10 (1) (2021) 41-48

Unnes Science Education Journal

Accredited Sinta 3
https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/usej

The Gender Equality in CLIS Model and Brain Gym Technique:

A Review of Cognitive Learning Outcomes
Yunawati Sele1, Fransina Th. Nomleni2, Mega Selviana Sir2

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/usej.v10i1.42794

Biology Education, Faculty of Education, Universitas Timor, Indonesia

1

Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Kristen Artha Wacana, Indonesia
2

Article Info Abstract

Submitted 24 November 2020 This study aims at finding out the cognitive learning outcomes of the equality of
Revised 28 December 2020 male and female students in Children Learning in Science (CLIS) that was com-
Accepted 17 February 2021 bined with a Brain Gym. This study is a comparative research. The population of
this study were the students of grade XI MIA SMA Negeri 7 Kupang in the aca-
Keywords demic year of 2018/2019 and the sample of this study were the students of grade
Gender Equality, Children XI MIA 1. The instrument used was a test of cognitive learning outcomes. The data
Learning In Science Model,
Brain Gym technique, Cogni-
obtained were analyzed using Anakova. The result of ancova test showed that the
tive Learning Outcomes significance value is 0,675 or greater than alfa value 5%. This means that there are
not differences in cognitive learning outcomes between male and female student
in CLIS combined with a brain gym. It means that by combining CLIS and Brain
Gym technique, the equality of cognitive learning outcomes for male and female
students can occur. Providing the same opportunities, the same tasks and the same
responsibilities during Children Learning In Science combined with a Brain Gym
learning, can minimize the differences in characteristics between genders so that the
learning outcomes obtained are equivalent.

How to Cite
Sele, Y., Nomleni, F. T., & Sir, M. L. (2021). The Gender Equality in CLIS Model
and Brain Gym Technique: A Review of Cognitive Learning Outcomes. Unnes Sci-
ence Education Journal, 10(1), 41-48.


Correspondence Author: p-ISSN 2252-6617
E-mail: [email protected] e-ISSN 2502-6232
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

INTRODUCTION different gender needs to be done. One of learn-

ing model that can be applied is the CLIS learn-
Education is an important process that de- ing model. CLIS is a learning model that is based
termines the quality of a nation. Education in- on constructivism theory. The learning based on
cludes all efforts aimed at growing student aware- contructivism theory is a good learning to apply
ness of their potential so that the utilization of because in such learning, students are encour-
these potentials can be used as provisions in mak- aged to be actively involved in building their own
ing adjustments to various situations and chal- knowledge and understanding (Oliver, 2000;
lenges that may be encountered in life (Sele et al, Driscoll, 2000; Olusegun, 2015, Budiarto, 2015;
2016; Shilvock, 2018; Dimyati et al, 2018). The Fernando&Marikat, 2017). In CLIS learning,
quality of the education process must be further students are required to be actively involved in
improved so that the education can prepare stu- learning where students are encouraged to active-
dents to enter the industrial revolution 4.0. This ly seek information related to learning material,
is in line with the opinions of Aulbur & Bigghe students are encouraged to build new knowledge,
(2016), Hartmann & Bovenschulte (2013) and students are encouraged to interpret that knowl-
Pfeiffer (2015) who explain that with good edu- edge and ultimately students are expected to be
cation, students are expected to be able to face able to deduce various facts about new concepts
various challenges arising from technological de- and ideas based on knowledge they have. CLIS
velopments in the industrial revolution 4.0. learning is done through hands-on/mind-on ac-
In an effort to maximize the achievement tivities that are expected to develop physical skills
of educational goals, one important topic that and thinking skills of students in reconstructing
needs attention in learning is the problem of stu- their ideas. CLIS model consists of several stag-
dent pluralism (Pambudiono et al, 2015). Student es: orientation stage, elicitation of ideas stage,
pluralism can be interpreted as unique character- restructuring of ideas stage, application of ideas
istics according to the background of each stu- stage and review change in ideas stage (Widiyarti
dent (Lerman, 2010; Kantzara, 2013; Colombo, et al, 2012; Pada, 2010; Rustaman, 2010; Hidaya-
2013). Among the various diversity of students, a ti et al, 2015; Budiarto, 2015; Windarwati, 2017).
quite visible difference is the difference in gender To increase the effectiveness of CLIS
(Colombo, 2013; Juhannis, 2012). Related to the learning, the learning model can be integrated
influence of gender on students’ abilities in learn- with learning techniques such as Brain Gym tech-
ing, there have been several studies that have been nique (Sele, 2019) . Brain Gym is a technique that
conducted to uncover these facts. Soraya (2010), can be implemented easily but can provide great
Manahal (2011) and Pambudiono et al (2015) re- benefits in improving the quality of learning. In
vealed that student learning outcomes and other the application of Brain Gym, students are di-
learning outcome variables such as meta-cogni- rected to make some simple movements that can
tive skills and critical thinking skills can be influ- stimulate the integration of the work of the right
enced by gender differences. and left brain so that brain functions can be co-
The difference in learning outcomes of ordinated harmoniously. With harmonious brain
male and female students can be explained by coordination, the body’s physiological abilities
the facts revealed by previous studies. Elliot, et al will increase. These abilities include, for instance,
(2000), explained that based on memory capac- memory skills, body coordination abilities, fine
ity, language skills and ability to solve mathemati- and gross motor skills, stress management abili-
cal problems, male students have higher visual- ties, and increased individual learning abilities.
spatial abilities whereas in verbal abilities, female Several previous studies have reported that Brain
students have higher abilities. This is in line with Gym is effective to be applied in learning because
reports from Sasser (2010) and Davison (2012) with easy movements, a cheerful and enjoyable
who explained that in verbal abilities, female stu- learning atmosphere can be created and at the
dents are superior compared to male students. same time can increase student’s learning abili-
Furthermore, Zaidi (2010) proposed that there ties (Dennison, 2002; Demuth, 2008; Macias et
were differences between the learning process al, 2009; Cahyanto et al, 2016).
and the language development of male and fe- Related to the potential of learning mod-
male students. els in empowering male and female students’
The fact that there are differences between learning outcomes, Ciascai et al. (2011) reported
male and female students means that in learn- that it was related to students’ learning outcome
ing including the implementation of the learning variables. Some studies show that there are dif-
model, an equalization effort between students of ferences in learning outcomes between male and

42
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

female students in learning patterns with certain metric analysis. Data analysis was carried out us-
models but there are also those who report that ing IBM statistics 24 software with a significance
there are no differences in learning outcomes. As level of 5%.
an example, Siswati & Corebima (2017) and Sele
(2019) report that in Think Pair Share learning, RESULT AND DISCUSSION
male and female students have the same meta-
cognitive skills but Pambudiono (2015) reported Description of the cognitive learning out-
that in Jigsaw learning, female student learning comes of male and female students taught by
outcomes are higher. This can indicate that the using CLIS combined with a Brain Gym can be
equality of male and female student learning out- seen in Figure 1.
comes in a learning model can be influenced by Based on the data showed in Figure 1, it
the characteristics of the learning model used. can be seen that there is an increase in the cogni-
Based on these descriptions, the research tive learning outcomes of male and male students
of the gender equality in Children Learning In taught by using CLIS combined with a Brain
Science Model and brain gym technique is im- Gym. The average value of pre-test cognitive
portant to reveal the facts about the equality of learning outcomes of male students was 48.33
cognitive learning outcomes between male and and the average value of post-test was 75. This
female students in Children Learning In Science value indicates that an increase of 55.18%. While
learning combined with a Brain Gym. the average value of pre-test cognitive learning
outcomes of female students was 53.06 and the
average value of post-test was 77.22. This value
METHOD indicates that an increase of 45.53%.

This study is a comparative research. The

design of the study can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Design of the research

Pre Learning
Group Post test
test models
Male Student O1 X O2
Female Student O3 X O4
Notes: O1 and O3 = score/value of pre-test,
Figure 1. Profile of the average value of pre-test
O2 and O4 = score/value of post-test, X=CLIS
and post-test cognitive learning outcomes
combined Brain Gym
Furthermore, the normality test uses
The study was conducted from October
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test and
to November 2018. The population of this study
the homogeneity test uses the Levene’s Test of
were the students of class XI MIA SMA Negeri
Equality of Error Variances. The results of nor-
7 Kupang in the academic year 2018 / 2019, con-
mality and homogeneity test data can be seen
sisting of 5 classes. By using simple random sam-
in Table 2. The data in Table 2 shows that the
pling technique, the students of Class XI MIA 1
significance value obtained from the One-Sample
were determined to be the research sample. Stu-
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test and Levene’s Test is
dents of class XI MIA 1 consist of 12 male stu-
greater than 0.05 for both pre-test and post-test
dents and 18 female students. Data on cognitive
data. Therefore, it can be concluded that the data
learning outcomes of students before and after
obtained from this study was normal and homo-
treatment were collected with a test of cognitive
geneous data so that it can be analyzed using An-
learning outcomes. The data obtained were then
cova. Ancova test results of this research data are
tested for the normality and homogeneity of the
presented in Table 3.
data. If after analysis it was known that the data
The calculated F value of gender that show
meet the assumption of normal and homogene-
in Table 3 is 0,180 with a significance value of
ity, then the test was carried out with ANCOVA.
0,675 or greater than alfa value 5%. This means
But If the data did not meet the assumption of
that there are not differences in cognitive learn-
normal and homogeneity, then the data analy-
ing outcomes between male and female student
sis would be transferred using the Quade’s Rank
in CLIS combined with a brain gym.
Analysis of Covariance test as a type of non-para-

43
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

The result of ancova test show that in equal opportunities for male and female students
CLIS combined with a Brain Gym learning, to engage in learning. This is in line with Sahin
there is equality in cognitive learning outcomes (2014) and Hadjar et al (2014) who explained that
between male and female students. This shows the essence of gender equality in education is pro-
that the CLIS learning model combined with a viding equal opportunities to engage in learning.
Brain Gym can reduce the gaps that might occur These conditions make students feel be a part of
due to differences in the cognitive characteristics learning and feel facilitated to develop their abili-
of students. Wang and Wang (2008) and Chung ties and qualities.
& Chang (2016) explain that there are significant Providing equal opportunities in CLIS
differences between the cognitive aspects of male learning can be seen from the process of imple-
and female students. More detail, Riding and menting the learning phase which includes the
Grimley (1999) revealed that female tend to have orientation stage, the elicitation of ideas stage,
a more complete understanding of information the restructuring of ideas stage, the application of
than male because female are willing to spend ideas stage and the review change in ideas stage.
more time to processing the new information and In the orientation stage, students are encouraged
linking that information with the prior knowl- to focus their attention, realize the importance
edge. On the other hand, although male have a of the topic of learning and realize the benefits
lower ability to understand the new information, of learning the topic. In the elicitation of ideas
male are able to process more information than stage, students are encouraged to express their
female. Therefore, the equality that occur shows initial knowledge and this stage also allows the
that CLIS learning combined with a Brain Gym teacher to explore student’s knowledge. These
can encourage students of different gender to two stages are the stage where each student both
maximize their abilities. This is in accordance male and female students, is given personal re-
with the opinion of Brasilita et al (2018) which sponsibility to carry out the learning process. In
explains that with appropriate learning can mini- the third stage, which is the restructuring of ideas
mize differences in characteristics between gen- stage, each student is given the opportunity to
ders so that cognitive learning outcomes achieved have discussions with other students in a small
will be equal. group. After that students are given the responsi-
Facts about the equality of cognitive learn- bility to report the results of their discussions in
ing outcomes can be explained that CLIS learn- class discussions. This stage allows all students,
ing combined with a Brain Gym can provide both male and female students to clarify the truth

Table 2. The Result of the Normality and Homogeneity Test of the Cognitive Learning Outcomes
Data Statistical Test Sig
Pre-test cognitive learning outcomes One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 0.427
Levene’s Test 0.182
Post-test cognitive learning outcomes One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 0.074
Levene’s Test 0.055

Table 3. The Summary of Ancova Test of the Male and Female Students’ Cognitive Learning Out-
comes

Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig

Corrected Model 76.442a 2 38.221 .150 .861

Intercept 19231.473 1 19231.473 75.580 .000
Pre-test cognitive learning out-
40.886 1 40.886 .161 .692
comes
Gender 45.810 1 45.810 .180 .675
Error 6870.225 27 254.453
Total 181750.000 30
Corrected Total 6946.667 29
R square = .011 (Adjusted R Squared = .062

44
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

of ideas that they have made in the previous stage. sults. Furthermore, the personal responsibility
Then in the fourth stage, each student reflects on of each student will make the learning process
changes in ideas by comparing initial knowledge better. Bandura (1991), Cook-Sather (2010) and
and final knowledge after learning. Susetyarini et al (2019) explain that by having re-
In this research, CLIS models are also in- sponsibilities each student will be able to control
tegrated with Brain Gym techniques. The Brain his thoughts, actions and personal desires so that
Gym was conducted in opening activities, main students are able to regulate and determine their
activities and closing activities. The frequency priorities in learning.
of Brain Gym implementation that was adjust- The effort to realize gender equality in
ed to the conditions of students and learning CLIS learning combined with a Brain Gym
time. Brain Gym in the opening activities aims through providing equal opportunities and re-
to create an initial atmosphere of learning that sponsibilities to students is also in line with the
makes students have a positive attitude to follow opinion of Gondek (2011) which explains that
the learning. Similarly, Schor (1998), Williams equivalent learning occurs when the teacher gives
& Stockdale (2004), Brdar et al (2006) and Putri equal treatment to all students. The treatment
(2018), explained that in opening activities, teach- given is a treatment that encourages each student
ers are required to be able to create active, relaxed to understand their own potential. In learning ac-
and positive learning situations that motivate stu- tivities, students must also be given the same op-
dents to be ready to participate in learning. Stu- portunity in understanding the material, analyz-
dents who have good motivation will carry out ing the questions, interpreting new information
the learning process with enthusiasm and have obtained and formulating a new idea based on
an interest to be actively participated in learning the learning process it does.
(Filak & Sheldon, 2008; Irvin et al.,2007; Saeed If students are not given the same oppor-
& Zyngier, 2012; Taurina, 2015). tunity in learning, it might be possible to create
Brain Gym in the main activities is done to boredom in students who feel they don’t get the
overcome the boredom of students This is rein- teacher’s attention. Daschmann (2013) and Al-
forced by the Priambodo report (2016) which ex- shara (2015) explained that boredom is a nega-
plains that the application of Brain Gym makes tive response that causes students to not have
students relaxed in following learning. Further- the competencies needed in society because dur-
more Dennison (2002) and Purwanto et al (2009) ing learning students will not be able to develop
also explained that the implementation of Brain cognitive potential and other potential possessed.
Gym has a positive impact on students because Other consequences that might occur if boredom
Brain Gym movements can stimulate brain func- in learning is not properly paid attention to is the
tion and have a positive impact on students’ phys- low ability of students to manage information,
ical. Brain Gym allows students to be ready to low student achievement, low efforts to become
accept lessons, improve concentration, improve better, students become lazy to follow learning
memory and focus, improve communication and even students drop out of school (Belton &
skills and improve students’ ability to manage Priyadharshini, 2007; Pekrundkk, 2010; Dube &
emotions. While the Brain Gym in the closing Orpinas, 2009; Fallis & Opotow, 2003).
activity serves to help students release fatigue so Information on the equivalent of the cog-
that students are able to conclude learning well. nitive learning outcomes of male and female
This is important because the closing activity is students obtained from this study is also in ac-
one of the most important stages of learning to cordance with the report Kusuma (2014) and
note because at that stage students are given the Brasilita (2016). This shows that in the imple-
opportunity to assimilate the lesson and interpret mentation of learning teachers must try to choose
the importance of the lesson (Ganske, 2017). the right learning model that is able to minimize
The explanation of the implementation of the differences in characteristics between genders
the CLIS learning stages combined with a Brain so that the learning outcomes obtained are equal
Gym shows that each student gets the same op- learning outcomes between male and female stu-
portunities and responsibilities. This is in accor- dents.
dance with Brasilita et al (2018) which explains
that the learning model that results in equal- CONCLUSION
ity is a learning model that does not differenti-
ate tasks between female and male students and Based on the results of data analysis and
that every female and male student has the same discussion, it can be concluded that by combining
opportunity to collect the value of cognitive re- CLIS and Brain Gym technique, the equality of

45
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

cognitive learning outcomes for male and female Teachers: Taking Responsibility, Transform-
students can occur. Providing the same opportu- ing Education, and Redefining Accountability.
nities, the same tasks and the same responsibili- Curriculum Inquiry, 40(4), 555–575
ties during Children Learning In Science com- Daschmann, E. C. (2013). Boredom in School from the
Perspectives of Students, Teachers, and Parents. Dis-
bined with a Brain Gym learning, can minimize
sertation. Konstanz: University of Konstanz
the differences in characteristics between genders Davison, R. C. (2012). Critically thinking about the
so that the learning outcomes obtained are equiv- brain and gender differences. Apply Research to
alent. Practice (ARP) Resources. Retrieved from http://
www.engr.psu.edu/awe/ARPAbstracts/
REFERENCES Brain/ARP_Abstract_Brain%20and%20Gen-
der%20Differences_Abstract.pdf)
Al-Shara, I. (2015). Learning and teaching between Demuth, E (2008). Pedoman Senam Otak Bagi Guru. Ja-
enjoyment and boredom as realized by the stu- karta: Yayasan Kinesiology Indonesia
dents: A survey from the educational field. Eu- Dennison, P. (2002). Buku Panduan Lengkap Brain Gym.
ropean Scientific Journal, 11(19). Jakarta: Gramedia
Aulbur, W., CJ, A., & Bigghe, R. (2016). Skill develop- Dimyati, M., Fauzy, A., & Musyarof. (2018). Higher
ment for Industry 4.0. India: Roland Berger. Education Provider/College Excellence Map-
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Mor- ping Base on Scientific Publication. 2nd Inter-
al Thought and Action. In Handbook of Moral national Conference on Statistics, Mathemat-
Behavior and Development Volume 1: Theory (pp. ics, Teaching, and Research. Journal of Physics:
45–103). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erl- Conf. Series 1028 (2018) 012183
baum Associates. Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruc-
Belton, T. & Priyadharshini, E. (2007). Boredom and tion. Boston: Allyn& Bacon
schooling: a cross-disciplinary exploration. Dube, S. R., & Orpinas, P. (2009). Understanding ex-
Cambridge Journal of Education. 37(4), 579-595. cessive school absenteeism as school refusal be-
Brasilita, Y., Zubaidah, S., & Saptasari, M. (2018). havior. Children & Schools, 31(2), 87-95.
Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Simas Eric pada Elliot, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., Cook, J. L. & Travers,
Jenis Kelamin Berbeda Terhadap Keterampi- J. F. (2000). Educational psycology: effective teach-
lan Metakognitif dan Hasil Belajar Kognitif ing, effective learning, Third Edition. United States
Siswa Biologi di SMAN 6 Malang. Retrieved of America: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc
from https://www.researchgate.net/publica- Fallis, R. & Opotow, S. (2003) Are students failing
tion/322286253 school or are schools failing students? Class
Brdar, I., Rijavec, M., & Loncaric, D. (2006). Goal cutting in high school. Journal of Social Issues,
orientations, coping with school failure and 59(1), 103–119
school achievement. European Journal of Psy- Fernando, S. Y. J. N., & Marikat, F. M. M. T. (2017).
chology of Education, 21(1), 53-70. Constructivist Teaching/Learning Theory and
Budiarto, F. (2015). Keefektifan Model Pembelajaran Participatory Teaching Methods. Journal of
CLIS (Children Learning In Science) Terhadap Curriculum and Teaching. 6(1), 110-122.
Motivasi Dan Hasil Belajar IPA. Journal of El- Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Teacher support,
ementary Education. 4(1), 53-60. student motivation, student need satisfaction,
Cahyanto, E.B.,Nugraheni, A. & Musdalifah, C. and college teacher course evaluations: testing
(2016). Pengaruh Senam Otak Terhadap Hasil a sequential path model. Educational Psychology,
Belajar Kognitif Mahasiswa Pada Pokok Ba- 28(6), 711-724.
hasan Konsep Gender Mata Kuliah Kesehatan Ganske, K. (2017). Lesson Closure: An Important
Reproduksi Dan KB . Retrieved from http:// Piece of the Student Learning. The Reading
jurnalplacentum.fk.uns.ac.id/index.php/pla- Teacher. 71(1), 95-100.
centum/article/viewFile/57/21 Gondek, R. (2011). Promoting Gender Equity in the Sci-
Chung, l., & Chang, R (2016). The Effect of Gender on ence Classroom A Practical Guide to Accessing
Motivation and Student Achievement in Digi- and Implementing Gender-Fair Strategies. Re-
tal Game-based Learning: A Case Study of a treived from https://www.researchgate.net/
Contented-Based Classroom. EURASIA Jour- publication/237503666_Promoting_Gender_
nal of Mathematics Science and Technology Educa- Equity_in_the_Science_Clasroom_A_Practi-
tion. 13(6), 2309-2327. cal_Guide_to_Accessing_and_Implementing_
Ciascai, Liliana, & Lavina, H. (2011). Gender differ- Gender-Fair_Strategies
ences in metacognitive skills. A study of the 8th Hadjar, A., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Priem, K,. & Glock,
grade pupils in Romania, Procedia - Social and S. (2014). Gender and educational achieve-
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 396-401. ment. Educational Research, 56(2), 117-125,
Colombo, M. (2013). Introduction. Pluralism in educa- Hartmann, E. A., & Bovenschulte, M. (2013). Skills
tion and implications for analysis. Italian Jour- needs analysis for “Industry 4.0” based on
nal of Sociology of Education, 5(2). roadmaps for smart systems. In SKOLKOVO
Cook-Sather, A. (2010). Students as Learners and (Ed.), Using Technology Foresights for Identifying

46
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

Future Skills Needs. Global Workshop Proceedings Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R.
(pp. 24–36). Moscow H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achieve-
Hidayati., Hartono., & Mujamil, J. (2015). Penerapan ment settings: Exploring control-valuean-
Model Pembelajaran Children Learning InScience tecedents and performance outcomes of a
(CLIS) Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar- neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psy-
Siswa di Kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri 3 Palem- chology,102(3),531-549.
bang. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Kimia. 2(1). Pfeiffer, S. (2015). Effects of Industry 4.0 on vocational ed-
Irvin, J. L., Meltzer, J., & Dukes, M. S. (2007). Student ucation and training. (I. of T. A. (ITA), Ed.). Vi-
motivation, engagement, andachievement. In enna: Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW).
Taking Action on Adolescent Llteracy: An Imple- Priambodo, M. G. (2016). Efektivitas Senam Otak
mentation Guide for School Leaders. Association (Brain Gym) dalam Menurunkan Tingkat Ke-
for Supervision and Curriculum Development jenuhan (Burnout) Belajar Pada Siswa Kelas
Juhannis, H. (2012). The Study of Instilling Plurality XI SMA Negeri 11 Yogyakarta. Skripsi. Yog-
Values to The Students of Islamic Schools in yakarta: Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas
Makassar. Journal of Indonesian Islam, 6(1), 145- Negeri Yogyakarta
165. Purwanto, S., Widyaswati, R., & Nuryati. (2009).
Kantzara, V. (2013). Pluralism and Education: A Com- Manfaat Senam Otak (Brain Gym) dalam
patible Relation. Post-Commentary Notes. Ital- Mengatasi Kecemasan dan Stres pada Anak
ian Journal of Sociology of Education, 5(2). Sekolah. Jurnal Kesehatan. 2(1), 81-90.
Kusuma, & Anindita S. H. M. (2014). Pengaruh Strategi Puteri, L.H. (2018). The Apperception Approach for
Pembelajaran Reading Questioning and Answer- Stimulating Student Learning Motivation. In-
ing (RQA), Think Pair Share (TPS), RQA Dipadu ternational Journal of Education, Training and
TPS dan Perbedaan Gender terhadap Keterampilan Learning, 2(1), 7-12.
Bertanya, Kesadaran Metakognitif, Keterampilan Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and
Metakognitif, Pembentukan Karakter dan Hasil learning from multimedia materials in 11 year
Belajar Biologi Siswa Kelas VII SMP Negeri Kota children. British Journal of Educational Technol-
Malang. Tesis tidak diterbitkan, Program Studi ogy, 30(1), 43- 59.
Pendidikan Biologi, Program Pascasarjana, Rustaman, N. (2010). Materi dan Pembelajaran IPA SD.
Universitas Negeri Malang Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka
Lerman, S. (2010). Theories of Mathematics Education: Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How Motivation Influ-
Is Plurality a Problem? Retrieved from https:// ences Student Engagement: a Qualitative Case
www.researchgate.net/publication/226720307 Study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2),
Macias, M., Nowicka, D., Czupryn, A., Sulejczak, D., 252–267.
Skup, M., et al. (2009). Exercise-Induced Motor Sahin, E. (2014). Gender Equity in Education. Open
Improvement After Complete Spinal CordTransec- Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 59-63.
tion and its Relation to Expression of Brain Derived Sasser, L. (2010). Brain differences between genders.
NeurotrophicFactor and Presynaptic Markers. BMC Gender Differences in Learning, Genesis 5:1-2,
Neuroscience Retrieved from: http://www.faccs.org/assets/
Mahanal, S. (2011). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Conventions/Convention- 10/Workshops/
Proyek pada Mata pelajaran Biologi dan Gender ter- Sasser Gender-Differencesin-Learning.pdf),
hadap Keterampilan Metakognisi dan Kemampuan Schor, L. I. (1998). Apperception as a Primary Process of
Berpikir Kritis Siswa SMA di Malang. Laporan the Psyche: Implications for Theory and Practice.
Penelitian. Malang: Lemlit UM. Dissertation. Auburn University.
Oliver, K.M. (2000). Methods for developing construc- Sele, Y. (2019). Optimizing the potential of CLIS with
tivism learning on the web. Educational Technol- brain gym: review on human circulatory con-
ogy, 40(6). cepts. Biosfer: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 12(2),
Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism Learning Theory: 238-248.
A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Journal Sele, Y. (2019). Analisis Potensi Think Pair Share
of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. dalam Pemberdayaan Keterampilan Metakog-
Pada, A.U.T. (2010). Penerapan Model Pembela- nitif Siswa Laki-laki dan Perempuan. Bio-Edu:
jaran Children Learning In Science Untuk Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi. 4(1), 13-21
Meningkatkan Pemahaman Siswa Kelas IV Sele, Y., Corebima, D., & Indriwati, S.E. (2016). The
SD Muhammadiyah Condongcatur Pada analysis of the teaching habit effect based on
Konsep Bumi Dan Alam Semesta. Retrieved conventional learning in empowering metacog-
from https://www.researchgate.net/publica- nitive skills and critical thinking skills of senior
tion/282977518 high school students in Malang, Indonesia. In-
Pambudiono, A., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2013). ternational Journal of Academic Research and De-
Perbedaan Kemampuan Berpikir Dan Hasil velopment. 1(5), 64-69.
Belajar Biologi Siswa Kelas X SMA Negeri 7 Shilvock, K. (2018). The Purpose of Education: What
Malang Berdasarkan Jender Dengan Penera- Should an American 21st Century Education
pan Strategi Jigsaw. Retrieved from: https:// Value? Empowering Research for Educators, 2(1), 2.
www.researchgate.net/publication/325809484 Siswati, B. H., & Corebima, A. D. (2017). The Effect

47
 Yunawati Sele et al. / Unnes Science Education Journal 10 (1) (2021) 41-48

of Education Level and Gender on Students’ es in the perception and acceptance of online
Metacognitive Skills in Malang, Indonesia. games. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(4) 39(5), 787-806.
163-168 Widiyarti., Widayanti., & Winarti. (2012). Penelitian
Soraya, R. 2010. Pengaruh Penerapan Strategi Pembelaja- Pendidikan, dan Penerapan MIPA. Makalah
ran (PBMP+TPS dan Imkuiri) dan Jenis Kelamin disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional. Fakultas
terhadap Hasil Belajar dan Keterampilan Metakog- MIPA, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.Yogya-
nitif Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Skripsi tidak diterbit- karta Juni 2012
kan: Malang. Universitas Negeri Malang. Williams, R. L., & Stockdale, S. L. (2004). Classroom
Susetyarini, Rr. E., Permana, T.I., Gunarta, G., Sety- motivation strategies for prospective teachers.
awan, D., Latifa, R., & Zaenab, S. (2019). Mo- TeacherEducator, 39(3), 212-230.
tivasi dan tanggung jawab siswa dalam pem- Windarwati. (2017). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran
belajaran berbasis proyek, sebuah penelitian Children Learning InScience (CLIS) Terhadap
tindakan kelas. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, Hasil Belajar IPA Siswa Kelas IV di MIN 2
5(1), 1-9 Bandar Lampung. Skripsi. Lampung: Fakultas
Taurina, Z. (2015). Students’ Motivation and Learning Tarbiyah dan Keguruan. Universitas Islam
Outcomes: Significant Factors inInternal Study Negeri Raden Intan
Quality Assurance System. International Disci- Zaidi, Z.F. (2010). Gender differences in human brain:
plinary Subject in Education, 5 (4), 2625-2630 A Review. The Open Anatomy Journal, 2010, 2,
Wang, H. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2008). Gender differenc- 37-55,

48