Classroom action research revealed improvements in science learning outcomes using a deep learning approach, emphasizing SOLO taxonomy levels.
This research is motivated by the dominance of quantitative learning evaluations and the element of subjectivity in qualitative learning evaluations, as there is no established standard in the field of science for grades VI-B at SD Negeri Bojonglongok. The purpose of this study is to describe the improvement of science learning outcomes from the perspective of the "structure of observed learning outcome taxonomy" in grade VI-B students at SD Negeri Bojonglongok through the application of a deep learning approach using the station learning model. This study is a Classroom Action Research using the Kemis and Taggart model. The results showed an increase in science learning outcomes from the perspective of the observed learning outcome taxonomy structure in grade VI-B students at SD Negeri Bojonglongok, achieved through the application of a deep learning approach using the station learning model. In cycle 1, students were able to achieve unistructural levels of 100%, and multi-structural levels of 96.43%, while in cycle 2, students were able to achieve relational levels of 42.86%, and extended abstract levels of 17.86%. The results of the analysis showed that there was a decrease in cycle 1 from the unistructural level to the multi-structural level reaching 3.57%, while in cycle 2 there was a decrease from the multi-structural level to the relational level reaching 53.57%, and from the relational level to the extended abstract level reaching 25%. This decrease can occur because the structure of the observed learning outcome taxonomy is hierarchical, so it has an increasingly complex level of abstraction at each level. The contribution of this study is that it can provide an overview of the level of students' understanding of the concept of science, both quantitatively (uni structural and multi-structural) and qualitatively (relational & extended abstract). However, the limitations of this study are that its benefits are limited only to students who are the subjects of the study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dayanty et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: