1. Introduction

Problem Solving Ability (PSA) of students in Indonesia, especially in North Sumatra is still relatively low. It is based on the results of PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) which showed that the PSA of students in Indonesia is still low in position 69^th from 76 countries. In theory, low ability students in problem solving authentic is because the learning process is still teacher centered. The learning is more centered on teachers, lack of student involvement in the learning process so that students get the material passively and less ability in solving problems. To solve this problem we needed one learning model that able made student become active in learning. One of learning model is Problem Based Learning (PBL) . Further PBL has applied in many of research. Constructively PBL model can make learner has high level thinking ability like critical thinking, PSA, and creative thinking. PSA is the ability to solve problem with finding accurate method or procedure. PBL is an active learning that enables students to become caring and decisive PSA and learning needs of students, learning to learn, able to make knowledge become operative and displays the task group in the face of real life problems as in ^{[1, 3, 7]}. Creating active learning physics should start from the students who have the independence to learn to prepare and everything needed in the learning process.

Self Regulated Learning (SRL) is an active process and establish where learners specify learning objectives and to monitor, regulate, control their cognition, motivation, and their attitude, guided and limited by their purpose, and features contextual environment, ^{[1, 18, 19]}. PBL using SRL have a positive impact, students can organize their lesson, and improve their computing abilities as in ^[21] and ^[24]. PBL and SRL also lead students to have the freedom and responsibility in learning, they are free and responsible to increase their knowledge seek other learning resources such as libraries and internet as in ^[1] and ^[9].

PBL model phase according to Arends ^[4] consists of provide an orient for students to the problem to the learners, organize students to study, assist independent and group investigation, develop and present artifacts and exhibits, analyze and evaluate the Problem Solving process. Indicator of SRL according Pintrich ^[18], that measured in this research were planning, controlling their effort in academic class assignment, cognitive strategy to understand of matter. Indicator of PSA ^[11] consists of understand the problem, interpreting the problem, plan the solution, implementing the plan, and evaluating the solution.

The different of this research between the earlier researches is to find the interaction of PBL Model and conventional learning using SRL in increasing the student’s physics PSA. This matter as background researcher to research about effect of PBL and SRL toward physics student’s PSA.

The formulation of the research problem is (1) Is the student’s physics PSA using PBL model better than the student’s physics PSA using conventional learning, (2) Is the student’s physics PSA that have above average SRL better than student’s physics PSA that have below average SRL, (3) Is there an interaction between the PBL model and conventional learning using SRL to improve student’s physics PSA.

2. Method

This research is a quasi-experiment aimed to see the effect of PBL model on PSA that distinguished the above average SRL and the below average SRL. The population in this research was State Senior High School 13 class XI in Medan North Sumatera 2015-2016 school year that consist of ten classes. Sample in this research were two classes using simple random sampling, first class as control class taught by conventional teaching and second class as experimental class taught by PBL model. Both of sample classes consist of 40 students. The design of the study was two group pretest-posttest design. The design of analyze was 2x2 factorial designs using technical analyze of variance (ANOVA) two ways.

The independent variables there are two kinds of models PBL (experimental group) and conventional learning (control group). The dependent variable is the PSA/ PSA. The moderator variable is SRL. Indicator student’s physics PSA consist of five aspects namely : problem understanding, problem interpreting, plan a solution, implement the solution and evaluate the solution. Indicator SRL consist of three aspects namely : Planning, Controlling his efforts at classroom academic work and Cognitive strategies to understand the material.

Data collection techniques in this study will be obtained through a PSA tests and questionnaires SRL. The instruments had been validated and fulfilled the requirements of validity and reliability of test. Data collection will be conducted in two stages, collect data about student SRL and collect data about student’s physics PSA.

The design of research were given on Table 1.

Table 1. Design of Research

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View next table

The design data analyze using Anova 2 x 2 two ways were given on Table 2.

Table 2. Design data Analiyze Anova 2 x 2 two ways

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

3. Result

Student’s PSA on the Conventional class and PBL class show on following table.

Table 3. Pre test and Post test Problem solving ability

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Base on Table 3, description of the average value of pretest and posttest PSA on the PBL and conventional class as follows: For each class pretest conventional and PBL are 31,3 and 39,18 in the low category. : For each class post test conventional and PBL are 57,90 and 73,33 in medium and high category.

The Results of post test student’s physics PSA on the Conventional and PBL class using SRL below average and above average show on following Table 4.

Table 4. Post test Student’s PSA

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Table 4 shows maximum average student’s PSA 73,83 on group PBL class with self regulated above average. Minimum average student’s PSA 55,95 on group conventional learning class with self regulated below average.

Hypothesis testing

Before testing the hypothesis first tested the prerequisite that normality test, homogeneity, and test results normal distribution and homogeneous data. After the prerequisite test is done, and then followed with two ways ANOVA with SPSS 21.0.

Table 5. ANOVA’s two ways result

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

View next table

Based on Table 5, the results of the data analyze are as follows: (1) PSA of students that learned using PBL model is better than the conventional learning (sig 0,000 < 0,05), (2) PSA groups of students who have above average SRL better than the students who have below average SRL (sig 0,000 < 0,05), and (3) there is interaction between PBL model and conventional learning using SRL in influencing students' PSA (sig 0,012 < 0,05).

In analyzing the difference between the groups then used the analyze of Post Hoc Test with Scheffe test. The results presented in Table.

Table 6. Post Hoc Test by Scheffe test

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table

Base on Table 6 test results Post Hoc by Scheffe test then obtained some comparisons interaction between groups as follows: 1) The PSA on CC for groups of students SRL below average is as same as the PSA of students on CC for groups SRL above average with significant p> 0.05, 2) PSA on PBL for groups of students SRL above average is higher than the PSA of students in PBL for groups SRL below average with significant p< 0.05; 3) PSA on CC for groups of students SRL above average is less than the PSA of students on PBL for groups SRL above average with significant p< 0.05, 4) PSA on CC for groups of students SRL below average is less than the PSA of students on PBL for groups SRL below average with significant p< 0.05; 5) PSA on CC for groups of students SRL above average is less than the PSA of students on PBL for groups SRL below average with significant p< 0.05; 6) PSA on CC for groups of students SRL below average is less than the PSA of students on PBL for groups SRL above average with significant p< 0.05.

For more clearly in view as the interaction will be shown in Figure 1.

Download as

• PPT
  PowerPoint Slide
• PNG
  Larger image(png format)

Veiw figureFigures index

•  NEW
  View larger figure in new window

Figure 1. Interaction Model of Learning and Self Regulated Learning Toward PSA

The graph shows that the PBL class with student’s PSA that have above-average better than student’s PSA that have below-average SRL. On Conventional class, student’s PSA that have above-average same as student’s PSA that have below-average SRL. The graph shows that the PBL model with above average SRL over a positive influence in increasing the student’s PSA.

4. Discussion

Based on average value and hypothesis test shown that student’s PSA using PBL was better than using Conventional. The result of this research resemblance also found in previous studies. Dwi ^[7], get the value post test PSA for experimental class was better than control class. And also research Goddess (2014) get the average value of PSA using PBL was better than the average value of PSA using Conventional.

PSA increased in PBL model because students play an active role in the learning process that requires students to think critically, be able to solve the problem, and is directed at the abilities to participate ^{[13, 14]}. PBL have a problem authentic to train students in developing higher level thinking abilities of students as in ^{[2, 6, 8, 16, 17, 22]}. PBL motivated students to do research freely in private and collaborate in groups ^[5]. In the conventional learning, students tend to be passive in class, received only learning one direction and less confronted with the problem that the student's independence in developing his own understanding as in ^{[15, 23]}.

Base on hypothesis testing that student’s PSA in group of students who have SRL above average better than group of students who have SRL below average. This is due to students who have above average SRL able to manage themselves in preparing himself in learning, maintain motivation, set goals, monitor progress, and engage in self-reflection as in ^{[1, 9, 10, 20]}. Students whose SRL is below the average value PSA is low due to lack of diligent and persistent in solving a problem, when they find difficulty in resolving a problem, despair and quickly gave up and had a learning activity is low as in ^[10].

Based on hypothesis testing there was interaction between PBL and conventional learning using SRL for increasing the student’s physics PSA. Influence SRL to student’s physics problem solving on PBL class higher than on conventional learning class. Interaction between PBL model using SRL result in increased interest and enthusiasm for learning so that student’s Problem Solving abilities increase as in ^{[7, 21, 24]}. Interaction between PBL and SRL provides an alternative potential to develop higher-level thinking ^[12]. On PBL class, students who have above-average SRL their PSA are better than students who have below average SRL. On conventional class, students who have above-average SRL their PSA are same as students who have below average SRL. This is due to students who have above average SRL able to manage themselves in preparing themselves in learning, maintain motivation, set goals, monitor progress, and engage in self-reflection as in ^{[1, 9, 10, 20]}. Students whose SRL is below the average value PSA is low due to lack of diligent and persistent in solving a problem, when they find difficulty in resolving a problem, despair and quickly gave up and had a learning activity is low as in ^[10].

5. Conclusion

Student’s physics PSA using PBL model is better than using conventional learning. These results showed that there is effect of PBL model and conventional model to student’s Physics PSA. Student’s Physics problem solving ability in student’s group who have above average SRL are better than student’s group who have below average SRL. These results showed there is effect SRL toward student’s physics PSA. There is an interaction between PBL model and conventional learning using SRL in enhancing students' physics PSA. In this research that on PBL class, SRL gave high effect on student’s physics PSA. On conventional class SRL did not give effect to student’s physics PSA.

6. Suggestion

PBL will be more effective in improving the student’s physics PSA if supported by providing training that contain physical problem related to everyday life, giving appropriate practicum to solve physics problems, as well as presenting problems of physics that requires students to solve the problem. Model of PBL give optimum result in increasing the PSA if it applied on condition that the student has SRL is above average (high). Self regulated will have a good interaction with the PBL model if students already have good intrinsic motivation in physics PSA, and has high spirit of learning so that students will prepare everything that is required in the learning process.

References

[1]	Abubakar, B.A., and Mohammad Y.A., “Self-Directed Learning and Abilitys of Problem Based Learning: A Case of Nigerian Secondary Schools Chemistry Students,” International Education Studies, 8 (12). 70-78. 2015.
	In article		View Article
[2]	Afolabi, F., and Akinbobola, A.O., “Constructivist Problem Based Learning Technique and the Academic Achievement of Physics Students with Low Ability Level in Nigerian Secondary Schools,” Eurasian Journal on Physics and Chemistry Education, 1 (1). 45-51. 2009.
	In article
[3]	Akinoglu, “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. 2007.
	In article
[4]	Arends, Learning To Teach, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008.
	In article
[5]	Caesar, M.I.M., Rosmawijah, J., Rohani, M., Masitah, S., Jainatul, H.J., and Lawrence, M., “The Benefits of Adopting a Problem Based Learning Approach on Students’ Learning Development in Secondary Geography Lessons,” International Education Studies, 8 (12). 51-65. 2016.
	In article		View Article
[6]	Dewi, P.S.U., Sadia, I.W., and Suma, K., “Effect of Problem Based Learning Model of the Physics Problem Solving Ability Through Talent Numerical Control Junior High School Students,” Journal Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Program Studi IPA, 4. 1-11. 2014.
	In article
[7]	Dwi, I.M., Arif, H., and Sentot, K., “Effect of Problem Based Learning Model to Understanding Concepts and Problem Solving Abilitys,” Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 8-17. 2013.
	In article
[8]	Eldy, E.E., and Fauziah, S., “A Comparison of Integrated Problem Based Learning Approach in Theretical and Mathematical Coursesin Physics towards Student’s Critical Thinking: A Case Fidiana Study in University Malaysia Sabah,” International Journal of Education and Research, 2 (1). 1-10. 2014.
	In article
[9]	English, M.C, and Anastasia, K,. “Supporting Student Self-Regulated Learning in Problem and Project Based Learning,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 7 (2). 128-150. 2013.
	In article		View Article
[10]	Fidiana, L., Bambang, S., and Pratiwi, D., “Pembuatan dan Implementasi Modul Praktikum Fisika Berbasis Masalah Untuk Meningkatkan Kemandirian Belajar Siswa Kelas XI,” Unnes Physics Education Journal, 9-44. 2012.
	In article
[11]	Heller, P., Ronald, K. and Scott, A., “Teaching Problem Solving Trough Cooperative Grouping,” American Assosiation of Physics Teachers, 60 (7). 627-636. 1992.
	In article
[12]	Ibrahim, M.M., Arshad M.Y., and Rosli, M.S., “The Need of an Integrated Framework for the Implementation of Blended Problem-Based Learning,” International Education Studies, 8 (13). 33-40. 2015.
	In article		View Article
[13]	Inel, D., and Ali, G.B., “The effects of using problem-based learning in science and technology teaching upon student’s academic achievement and levels of structuring concepts,” Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11 (2). 1-23. 2010.
	In article
[14]	Joy, A., “Effect of Problem Based Learning Strategy on Students’ Achievement in Senior Secondary Schools Chemistry in Enugu State,” Journal of Research & Method in Education. 4 (3). 27-31. 2014.
	In article
[15]	Kadir, Z.A., Abdullah, N.H., Anthony, E., Mohd Salleh, B., and Kamarulzaman, R., “Does Problem-Based Learning Improve Problem Solving Ability?-A Study among Business Undergraduates at Malaysian Premier Technical University,” International Education Studies, 9 (5). 166-172. 2016.
	In article		View Article
[16]	Masek, A and Sulaiman Y., “The Effect of Problem Based Learning on Critical Thinking Ability: A Theoretical and Empirical Review,” International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2 (1). 215-221. 2011.
	In article
[17]	Park, S.J., and Sun-hee Choi, “Effects of Problem Based Learning on the Learning Attitudes, Critical Thinking Disposition and Problem Solving Abilitys of Nursing Students: Infant Care,” Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 10(3). 192-196. 2015.
	In article		View Article
[18]	Pintrich, “Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1). 33-40. 1990.
	In article		View Article
[19]	Rusman, Models of Learning: Developing a Professional Teacher. Rajawali Pers, Jakarta, 2014.
	In article
[20]	Sanjayati, A., Sulistiono and Dwi, A.B., “Self Regulated Learning level Student Class XI SMAN 1 Kediri MIA-5 on PBL Model Material Systems Human Reproduction,” National Seminar XII Biology Education FKIP UNS, 2015.
	In article
[21]	Shen, P.D., Tsang, H.L., and Chia, W.T., “Applying Web-Enabled Problem Based Learnung and Self-Regulated Learning to Enhance Computing Abilitys of Taiwan’s Vocational Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study of a Short-Term Module,” Journal of e-Learning, 5. 147-150. 2007.
	In article
[22]	Sulaiman, F., and Elnetthra F.E., “A Comparison of Integrated Problem Based Learning Approach in Theoretical and Mathematical Courses in Physics towards Students’ Critical Thinking: A case Study in University Malaysia Sabah,” International Journal of Education and Research, 2 (1). 1-10. 2014.
	In article
[23]	Tasoglu, A.K., and Mustafa, B., “The Effect of Problem Based Learning Approach on Conceptual Understanding in Teaching of Magnetism Topics,” Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6 (2). 110-122. 2014.
	In article
[24]	Tsang-Hsiung, Lee, Pei-Di, Shen and Chia-Wen, Tsai, “Applying Web-Enabled Problem Based Learning and Self Regulated Learning to Add Value to Computing Education in Taiwan’s Vocational Schools,” International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3). 13-25. 2008.
	In article