODE learning model is a series of activities to predict, observe,

discuss and explain (Avisya, Miriam, & Suyidno, 2019).

The PODE learning model is based on constructivist learning theory in the

process of forming students' knowledge to be more active in carrying out various active

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1407 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

activities that can give meaning to what is being studied (Hammond et al., 2020).

Constructivist learning theory was developed by Piaget. Constructivist learning

emphasizes three important things, namely that first, learning is an active process of

constructing knowledge; the second actively forms a link between the knowledge

possessed by students and the knowledge being studied; the third interacts with other

students (Sulistyowati, 2019). Constructivistic theory in the PODE model, students learn

actively to gain an understanding of initial and final knowledge. Student learning

activities interact with groups to work together to discuss the results of ideas and convey

the results of the ideas discussed (Shah, 2019).

Research (Retnosari & Widodo., 2018) entitled LKS PODE (Predict-Observe-

Discuss-Explain) To Improve Students' Critical Thinking Skills. The purpose of the study

was to describe the implementation of learning, student responses, and improvement of

critical thinking skills after using the PODE LKS. The results of the implementation of

the learning process using LKS are known to be carried out with good and increasing

average results. The average learning process meeting obtained an average score of

77.32% for the first meeting, 82.68% for the second and 100% for the third meeting.

Thinking skills test results Critical thinking shows the results of the pretest and posttest

calculated with a gain score showing a score of 0.42 in the medium category. The results

of Retnosari & Widodo's research show that there is an increase in critical thinking skills

in the PODE LKS.

Irfan, M & Syahrani. (2018). Reviewing research on the application of the Predict

Observe, Discuss, Explain (PODE) Learning Model to Improve Science Process Skills for

Class V Elementary School Students at the Inpres Superior BTN Makassar City

Government. The purpose of Irfan & Syahrani's research is to describe the science

process skills of fifth grade students by applying the PODE model. The research used was

descriptive quantitative. The results showed that science process skills were categorized

as good, with an average of 2.82, so it can be concluded that using the PODE model can

improve science process skills. The difference between Irfan & Syahrani's research and

that of the researcher is that Irfan & Syahrani's research focuses on the independent

variable, namely the ability of science process skills to fifth grade students, while the

researcher refers to the independent variable understanding concepts and science process

skills.

The PODE model is implemented with practical activities or Hands On Activity.

Hands on Activity is an activity that involves students to be active in digging for

information, asking questions, doing activities, finding, collecting data, analyzing and

making their own conclusions (Ismi & Pahriah, 2016). The Hands On Activity activity is

designed to involve students' activities in building thinking skills by means of practical

activities to design experiments using tools, seek information, collect data, analyze and

make conclusions from the results of activities during practical activities (Tu, Liu, & Wu,

2018). Through Hands On Activity practices, experiences and activities, learning can

bring about change in students. Hands On Activity can help students move/work and be

scientific as well as communicate knowledge that is optimized with practical activities

(Jannah, 2017).

Previous research, Application of Hands on Activity-Based Cooperative Learning

Model to Improve Science Process Skills, research from Avisya et al (2019). Aims to

describe the improvement of process skills in the Hands on Activity-based Cooperative

learning model in class VIII E SMPN 25 Banjarmasin. The research method used is

classroom action research (CAR). Analysis in the implementation of the RPP average

value of cycle 1 was 85.75, cycle 2 obtained a value of 95.13 and cycle 3 obtained a value

of 98.38.

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1408

The three cycles are categorized as very good so that the implementation of the

lesson plan by applying the Hands on Activity cooperative learning model has an impact

on the activity of the learning process. Science process skills in cycle 1, indicators

(observing) criteria are good, indicators (concludes and communicating) criteria are

sufficient, and indicators (predicts) get very good criteria, while cycles 2 and cycle 3 get

good and very good criteria. Increased learning outcomes are shown in cycle 1 (18.75%),

cycle 2 (56.25%) in the incomplete category and cycle 3 (87.50%) in the complete

category.

The cooperative learning model based on hands on activity has advantages,

namely it can improve students' science process skills by utilizing the learning

environment, the learning process is focused on hands on activity, namely in each phase

of hands on activity students play an active role during the learning process (Avisya,

Nanda et al, 2019). The cooperative learning model is believed to make students work

together, help each other, and complement each other, both in studying teaching materials

and in doing hands on activities (Ratumanan, 2015). The application of the PODE model

with Hands on Activity is implemented in learning activities, so that students are more

active, cooperate and play a direct role in practical activities.

Student learning activities in Hands On Activity in the application of the PODE

model, the structure of students' initial knowledge is tested with Predict or predicting

activities. Observe or observe; students observe by doing practical activities directly, after

predicting a phenomenon that students have, collect data on the results of observations

which are then analyzed by predicting results. Discuss or discussion; students actively

discuss in groups and collect the results of the analysis of predictive and observing

activities. Explain or explain; students convey the results of predicting, observing,

discussing. Based on the description above, the purpose of this study was to find out

"Analysis of the Role of Hands On Activity in the application of PODE in terms of the

science process skills of students in elementary schools". The difference in this study is

the application of the role of Hands on Activity in the PODE model, while the existing

research is only the PODE model.

RESEARCH METHOD

This research was conducted at SD 1 Gulang and SD 1 Payaman, Mejobo

District, Kudus Regency. The design used in this study is a Quasi Experimental Design in

the form of Nonequivalent Control Group Design. Design of Nonequivalent Control

Group The design of the experimental group and the control group were not chosen

randomly (Sugiyono, 2019:120). In the experimental class students were given treatment

using Hands on Activity learning with the application of the PODE model, while the

control class used the PODE model. Nonequivalent Control Group Design according to

Sugiyono (2019: 120) is as follows:

Descriptiom :

Experiment = Experimental group (Hands on Activity with the application of the PODE

model)

X O

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1409 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Control = Control group (PODE Model)

O1 = Pretest experimental group

O2 = Posttest experimental group

O3 = Pretest control group

O4 = Posttest control group

X = Treatment (treatment)

The population in this study were fourth grade students of SD 1 Gulang and SD 1

Payaman with a total of 60 students. The research sample for the experimental class was

students of SD 1 Gulang with a total of 30 students, for the control class, students of SD 1

Payaman, amounting to 30 students. The independent variables in this study were Hands

on Activity (X1) and the PODE model (X2), while the dependent variable was science

process skills (Y1). The instrument in this study was a science process skill observation

sheet. The research instrument was in the form of non-test, to obtain data and analysis

results of science process skills. Indicators of science process skills include observing,

classifying, conducting experiments, communicating, concluding answers.

Data collection techniques in this study include interviews, documentation and

observation of preliminary studies of data collection and observation of data collection by

observing the learning process which aims to analyze science process skills on the basic

competencies of various forces, including muscle, electric, magnetic, gravity and swipe.

The data analysis technique in this study was simple regression analysis to

determine the effect of Hands on Activity (X1), PODE model (X2) on science process

skills (Y1). Multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of Hands On Activity

(X1) and PODE model (X2) together on science process skills (Y1).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Initial data analysis

1. Normality Test

The normality test of the experimental and control class data was used to

determine whether the pretest-posttest results were normally distributed or not.

Table 1 Recapitulation of Normality Test Results for Experimental Class and Control

Pretest-Posttest

Class

Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Statistic

Sig.

PreTest Experiment

.154

.068

PostTest Experiment

.157

.058

PreTest Control

.145

.107

PostTest Control

.152

.077

Based on Table 1 above, it can be seen that the data is normally distributed if the

significance value (Sig.) in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov column is more than 0.05. The

significance value of the normality test data above is 0.068 in the experimental class

pretest, 0.058 in the experimental class posttest, 0.107 in the control class pretest, and

0.077 in the control class posttest. Because the significance value is above 0.05, it can be

concluded that the data is normally distributed.

1. Homogeneity Test

Homogeneity test is used to determine whether there is a similarity of variance in

the experimental class and the control class. The calculation of the homogeneity test uses

the Levene test. The calculation results show that the significance value is 0.055 at the

significance level = 0.05. Based on Levene's test calculations, it proves that the

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1410

experimental and control classes come from the same or homogeneous variance.

2. Linearity Test

The linearity test is used to determine whether there is a linear relationship between

the independent and dependent variables.

Table 2 Results of Hands on Activity Linearity Test and PODE model on science

process skills

Variable

F Value

Sig.

Hands on Activity – Science process skills

2,578

0,095

PODE Model – Science process skills

1,422

0,260

Based on Table 2 shows that the value of sig. The first deviation from linearity is

0.095 > 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between science

process skills and Hands on Activity. While the value of sig. the second deviation from

linearity is 0.260 > 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between

science process skills and the PODE model.

1. Multicollinearity Test

To detect the presence or absence of multicollinearity can be seen from the amount

of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and Tolerance. The guideline for a regression model

that is free of multicollinearity is to have a tolerance number close to 1. The VIF limit is

10, if the VIF value is below 10, then there is no multicollinearity symptom.

Table 3 Multicollinearity Test Results

Model

Collinearity Statistics

Tolerance

VIF

PODE

.177

5.656

Hans On Activity

.177

5.656

Based on Table 3 above, the coefficient of the independent variable shows the VIF

number is less than 10 > 5.656. The tolerance value is more than 0.1 < 0.177, it can be

concluded that the laying regression model is used.

1. Heteroscedasticity Test

To determine heteroscedasticity can use the Glejser test. The basis for decision

making in this test is if the significance value = 0.05, it can be concluded that there is no

heteroscedasticity problem, but on the contrary if the significance value is <0.05, it can be

concluded that there is a heteroscedasticity problem. The results of the heteroscedasticity

test obtained are as follows:

Table 4 Heteroscedasticity Test Results

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

11.029

7.602

1.451

.158

Hands On

Activity

-.188

.202

-.415

-.929

.361

PODE

.106

.198

.239

.535

.597

In the calculation results in Table 4 above, it is known that the significance value of

the Hans On Activity variable and the PODE Model variable is more than 0.05

(respectively 0.361 and 0.597). Based on this, it can be concluded that there is no

heteroscedasticity between independent variables in the regression model.

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1411 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Data on the results of science process skills were obtained from the beginning of

learning and at the end. Early and late learning scores are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Scores of early and late learning of science process skills

Data

Class

Average %

Early learning

58,00

56,00

Final learning

88,00

69,33

Table 5 can be seen that the average science process skills is 58.00 while the

control class is 56.00. The score increases after learning is done, the average score

achieved by the experimental class students is 88.00 while the control class is 69.33

which gets a higher score is the class that uses PODE and Hands on Activity modes.

Furthermore, to find out the difference between the pretest and posttest scores, the gain

test was continued. The gain test of science process skills scores can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6 Gain Score Test Results Science Process Skills

Group

Average

N-Gain

Description

Pre-test

Post Test

Experiment Class

58,00

88,00

0,70

High

Control Class

56,00

69,33

0,28

Low

Table 6 shows that the N-gain of the KPS in the experimental class shows 0.70 and

the N-gain in the control class shows 0.28. The N-Gain classification is as follows: g <

0.30 = low, 030 < g > 0.70 = moderate, g > 0.70 = high. The results of the experimental

class N-gain are in the medium category, while the control class is in the low category.

The gain test results for the experimental class are higher than the control class, so it can

be concluded that the KPS in the experimental class is better than the control class.

Furthermore, to prove the hypothesis, it is followed by a paired t-test can be seen in Table

Table 7 Paired sample t test results

Paired Samples Test

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Sig

(2-

tail

ed)

Mean

Std.

Deviati

Std.

Eror

Mean

Lower

Upper

Experi

ment

Pretest

Postest

30.000

12.177

2.223

34.547

-25.453

13.4

.00

Control

Pretest

Posttes

13.333

11.090

2.025

17.474

-9.192

6.58

.00

Based on the results of the pair 1 experimental group in Table 7 above, the value of

tcount = 13,494 > ttable = 2,045 and the value of Sig. (2-tailed) of 0.000 < 0.05, it can be

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1412

concluded that there is a difference in the average KPS for the experimental class pre-test

with the post-test experimental class using the PODE and Hands On Activity models.

While the results of pair 2 obtained the value of tcount = 6.585 > ttable = 2.045 and the

value of Sig. (2-tailed) of 0.000 > 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a difference in

the average KPS for the control class pre-test and post-test control class students' concept

understanding for the experimental class pre-test with the experimental class post-test

using PODE model without Hands On Activity.

A. Simple and multiple regression analysis

The results of the regression equation for the PODE model variable on the control

class KPS can be seen in Table 8 below.

Table 8 Simple Regression Test Results of the PODE Model on the Control Class

KPS

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

13.826

11.087

1.247

.223

PODE (K)

.735

.137

.712

5.369

.000

Based on Table 8 above, it is known that the value of Sig. for the effect of the

PODE model on KPS of 0.000 <0.05 and the value of tcount 5.369 > ttable 2.045, so it

can be concluded that there is an effect of the PODE model on PPP. From the table

above, the regression equation Y2 = (13,826)+0.735X2 is also formed. From this

equation, it can be interpreted that the effect of the PODE (X2) model on PPP (Y2) is

positive. This can be seen from the regression coefficient (X2) of 0.735 which is positive,

indicating that the effect of the PODE model on PPP is positive. This condition implies

that the more effective the implementation of the PODE model, the better the PPP. The

magnitude of the influence of the PODE model on KPS the value of the coefficient of

determination (R2) of the PODE model variable on KPS is 0.507. This shows that the

magnitude of the PODE model on the concept understanding of the control class students

is 50.7%. The results of the regression equation for the PODE model variable on the

experimental class KPS can be seen in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Simple Regression Test Results of the PODE Model on the Experimental

Class KPS

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

-13.116

10.636

-1.233

.228

PODE (E)

1.155

.121

.874

9.529

.000

Based on Table 9 above, it is known that the value of Sig. for the effect of the

PODE model on the experimental class KPS of 0.000 <0.05 and the tcount 9.529 > ttable

2.045, so it can be concluded that there is an effect of the PODE model on the KPS. From

Table 4.18 above, the regression equation Y2 = (-13,116)+1,155X2 is also formed. From

this equation, it can be interpreted that the effect of the PODE (X2) model on PPP (Y2) is

positive. This can be seen from the regression coefficient (X2) of 1.155 which is positive.

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1413 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

This condition implies that the more effective the implementation of the PODE model,

the better the PPP. The magnitude of the effect of the PODE model on science process

skills, the coefficient of determination (R2) of the PODE model variable on KPS

understanding is 0.764. This shows the effect of the magnitude of the PODE model on the

experimental class KPS of 76.4%. When compared between the experimental class and

the control class, the effect of the PODE model on KPS in the experimental class is

higher with a ratio of 76.4% compared to 50.7%.

The results of the regression equation for the Hands on Activity variable on the

experimental class KPS can be seen in Table 10 below.

Table 10 Simple Regression Test Results Hands on Activity Against KPS

Experiment Class

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

.561

13.198

.043

.966

Hands on (E)

.988

.149

.782

6.642

.000

Based on Table 10, it is known that the value of Sig. for the effect of Hands on

Activity on the experimental class KPS of 0.000 <0.05 and the tcount 6.642 > ttable

2.045, so it can be concluded that there is an effect of Hands on Activity on the KPS.

From Table 4.22 above, the regression equation Y2 = (-13,116)+1,155X1 is also formed.

From this equation, it can be interpreted that the effect of Hands on Activity (X2) on KPS

(Y2) is positive. This can be seen from the regression coefficient (X1) of 0.988 which is

positive, indicating that the effect of Hands on Activity on the experimental class KPS is

positive. This condition implies that the more effective the implementation of Hands on

Activity, the better the PPP. The magnitude of the influence of Hands on Activity on the

KPS of the experimental class, the value of the coefficient of determination (R2) of the

Hands on Activity variable on the understanding of KPS is 0.612. This shows the effect

of the magnitude of Hands on Activity on the experimental class KPS of 61.2%.

The next statistical analysis is aimed at knowing the magnitude of the influence of

the independent variable Hands on Activity (X1) and the PODE model (X2) on the

dependent variable understanding of the concept (Y1) together in the experimental class.

Statistical analysis to determine the effect of the independent variable Hands on Activity

(X1) and the PODE model (X2) on the dependent variable KPS (Y2) together in the

experimental class. The analysis used is through multiple regression equations. Based on

calculations using the SPSS program, the regression contained in Table 11 is obtained as

follows.

Table 11 Results of Hands on Activity Multiple Linear Regression and PODE

Model on KPS

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

Beta

(Constant)

-13.563

10.990

-1.234

.228

PODE (X2)

1.101

.263

.833

4.192

.000

Hands On Activity (X1)

.058

.251

.046

.233

.818

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1414

Based on the results of the analysis in Table 11, it can be seen that the regression

equation formed is Y2= -13,563+1,101X1+0,58X2. In addition, it was also found that the

most influential independent variable was the PODE model variable with a coefficient of

1.101. While the variable that has a lower effect is the Hands on Activity variable with a

coefficient value of 0.058.

From this equation, it can be seen that all the independent variables Hands on

Activity (X1) and the PODE model (X2) have a positive effect on KPS (Y2). This means

that better use of Hands on Activity and the PODE model results in an increase in KPS.

The coefficient of determination (R2) essentially measures how far the model's

ability to explain the dependent variable is. The value of the coefficient of independent

determination shows the more dominant influence on the dependent variable. The value

of the coefficient of determination is 0 and 1. The greater R2 of an independent variable,

the more dominant the influence on the dependent variable is. The results of the

calculation of the coefficient of determination of the independent variable Hands on

Activity (X1) and the PODE model (X2) on KPS (Y2), the effect of the independent

variable on the dependent variable is indicated by the coefficient of determination (R2) of

0.765 or 76.5%. This means that the Hands on Activity learning variable and the PODE

model are able to explain the variation of KPS by 76.5% while the remaining 23.5% is

explained by variables outside of this study. The results of the research together with the

Hands on Activity variable and the PODE model on PPP can be seen in table 12 below.

Table 12 Test Results of Simultaneous Effects of Hands on Activity Variables and

the PODE Model on KPS

Model

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

Sig.

Regression

1476.060

738.030

43.897

.000

Residual

453.940

16.813

Total

1930.000

Based on the output of Table 12, it is known that the significance value (Sig.) for

the effect of Simultaneous Hands on Activity learning and the PODE model on KPS is

0.000 < 0.05 and the value of Fcount 43.897 > Ftable 3.33, so it can be concluded that

there is an effect of Hands on Activity (X1) and PODE model (X2) simultaneously on

KPS (Y2).

DISCUSSION

In the control class of the PODE model on science process skills, the results of the

analysis show the influence of the PODE model on science process skills. The results of

the regression equation Y2 = (13,826) + 0.735X2, which means that the effect of the

PODE (X2) model on KPS (Y2) is positive. This can be seen from the regression

coefficient of 0.735 which is positive. The result of the calculation of the coefficient of

determination (R2) of the PODE model on science process skills is 50.7%. Based on the

results of the analysis of the findings of this study, the application of the PODE model to

science process skills in the control class

Based on research (Zulaeha, et al. 2014) on the effect of the POE model on science

process skills, it explains that there is an effect of science process skills on classes that

use the POE learning model with classes that use conventional learning. In line with

research (Gultom. 2018) explaining that science process skills using the POE model get

significant results, this is because the POE model activities make students develop their

cognitive structures.

The results of the analysis of the experimental class science process skills

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1415 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

indicators on the indicators of observing, classifying, conducting experiments,

communicating and concluding answers obtained very good criteria with a total

percentage of 86.67%, 81.67%, 90.83%, 90.83%, respectively. , 90.00%. Based on the

results of the percentage of science process skills in the control class and the experimental

class, there was an increase in each indicator. Based on simple regression analysis, there

is an effect of the PODE model on science process skills, the results of the Sig value. of

0.000 <0.05 and the value of tcount 9.529 > ttable 2.045. The results of the regression

equation Y2 = (-13.116) +1.155X2, the results of the equation mean that the effect of the

PODE (X2) model on KPS (Y2) is positive. The magnitude of the coefficient of

determination of the influence of the PODE model on the science process skills of the

experimental class is (R2) of 0.764 or 76.4%. The conclusion between the experimental

class and the control class is that the effect of the PODE model on science process skills

is higher with a ratio of 76.4% vs. 50.7%.

The results of research (Irfan & Syahrani, 2018) on the PODE model to improve

science process skills explain that the indicators of observation, prediction, conducting

experiments are in the good category, while drawing conclusions and reporting are in the

sufficient category. Research (Wlandari, et al. 2014) has a positive influence on the

application of the PODE strategy to science process skills.

The results of the simple regression analysis of Hands on Activity on the science

process skills of the experimental class, it is known that the value of Sig. of 0.000 <0.05

and the value of tcount 6.642 > ttable 2.045. The conclusion from the results of the value

of Sig. is that there is an effect of Hands on Activity on science process skills. The results

of the regression equation Y2 = (0.561) + 0.988X1, based on the results of the equation, it

can be interpreted that the effect of Hands on Activity on science process skills is

positive. The regression coefficient of X1 is 0.988 which is positive. The value of the

coefficient of determination (R2) for the Hands on Activity variable on science process

skills is 0.162 or 61.2%. Research (Avisya, et al. 2019) the application of the Hands on

Activity-based cooperative model to science process skills has increased, student learning

outcomes from cycle I (18.75%), cycle II (56.25%) with incomplete categories to (87

,50&) with a complete category in cycle III. In line with research with research

(Asmawati, et al. 2017) with the title of the research the effect of a Hands on Activity-

based contextual approach on science process skills, the results of the study showed that

the posttest average for the experimental class was 47.59 and the control class was 55.8.

The results of the experimental class science process skills score got an average result of

77.33 in the high category.

The results of multiple linear analysis of the effect of the Hands on Activity (X1)

variable in the PODE model (X2) on science process skills (Y2), it is known that the

resulting equation is Y2 = -13,563+1,101X1+0,58X2. The independent variable that has

an effect is the PODE model with a coefficient of 1.101 while the variable that has a

lower effect is Hands on Activity with a coefficient value of 0.058. The equation can be

concluded that Hands on Activity and the PODE model have a positive effect on science

process skills. Based on the calculation of the coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.765

or 76.5%, which means that the Hands on Activity learning in the PODE model is able to

explain variations in science process skills by 76.5% for the remaining 23.5% explained

by variables outside this study. Value of Sig. Simultaneous effect test is 0.000 < 0.05 and

Fcount 43.897 > Ftable 3.33, and it can be concluded that there is an effect of Hands on

Activity (X1) and PODE model (X2) simultaneously on science process skills.

The findings in the field show that the expert class student experiments using

Hands on Activity science learning in the application of PODE, students are more active

and independent in direct activity experimental activities, students are very enthusiastic

Fiky Herdianto, Hartono Hartono, Ali Sunarso

Analysis of Science Process Skills in Hands on Activity in Application of the Pode Model

In Elementary School 1416

when observing experiments, in discussing students work together to express opinions in

solving problems, the role of Hands on Activity in the learning process Activities

Practicum on Hands on Activity in the application of the PODE model is more focused by

designing experiments, seeking information, collecting data and analyzing the data

obtained. While learning science in the control class using the PODE model, in the

learning process students must still be directed by the teacher. In the experimental

activities only a few students were active, in terms of observing, discussing and

explaining.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of research and discussion, it can be concluded that, 1) There

are differences in the results of science process skills between learning Hands on Activity

with the application of the PODE model and students using the PODE model only. 2)

There are differences in science process skills in the experimental class in the application

of Hands on Activity and the PODE model has a positive effect of 76.4% and 61.2%,

while the control class using the PODE model has an effect of 50.7%. 3) The results of

the multiple linear test of science process skills obtained results of 76.5%, the results of

the Sig. Simultaneous effect test is 0.000 < 0.05 and Fcount 43.897 > Ftable 3.33, and it

can be concluded that there is an effect of Hands on Activity (X1) and PODE model (X2)

simultaneously on science process skills.

The results of research on the analysis of the role of Hands On Activity in the

application of the PODE model in terms of science process skills in elementary schools

can be concluded that the role of Hands On Activity with the PODE model can improve

science process skills of elementary school students. The results of the research can

theoretically be used as study material and references in similar research using the role of

Hands On Activity and/or the PODE learning model. Practically, the results of this study

can be used as consideration for teachers or other researchers in developing a variety of

learning activities in the classroom in an effort to improve students' science process skills.

REFERENCES

Adriliyani, Putu Ayu, Dantes, Nyoman, & Jayanta, I. Nyoman Laba. (2020).

Pembelajaran IPA Dengan Model Make A Match Berbasis Lingkungan

Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa. MIMBAR PGSD Undiksha, 8(2), 181–191.

Avisya, Nanda, Miriam, Sarah, & Suyidno, Suyidno. (2019). Penerapan Model

Pembelajaran Kooperatif Berbasis Hands on Activity untuk Meningkatkan

Keterampilan Proses Sains. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 3(3), 94.

https://doi.org/10.20527/jipf.v3i3.1036

Azam, Ismuhul Fadhil, & Rokhimawan, Moh. Agung. (2020). Analisis Materi Ipa Kelas

Iv Tema Indahnya Kebersamaan Dengan Hots. JURNAL ILMIAH DIDAKTIKA:

Media Ilmiah Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 21(1), 100–110.

https://doi.org/10.22373/jid.v21i1.5970

Hammond, Darling, Flook, Linda, Cook-Harvey, Lisa, Barron, Channa, Osher, Brigid, &

David. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and

development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Jannah, Novaria Lailatul. (2017). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran POE ( Predict ,

Observe , Explain ) Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Pemecahan Masalah Pada

Mata Pelajaran IPA di Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Program Studi PGMI, 4(1), 133–150.

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 1 Number 12, December 2021

1417 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Shah, Dr. Rajendra Kumar. (2019). Effective Constructivist Teaching Learning in the

Classroom. 7(1), 1–13.

Sulistyowati, Titis. (2019). BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN LISTENING PROCESSES

WITHIN COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY. PROMINENT

Journal, 2(1), 92–100.

Tu, Jui Che, Liu, Li Xia, & Wu, Kuan Yi. (2018). Study on the Learning Effectiveness of

Stanford Design Thinking in Integrated Design Education. Sustainability

(Switzerland), 10(8), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082649

Yunianto, Teguh. (2021). ANALISIS KESESUAIAN MATERI IPA DALAM BUKU SISWA

KELAS IV SEMESTER 1 SD / MI DENGAN KURIKULUM 2013 ANALYSIS OF

THE COMPATIBILITY OF SCIENCE MATERIALS IN THE FIRST SEMESTER

GRADE 4 STUDENT BOOK SD / MI IN CURRICULUM 2013 PENDAHULUAN

Abad ke-21 yang dikaitka. 8(1), 1–17.