THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

The Effect of Scientific Approaches and Cognitive Style on Learning Outcomes

Hartati Muchtar
State University of Jakarta
Zulrahmat Togala
Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 1 Kendari

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Zulrahmat Togala, Madrasah
Aliyah Negeri Kendari, Jl. Pasaeno No. 3 Kendari, Indonesia, Kendari 93117.
Contact: zultogalatp12@gmail.com

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

Abstract
This study aimed at determining the effect of learning approach and thinking style towards the
learning outcomes of electronics skills by controlling prior knowledge. There were 36 students
choosen as participants of this study and they were divided into two treatment classes. The
results analyzed using Analysis of Covariat (ANCOVA) showed: (1) the use of scientific
approach enables students to get a better improvement for their electronics learning achievement
than the use of expository approach; (2) there is an interconnection effect between learning
approach and students thinking style towards the learning outcomes they achieved for the
electronics skill subject, by controlling students prior knowledge; (3) students whose more
divergent thinking style are better taught using scientific approach by controlling prior
knowledge; (4) the expository learning approach is more effective for students whose convergent
thinking styles by controlling prior knowledge.
Keywords: scientific approach, expository approach, divergent/convergent thinking, prior
knowledge

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

Introduction
Survey of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) under the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its findings in
December 2013 that Indonesia was ranked bottom of 65 countries surveyed in mapping
capabilities math, reading, and science. While the Human Development Index (HDI) Indonesia
in 2013 is ranked 121 of 187 countries in the world. This fact shows that the implementation of
education in Indonesia generally and particularly the implementation process of learning requires
serious attention and effort in order to to solve this problem.
The success of education is determined by various factors such as curriculum, teacher,
student, learning, administration, learning tools, management system. Among those factors, the
learning process and students individual differences are regarded more important than others.
The learning process in this case refers to scientific and expository approaches. In terms of
characteristic of individual differences of students, two issues are considered essential to be
analyzed, cognitive style (divergent and convergent) and students prior knowledge.
Teaching and Learning
According to Gagne (1977) learning is a change in human disposition or capability,
which persists over a period of time, and which is not simpliy ascribable to processes of growth,
Driscoll (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012: 36); Smaldino, Lowther, and Russel (2011: 13) the
consequences of changes in the ability that comes from experience and interaction with the
world. Richey, Klein, and Tracey (2011: 61); Schunk (2012: 39); Sims and Sims (2009: 2)
learning is defined as a relatively permanent change in an attitude or behavior that occurs as a
result of repeated experience.
Based on the description above, I may conclude that the essential meanings of learning
are: (1) learning is a consequence of changes that is caused by the ability resulted from student's

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

experience and interaction; (2) learning should be long lasting and can be applied any time,
anywhere and in any contexts; and (3) the acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes can be
measured to ensure the changes.
The competent teachers should be able to assess the learning outcomes and adapt the
learning objectives appropriately as the implementation of the assessments results (Santrock,
2007). According to Slavin (2011) learning objectives are statements about the ability or concept
that is expected to be mastered by the learner at the end of the learning period.
Bloom

et al. (1979)

classify learning outcomes into three domainds: (1) cognitive; (2)

psychomotor; and (3) affective. Which aspects to measure is depended on the purposes of the
assessment of the learning. Further, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revise the proposed
taxonomy of Blooms cognitive domains refers to: remember, understand, apply, analyze,
evaluate, and create. Aronson and Briggs (Reigeluth, 1983) describes that the learning outcomes
is the performance that can be observed and which indicates that certain capability has been
acquired by the learner.
Instructional objectives according to Gronlund (Woolflok, 2007) refers to performance;
while Gagne (Gredler, 2011) assumes it as the capabilities owned by the learners after the
learning process; Briggs (1979) refers the instructional objectives to a whole skill and everything
that is acquired through the process of teaching and learning in schools, expressed numerically,
and measured by an achievement test.
Scientific approach
Scientific knowledge must be based on the observation and experimental data, it means
that the explanation of the phenomena occured must be proved by empirical data (Bybee, 2006).
The fundamental characteristic of the scientific method is that an observation, collection of data

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

to establish the basic conclusions about the nature of the data being observed (Cozby, 2003).
Abruscato and De Rosa (2010) argues that knowledge refers to a process of systematically
collecting information using the scientific process to gather knowledge. Kerlinger (1986) defines
the scientific approach as a systematic investigation, controlled, empirical, ... guided by theories
and hypotheses about the relationship between phenomena.
Acquiring knowledge must be built through the experience of life, especially through
participation and interaction with others in meaningful activities. Teachers need to engage
students in learning activities in which they are actually doing by themseves with some
experiences the teacher has created. (Yerrick and Roth, 2005)
This opinion is supported by Dewantara who states that "... the teacher's task is not only
providing necessary knowledge and punishment but also learners must find it for themselves and
then use it for public use"; and Mohammad Syafei "... the process of learning must be changed
where students occupy their position as subjects. Teachers assign students to examine what the
crux of the problem. "(Tilaar, 2015).
Suchman suggests that learning through scientific inquiry can deliver the students the
habit of doing strategies, values, attitudes and skills such as observing, collecting and processing
data, identify and control variables, formulate and test hypotheses, and draw conclusions (Joyce,
Weil, and Calhoun, 2009).
Expository Approach
Expository approach is identical with direct instruction (Killen, 2009). Expository
teaching is a way that teacher is explaining a new concept or skill to students (Joyce, Weil, and
Calhoun, 2009). Furthermore, according to Diaz, Pelletier, and Profenzo (2006); Orlich et al.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

(2010) expository approach is a form of learning in which teacher delivers learning material
directly to students by emphasizing on the mastery of knowledge and skills.
Cognitive Style
By multiple ways, it is possible to characterize types of learning and types of learners. In
terms of learner style, one way to differentiate learners as the implication result of an
instructional design is based on their learning style (Spector, 2012). Cognitive style identifies
the ways individuals react to different situations. It is one way to characterize individual
differences (Saracho, 1977). Cognitive styles are individual differences in organizing, managing
information and solving problems (Sternberg, 1997); (Li and Sternberg, 2006); (Riding and
Rayner,

2012);

(Chang,

Weng

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

and
Cognitive

Zakharova,
styles

are

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

regularity of information processed (Messick, 1996).
Divergen and Convergent Thinking
Guilford (See De Cecco, 1968); Badgett and Christmann (1981) suggests that divergent
thinking is the ability to provide a variety of responses to a given problem, while convergent
thinking is the ability to produce one correct answer. Kolb state that individuals whose divergent
thinking styles has two tendencies in the way they think, they would rather engage in a new
experience (concrete experience), observe and reflect on their experiences from different aspects
(reflection observation). While individual convergers have the ability to create any concepts that
integrate observations into sound theory (abstract conceptualization) and use the concepts to
solve problems (active experimentation) (Reid, 1995). Divergent thinking has four dimensions:
fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration (Eggen and Kauchak, 2007); (Cohean and

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

Swerdlik, 2010); (Kauffman, Plucker and Baer, 2008). The fourth dimension is used by
researchers to make research instruments.
Prior Knowledge
Judging from the context of educational technology, there are several important steps
which must be done by a teacher before planning his learning process, one of which is to conduct
an analysis on the students. According to Keller (2010), two major products are expected from
the stage of Identifying Entry Behaviors and Characteristics. One is a set of identified entry
behaviors or skills that should have already been mastered by the target audience before
beginning the instruction. The other one is the characteristics of students prior knowledge. Prior
knowledge has some difinitions, it is entry skills (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2009), entry
competencies (Morrison et al., 2007), and prerequesite skill (Richey, 2013). Eventhough the
definitions look different, they are basically refers to the students prior knowledge that should be
owned or known before starting a new learning process.
Research Questions
This study aims at answering the problems of the effect of learning approach and thinking
styles divergent and convergent- towards the learning outcomes, by controlling the students
prior knowledge. The problem statements are: (1) whether there are differences in the results of
students learning achievement for electronics subject between the instruction using scientific
and expository approach by controlling prior knowledge; (2) whether there is difference in the
student learning outcomes between they whose divergent and convergent thinking style by
controlling prior knowledge; (3) whether there is an interaction effect between cognitive style
and learning approach in the students learning outcomes after controlling prior knowledge; (4)
whether there are differences in the learning outcomes between the use of expository approach

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

and scientific one toward the students whose divergent thinking style, after controlling prior
knowledge; (5) whether there are differences in the students learning achievement for
electronics subject taught by expository and scientific approach on the students with convergent
thinking style, after controlling their prior knowledge; (6) whether there are different learning
outcomes between divergent style students and the convergent one taught by scientific approach,
after controlling prior knowledge; and (7) whether there are different learning outcomes gained
between students with divergent thinking style and they whose convergent one taught by
expository approach, after controlling prior knowledge.
Method
This study uses a quasi-experimental method with 2 x 2 factorial designs. The research
variables consist of: (1) the dependent variable which belongs to the students learning outcomes
for electronic subject; (2) the independent variable that belongs to the treatment variables
(scientific approach and expository approach) and attribute variables (divergent and convergent
thinking styles); and (3) the covariate variable which belongs to the students prior knowledge.
The target population of this research is all students of MAN Model Kendari that consist of 860
students. It was decided that samples of this study were the 11th year students classified into an
experimental and control class by random sampling. The number of each experimental and
control class are 32 students. The students whose divergent and convergent thinking styles in
each treatment class were measured by using verbal and figural test instruments developed by
Guilford and Torrance. The indicators of the test are: fluency, flexibility, originality and
elaboration. The verbal and figural testing scores show that the number of divergent and
convergent thinker is 36 students.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

10

Hypothesis test is done by two-way Ancova with 2x2 factorial designs (Kadir, 2015) and
post host is done by Tukey's test (Glass and Hopkins, 1984). The requirement analysis which
consists of: (1) normality; (2) homogeneity (Kadir, 2015); (3) a regression linearity test (Sudjana,
2005); (4) The significance test of regression effect; and (5) homogentity slopes (Agung, 2006)
was done before testing the hypothesis.
Result
The calculation results of Ancova presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Summary of hypothesis testing with Ancova
Variance
A
B
Interraction
AxB
Prior
Knowledge
Res
Total

JK
y res
61.52
30.33

Fo

F-table

1
1

RJK
y res
61.52
30.33

5.50**
2.71ts

4.15
4.15

95.61

95.61

8.55**

4.15

986.55

986.55

88.26

4.15

346.49
533.96

31
34

11.17

Db

The hypothesis test shows the interaction between learning approaches and thinking style,
then post test is done by Tukey test. The Tukey test result is presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of Tukey test
testing
Q(A1B1)(A2B1)

Qo
5,30

Qt
4,41

Q(A1B2)(A2B2)

0,61

4,41

Q(A1B1)(A1B2)

1,20

4,41

Q(A2B1)(A2B2)

4,71

4,41

Conclutions
Significant
Nonsusgnificant
Nonsusgnificant
Significant

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

11

Table 3.
Calculation of average residue
No.

Group

(res)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

A1
A2
B1
B2
A1B1
A1B2
A2B1
A2B2

77,07
74,71
76,83
74,94
80,48
73,65
73,22
76,19

77,18
74,57
74,82
76,93
77,86
76,52
71,95
77,20

Differences in students Electronics achievement are shown after they were taught using
scientific and expository approach by controlling prior knowledge. (Main effect)
Based on the Ancova calculation (Table 1) the variance between A source indicates that
the price of Fo= 5.50 > Ft= 4.15 (= 0.05), Ho is refused and H1 is accepted. It means that there
is a difference in students learning achievement for Electronics subjects after the teaching using
scientific and expository approach. The evidence shown by the average result of group of
students who are taught by the scientific approach= 77.07 and a group of students who are taught
by expository approach= 74.71; Thus, the students learning outcomes who are taught by the
scientific approach is higher than they who are taught by the expository one by controlling their
prior knowledge.
Differences in students Electronics achievement are shown between the students whose
divergent and convergent thinking style by controlling their prior knowledge. (Main effect)
Based on the Ancova calculation (Table 1) on the source of variance between B shows
that Fo= 2.71 < Ft= 4.15 (= 0.05), Ho is refused and H1 is accepted. It means that there is no
difference in the students electronics outcomes between they who have the divergent and

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

12

convergent thinking styles. On the other hand, the acquisition value of the group of students with
divergent thinking styles have an average= 76.83. It is greater than the acquisition value of the
group of students who have convergent thinking style of mean= 74.29. The data show that
although the average value of students learning outcomes for the divergent thinkers are higher
than the average value of students learning outcomes for the convergent thinkers, the difference
is not significant.
The interaction between instructional approach and students thinking style towards the
learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects are shown after controlling students prior
knowledge. (Interraction effect)
Based on the calculations of ANCOVA (Table 2) on the source of variance due to
interaction of A x B shows that the Fo= 8.55 > Ft= 4.15 at = 0.05, Ho is refused and H1 are
accepted. This means that the learning approach has an influence on the learning outcomes for
Electronics skill subjects depending on the style of thinking, after controlling for prior
knowledge.
The differences between the learning outcomes for Electronics skills subjects of students
who are taught by scientific approach and they who are taught by the expository one on the
divergent thinker style after controlling for prior knowledge. (Simple effect)
The results of a further test by Tukey's test in Table 2 shows that the value of Qtest= 5.30
> Qtable= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is refused and H1 are accepted, based on the test results on
average residue (Table 3) obtained value= 77, 86 > 71.95. Thereby, the learning outcomes for
Electronics skills subjects that the students are gained by the use of scientific approach is higher
than the student learning outcomes by the use of expository approach on the divergent students
after controlling their prior knowledge.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

13

Differences in the learning achievement for the Electronics subjects of students taught by
the use of scientific approach and expository one on the convergent students are shown by
controlling the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)
Based on the results of a further test by Tukey's test in Table 2, it is obtained that the
value of Qtest= 0.61 < Qtabel= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is accepted and H1 are refused. So, there was
no significant difference in the students learning outcomes of the Electronic subjects on students
who were taught by scientific approach and by expository one on the convergent students by
controlling the prior knowledge. On the other hand, though the average test results residues
(Table 3) obtained by the value= 76.52 < 77.20, statistically the difference was not significant. It
can be concluded that there is no differences in students learning achievement for the Electronic
skill subjects by the use of scientific and expository approach on the students who have a
tendency to convergent thinking style after controlling their prior knowledge.
Differences are in the students Electronics achievement for they whose thinking style
tends to be divergent and convergent by the use of scientific teaching approach after controlling
the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)
The further test results by Tukey's test in Table 2 obtained the value of Qtest= 1.20 <
Qtable= 4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is accepted and H1 is refused, thus no significant difference in the
Electronics skills subjects of divergent and convergent students are found if they are taught by
the scientific approach after controlling the prior knowledge. In the other words, though the
average test results residues (Table 3) obtained by the value 77.86 > 76.52, but statistically, the
difference was not significant. Further, the Electronics learning achievements of students whose
thinking style tends to be divergent or convergent has no different if being taught by the
scientific approach.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

14

Differences are shown in the students learning outcomes for the Electronics subjects of
students who have divergent and convergent thinking style taught by expository approach after
controlling the prior knowledge. (Simple effect)
A further test results by Tukey's test in Table 2 shows the value of Qtest= 4.71 > Qtable=
4.41 at = 0.05, H0 is refused and H1 is accepted. Based on the test results of the average residue
(Table 3) obtained by the value= 71.95 < 77.20. Thereby, the learning outcomes for Electronic
skill subjects the divergent students have been achieved are lower than the students whose
convergent thinking style when expository teaching approach is used by controlling the students
prior knowledge.
Discussion
The first hypothesis testing results show that the learning outcomes for Electronic skill
subjects the students have achieved are higher if they are taught by scientific approach than the
achievement gained by the group of students who are taught by expository one after controlling
their prior knowledge. Thus, it can be inferred from this research that the use of scientific
approach in the Electronic skill instruction can improve students learning outcomes better than
the use of expository approach. This finding supports the research hypothesis stating that the
learning outcomes of students who are taught by the scientific approach is better than students
taught by expository one.
Proving the hypothesis based on empirical studies conducted by the researchers of this
study is supported by theories and concepts from many experts, such as, Suchman state that
learning through scientific inquiry enables student to gain habit of doing strategies, values,
attitudes and skills for observing, collecting and processing data, identifying and controlling
variables, formulating and testing hypotheses, and then, drawing conclusions (Joyce et al., 2009).

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

15

Barrow and Lynda (2007) likewise argue that applying a scientific approach to learning allows
students to acquire new knowledge and skills when facing real challenges and problems.
Besides, being able to renew (up-to-date) knowledge and skills, it also helps students overcome
the knowledge gap through independent study and learn together, thus enabling them to work
effectively with others.
Results of this study were also strengthened by a research conducted by Akinoglu and
Tandogan (http://ejmeste.com/v3n1/EJMSTEv3n1_Akinoglu.pdf.)

which found that learning

facilitating activity of students may affect students achievement. In the research, they compared
learning strategy that prioritizes the activity of students with traditional learning strategy. The
result shows that although there was an increasing in learning outcomes for both strategies (seen
in the pre-test and post-test), the learning strategy which emphasis on activity of student tends to
be higher than traditional strategy. Another similar study done by Aktamis and Ergin (2008)
revealed that learning with scientific process skills can improve student achievement. Similarly, a
research conducted by Cobern, Schuster, and Adams, entitled Experimental Comparison of
Inquiry and Direct Instruction in Science concludes that learning by scientific approach may
offer significant potential benefits to the learning process. They suggest that in doing the
teaching and learning process, teacher is demanded to create student-centered activities such as
conducting investigations, interpretation of data, group discussion and cooperative learning. This
strategy

can

help

develop

mental

skills

and

mastery

of

concepts

for

students.

(http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514406.pdf).
The second hypothesis testing shows that there are no differences in the students learning
outcomes of Electronics skills subjects for the groups of students who have divergent thinking
styles and they whose convergent one, after controlling the prior knowledge. These findings are

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

16

relevant with the opinion of Li, et al. (2012) there is a significant relationship between the
thinking style of divergent and convergent with academic achievement. Further, they explain that
if comparing both styles of thinking (divergent and convergent) on the learning outcomes, it is
not only dominated by one thinking style but by both. Similarly. Kolb and Kolb state divergent
thinkers have higher personal effectiveness than the convergent one, students with convergent
thinking style are considered to have the ability to customize the materials better than the
divergent students. This is because students have a tendency to apply what they have learned and
see

the

results

in

positive

learning

(http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf.).
The third hypothesis testing shows the interaction between the selection of learning
approaches and cognitive styles. To improve the learning outcomes for the Electronics skills
subjects of divergent students, they are better learnt by scientific approach, while for students
with convergent thinking styles are better learnt by expository approach. Accuracy in selecting
appropriate learning approaches, strategies and methods may provide clear direction to the
teaching process. In addition, teachers can design and set up rules or general principles for their
ideal instruction. In terms of students internal conditions of learning, particularly the students
thinking style, it can also define their learning outcomes. This is in line with a research
conducted by Chang, entitled "A Study of the Relationship between Cognitive Styles and
Learning Strategies," it concludes that there is a significant influence between style thinking
style and learning approach (http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/10732).
The fourth hypothesis testing shows that students whose divergent thinking styles are
gained higher learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects by scientific approach than by
expository one, after controlling their prior knowledge. Learning by scientific approach in this

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

17

research tends to improve students learning outcomes for Electronics skills subjects better than
by expository learning approach for the divergent thinker students by controlling their prior
knowledge.
Learning by scientific approach is an approach that refers to the process of acquiring
knowledge, skills and attitudes based on the scientific method. In other words, students are
directed to construct or find the knowledge by their own. The scientific approach is done by
identifying the problem, making hypotheses, and conducting investigations related to the
problems. The key word of the investigation process is to ask significant questions, shape the
behavior directed at scientific attitudes using certain methods, conduct a survey of problems
related to the proposed high-needed creativity in exploring learning environment.
Divergent thinking is a person's ability to respond to and process the information to
develop ideas to order to find various alternative solutions to resolve the problems synonymously
with the characteristics of creative thinking. Individuals who have divergent thinking styles will
quickly adjust to the scientific learning environment. With the creative potency they own, they
are able to explore learning to find their own knowledge, but of course in the teachers guidance,
direction, and direction.
On the other hand, learning by expository approach will lead to a teacher centered model
that would be difficult for students with divergent thinking style. They might feel like in the
situation in which their creativity will be constrained because of being lack involved in the
learning process which in turn will affect their learning achievement.
The fifth hypothesis testing shows that there is no difference in the learning outcomes the
students achieved when learning by scientific or by expository approach to students with
convergent thinking style after controlling their prior knowledge. Expository approach is a kind

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

18

of learning that prioritizes the delivery of information by the way of explaining concepts and
procedures to students. This approach will be very effective if being implemented in the right
procedure. On the other hand, scientific approach requires the skill to process information with a
variety of ideas and solutions in solving the problems faced, and this skill is more possessed by
students whose divergent thinking styles than the convergent thinkers. However, it would be
possible for the convergent students to be able to adjust to the scientific learning if they are
explored and trained appropriately under the teachers direction and guidance. This is in line with
what Kolb and Kolb (http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf) have
stated that a convergent individual has the ability to customize the higher material and has a
tendency to apply what he or she has learnt and to see the target learning in a positive way.
The results of this study are also supported by the research conducted by Koe entitled
"An Investigation of the Effects of Convergent/Divergent Teaching Method on The Mathematical
Problem Solving Abilities of Grade Ten Student", which investigates the divergent/convergent
effects on the problem-solving learning task of which an individual with convergent thinking
style

scored

significantly

higher

than

individuals

with

divergent

thinking

styles

(http://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/71989/UBC_1979_A8%20K64.pdf).
The sixth hypothesis testing showed that there was no difference between the learning
outcomes of students who have divergent thinking styles and students who have convergent
thinking styles when being taught by scientific approach, after controlling their prior knowledge.
However, the results of this study were not significant enough to state that divergent thinkers are
better than the convergent one if being taught by scientific approach. Although the calculation of
average shows that the divergent students scored higher than the convergent students, the
difference was not statistically significant.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

19

These results are in line with the views expressed by Sharpes (2002) that convergent
thinking is a way of thinking of an individual in which he or she try to look for the right answer.
A convergent thinker student may get benefit in the multiple-choice tests because there is only
one correct response that should be selected. In general, teachers can plan an instruction by using
a combination of divergent and convergent thinking style to develop students' ability to think
independently and in a variety of ways.
Results of other studies that support this research is a study conducted by Premuzic and
Reichenbacher entitled "Effect of personality and threat of evaluation in divergent and
convergent thinking". It is found that under a certain condition, there is a variable that allows the
performance of divergent thinkers vulnerable to the threat of evaluation, namely high
neuroticism

and

low

extraversion

(http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/ThreatDivergentThinking_JRP_2008.pdf.).
The seventh hypothesis testing shows that the Electronics learning outcomes of students
whose divergent thinking styles is lower than the divergent students if they are taught by
expository approach, by controlling their prior knowledge.
Expository approach is a learning approach which promotes activities for teachers during
the learning process and puts the teacher as the main source of information for students. In this
case, the role of students is to listen and to observe all the teacher activities in order to master the
subject matter presented. The explanation process is structured and focused on the learning
materials. Hence, most of the learning process emphasizes on how to remember factual
information. Such learning is suitable for the convergent students that tend to process the
information they receive to ensure a definite and precise conclusions.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

20

The results are in line with the opinion of Riding and Reyner (2012) that state students
who have a convergent thinking style prefer confronting a formal and structured task demanding
logical thinking and they tend to give logical answers or conclusions (reasoning) to respond to
the information provided. Their responses mostly emphasize on achieving single and most
appropriate answers (Reid, 1995). On the other hand, students who have particularly divergent
thinking style, will find it difficult to follow such a learning process, because they prefer to be in
a learning atmosphere which explores their creativity and potency. This is in accordance with
Sattler quoted in Woolflok (2004) that states the characteristics of students with divergent
thinking style is that they have a curiosity, a high concentration, adaptability, high energy, sense
of humor, independence, an interest in complex things and mystery, but not tolerate on boredom
and inventiveness.
Conclusion
Based on the research findings, data analysis, hypothesis testing and discussion of the
results on the effects of learning approach and thinking style towards the learning outcomes for
Electronics skill subjects by controlling the initial knowledge, it is concluded as follows:
First, students Electronic skills achievement taught by scientific approach was higher
than groups of students who are taught by expository approach by controlling students prior
knowledge. Thus, the scientific approach is considered to enable of providing a better impact
for the improvement of students learning outcomes for the Electronics skill subjects.
Second, there is an interaction effect between learning approach and students thinking
style towards their achievement of Electronic skill subjects by controlling the prior knowledge.
Therefore, the learning outcomes the students achieved through scientific approach are different
among the divergent and convergent thinking students after contro lling their prior knowledge. It

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

21

means that learning approaches and thinking styles are two factors that may determine the
learning outcome for Electronics skill subjects.
Third, for the group of students whose divergent thinking styles, their Electronics
achievement are higher when being taught by scientific approach than the group of students who
are taught by expository one after controlling their prior knowledge. Hence, it can be inferred
that to improve the students Electronics achievement for the divergent thinking students,
scientific learning approach are considered more effective.
Fourth, for the group of divergent thinking students learning by expository teaching
methods, their Electronics learning achievement are lower than students whose convergent
thinking style after controlling the prior knowledge. It is therefore, the expository learning
approach is more effective applied to students whose convergent thinking style after controlling
the prior knowledge.
To improve student learning, teachers should consider the differences in student
characteristics, eg, differences in thinking styles (divergent and convergent) and the level of prior
knowledge of students, it is important in the learning process, so that the teachers really
understand the needs of their students.
Further Research
Comparing with other studies, this study has also some disadvantages that cannot be
controlled by the researchers. The most substantive one is that a form of achievement test given
to students with divergent and convergent thinking style. Therefore, it is recommended that it
would be better to conduct further research of this matter in order to assess student learning
outcomes considering the characteristics of individual differences.
References

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

22

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

Seventh Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 11.
Agung, IG. N. (2006). Statistika Penerapan Model Rerata-Sel Multivariat dan Model Ekonometri
dengan SPSS. Jakarta: Yayasan Sad Satria Bhakti, 284.
Akinoglu, O., Tandogan. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science
Education on Students' Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education. 3 (1), 71-81. Retriefed From
http://ejmeste.com/v3n1/EJMSTEv3n1_Akinoglu.pdf. diakses, 12 Maret 2015.
Aktamis, H., Ergin, O. (2008). The Effect of Scientific Process Skills Education on Students'
Scientific Creativity, Science Attitudes and Academic Achievements, Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching. Volume 9, Issue 1. Article 4, 1.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Leraning, Teaching and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc., 31.
Badgett, John L., Christmann, Edwin P.

(1981). Designing Elementary Instruction and

Assessment. Corwin: A SAGE Company, 81.

Barrow, H. S., Lynda, Wee K.N. (2007). Principles & Practice of aPBL. Jurong-Singapore:
Pearson Education South Asia Pte. Ltd., 7.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R. (1979). Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longman Group LTD.,
7.
Briggs, L. J. (1979). Instructional Design: Principles and Application. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 149.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

23

Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific Inquiry And Nature Of Science: Implications for Teaching,
Learning, and Teacher Education, ed. Flick Lawrence B. and Lederman Norman G.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, pp. 2-3.
Chang, J. S. A Study of the Relationship between Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies.
Retriefed From http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/10732.
Chang, M., Weng, C., Zakharova, A. (2013). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Cognitive
Styles

among

Junior

High

School

Students

in

Taiwan.

Retriefed

From

http://www.iafor.org/offprints/ acll2013offprints/ACLL2013_Offprint_0271.pdf.
Cobern, W., Schuster, D., Adams, B. (2010). Experimental Comparison of Inquiry and Direct
Instruction in Science. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514406.pdf.
Cohean, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychology Testing and Assessment 7th edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 342.
Cozby, P. C. (2003). Method in Behavioral Research, 8th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc., 5.
De Cecco, J. P. (1968). The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: Educational Psychology.
New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 455.
Diaz, C. F., Pelletier, C. M., Profenzo, Jr.,E. F. (2006). Touch the FutureTeach. New York:
Pearson Education, Inc., 306.
Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, L. (2009). The Systematic Design of Instruction. New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc., 93.
Eggen, P., Kauchak, D. (2007). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms, 7th edition.
New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 150.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

24

Gagne, R. M. (1977). The Conditions of Learning 3th Edition. New York: Rinehart And Winston,
3.
Glass, G. V., Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical Method in Education and Psyshology 2nd
Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 371.
Gredler, M. E. (2011). Learning In Instruction: Theory in to Practice 6th Edition, Translate: Tri
Wibowo, B.S. Jakarta: Kencana Perdana Media Group, pp. 180-181.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of Teaching 8th Edition, translate: Fawaid dan
Mirza. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, pp. 213-214, 369.
Kadir. (2015). Statistika Terapan: Konsep, Contoh, dan Analisis Data dengan Program
SPSS/Lisrel dalam Penelitian. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, pp. 431-437, 146-147, 160-162.
Kauffman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. New Jersey:
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 18.
Keller, John M. (2010). Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCH Model
Approach. New York: Springer Science, 70.
Kerlinger, F. E. (1986). Asas-Asas penelitian Behavioral. Yogyakara: UGM Press, 37.
Killen, R. (2009). Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and Practice 5th ed.
Melbourne:

Chengange

Learning,

116-117.

Retriefed

From

http://217quiz1pdfs.wikispaces.com/file/view/Killen+teaching+strategies.pdf.
Koe, C. D. (1967). An Investigation of The Effects of Convergent/Divergen Teaching Methods
on The Mathematical Problem-Solving Abilities of Grade Ten Students. Retriefed From
http://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/id/71989/UBC_1979_A8%20K64.pdf.
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A., (2010). Learning Style InventoryVersion 3.1, Retriefed From
http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

25

Li, F. Zhang, Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Style. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Ins., 99.
Li, F. Zhang, Sternberg, R. J., Rayner, S. (2012). Handbook of Intellectual Styles: Preferences in
Cognition, learning, and Thinking. New York: Springer Publishing Company, LLC, pp.
235-236.
Messick, S. (1996). Report Research: Bridging Cognition and Personality in Education: The
Role of Style in Performance and Developmen. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service,
9. Retriefed From http://www.ets.org/Meclia/Research/pdf/RR-96-22.pdf.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp,

J. E. Kalman, H. K.

(2007). Designing Effective

Instruction 5th Edition. New Jersey: John Willey & Sons, 56.
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., Brown, A. H. (2010). Teaching
Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction, 9th Edition. Boston: Wadsworth, pp. 34-35.
Premuzic, T. C., Reichenbacher, L. Effect of Personalitiy and threat of Evaluation on Divergen
and Convergent thinking. Journal of Research in Personality. Retriefed From
http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/ThreatDivergentThinking_JRP_2008.pdf.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning Style in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Massacusetts: Heinle & Heinle
Publisher, pp. 56-58.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional Design, Theories and Models: An Overview of Their
Current Status. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 98.
Reiser, R. A., Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trend and Issue in Instructional Design and Technology.
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 36.
Richey, R. C. (Ed.). (2013) Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and
Technology. New York: Springer, 243.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

26

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., Tracey, M. W. (2011). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base:
Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Routledge, 61.
Riding, R., Rayner, S. (2012). Understandi Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. New
York: Routledge, 15, 27.
Santrock, J. W. (2007). Educational Psychology Second Edition, Translate: Tri Wibowo. Jakarta:
Kencana Perdana Media Group, 638.
Saracho, O. N. (1977). Teachers and Students Cognitif Style in Early Childhood Education.
Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 3.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective 6th Editions, Terjemahan:
Hamidah dan Fajar. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 39.
Sharpes, D. K. (2002). Advanced Educational Foundations for Teacher: The History, Phylosopy
and Culture of Schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer, 73.
Sims, R. R., Sims, S. J.

(2009). The Importance Of Learning Styles: Understanding The

Implications For Learning. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2.

Slavin, R. E. (2011). Educational Psychology, Theory and Practice 9th Edition. Translate:
Samosir M. Jakarta: PT. Indeks, 255.
Smaldino, S.E., Lowther, D.L., Russell, J. D. (2011). Instructional Technology and Media for
Learning 9th Editions, Translate: Arif Rahman. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group,
13.
Spector, M. J. (2012). Foundations of Educational Technology: Integrative Approaches and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 100.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 134.
Sudjana. (2005). Metode Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito, pp. 330-337.

THE EFFECT OF SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES AND COGNITIVE

27

Tilaar, H. A. R. (2015). Pedagogik Teoretis untuk Indonesia. Jakarta: Kompas Media Nusantara,
pp. 145-146.
Woolflok, A. (2004). Educational Psychology. Nedham Heights MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 21.
Woolflok, A. (2007). Educational Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 479.
Yerrick, R., Roth, WM. (2005). Establishing Scientific Classroom Discourse Communities
Multiple Voices of Teaching and Learning Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., pp. 26-127.