Efforts to Improve Student Learning Outcomes in Islamic Education Learning by Implementing the Discovery Learning Model at SMA Negeri 1 Kluet Tengah
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62945/ijesh.v2i3.845Keywords:
Discovery Learning, Islamic Education, Student Learning OutcomesAbstract
This study aims to improve students’ learning outcomes in Islamic Education through the implementation of the Discovery Learning model at SMA Negeri 1 Kluet Tengah. The research employed Classroom Action Research (CAR) consisting of two cycles, with each cycle including planning, action, observation, and reflection stages. The participants were 32 eleventh-grade students. Data were collected through achievement tests, observation sheets, and documentation. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to measure the improvement of students’ cognitive learning outcomes, while qualitative data were analyzed to examine changes in student engagement and participation during the learning process. The findings indicate a significant improvement in students’ learning outcomes after the implementation of the Discovery Learning model. In the pre-cycle stage, only 46.88% of students achieved the minimum mastery criterion (MMC) with a mean score of 68.75. In Cycle I, mastery increased to 71.88% with a mean score of 76.34. The improvement became more substantial in Cycle II, where 90.63% of students met the MMC with a mean score of 84.21. Observational data also showed enhanced student engagement, critical thinking, and collaborative participation during learning activities. The results demonstrate that the Discovery Learning model effectively fosters active learning, conceptual understanding, and higher-order thinking skills in Islamic Education. This study contributes empirically to the growing body of research supporting student-centered pedagogical approaches in Islamic Education at the secondary school level. It is recommended that Islamic Education teachers integrate Discovery Learning strategies systematically to enhance both cognitive achievement and student engagement.
Downloads
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Halstead, J. M. (2004). An Islamic concept of education. Comparative Education, 40(4), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000284510
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Jackson, R. (2014). Signposts: Policy and practice for teaching about religions and non-religious worldviews in intercultural education. Council of Europe Publishing.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Sahin, A. (2013). New directions in Islamic education: Pedagogy and identity formation. Kube Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). Pearson.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
