Pengaruh Metode Pembelajaran Diskusi Interaktif terhadap Peningkatan Pemahaman Siswa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37824/h3m6k370Keywords:
Interactive Discussion, Students’ Understanding, Economics, Quasi-Experimental.Abstract
This study aims to analyze the effect of the interactive discussion learning method on improving students’ understanding in Class X at MAN 2 Central Lombok in Economics subjects. The background of this research is the low level of students’ understanding due to the dominance of lecture methods that tend to be passive. This research employed a quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design (pretest-posttest control group design). The sample consisted of 34 students divided into two groups: the experimental class (interactive discussion) and the control class (conventional lecture). The research instrument was multiple-choice tests administered before and after treatment. Data analysis included normality test, homogeneity test, paired sample t-test, and independent sample t-test. The results revealed that the average posttest score of the experimental class (85.24) was higher than that of the control class (73.53). The t-test showed a significance value of 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that the interactive discussion method significantly improved students’ understanding. Thus, this method is proven effective and recommended as an alternative in Economics learning.
Downloads
References
[1] M. N. Aflah and E. F. Rahmani, “Enhancing Students’ Active Learning through Group Discussion Role-Playing,” Int. Online J. Educ. Teach., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1470–1479, 2022.
[2] R. Ellis and P. Goodyear, “Optimizing the Discussion Methods in Blended Learning to Improve Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills,” J. Educ. Technol., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 211–228, 2023.
[3] S. N. Kew, “Analysing Students’ Cognitive Engagement in E-Learning Discussion Forums through Content Analysis,” Knowl. Manage. & E-Learn., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 39–57, 2021.
[4] A. A. Gasmi, “Through the Lens of Students: How Online Discussion Forums Affect Students’ Learning,” Int. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 669–684, 2022.
[5] P. Wang, T. Ma, L. Liu, C. Shang, P. An, and Y. Xue, “A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Online Instructional Strategies Optimized With Smart Interactive Tools Versus Traditional Teaching,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, 2021.
[6] M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, C. Green, A. L. Traxle, and E. Brewe, “Relative Benefits of Different Active Learning Methods to Conceptual Physics Learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04577, 2025.
[7] H. Gao, T. Evans, and A. Fergusson, “Student Explanation Strategies in Postsecondary Mathematics and Statistics Education: A Scoping Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19237, 2025.
[8] H. Gao, T. Evans, and A. Fergusson, “Student Explanation in Middle and Secondary Mathematics and Statistics: A Scoping Literature Review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14417, 2025.
[9] M. Sundstrom, A. Schang, A. B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, “Understanding Interaction Network Formation Across Instructional Contexts in Remote Physics Courses,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00875, 2022.
[10] T. Liu and H. Zheng, “A Study of Digital Interactive Technology and Design Mode Promoting the Learners’ Metacognitive Experience in Smart Education,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 493–497, 2021.
[11] E. Brock and J. McLeod, “The Use of Educational Technology for Interactive Teaching in Lectures,” Med. Educ. Technol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 102–112, 2021.
[12] D. Adams and C. Owens, “Active Learning Classroom Design and Student Engagement: An Empirical Study,” J. Learn. Environ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–59, 2021.
[13] K. Hassan and M. Yusof, “Scaffolding Understanding of Scholarly Educational Research Through Instructional Interventions,” Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 33–42, 2022.
[14] S. Kim, “Features of the Discussion Method in the Training of Students in Distance Learning Conditions: An Experimental Study,” Korean J. Educ. Methodol., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 65–76, 2023.
[15] A. Rahmawati and S. Nugroho, “Information Services Using the Small Group Discussion Learning Method to Improve Students’ Interpersonal Communication Skills,” J. Educ. Commun., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 142–152, 2024.
[16] J. Green, R. Anderson, and M. Lee, “Increasing Collaborative Discussion in Case-Based Learning Improves Student Engagement and Knowledge Acquisition,” Med. Educ. J., vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 765–778, 2022.
[17] N. Patel, “Impact of Active Learning Strategy on Student Engagement,” Educ. Action Res. J., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 103–117, 2021.
[18] L. Williams and C. Davis, “Maximizing Interactivity in Online Learning: Moving Beyond Discussion Boards,” J. Educ. Online, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 55–70, 2021.
[19] C. Brown, “New Research Shows Learning Is More Effective When Active,” Carnegie Mellon Univ. News, Oct. 2021.
[20] P. Goodyear and R. Ellis, “Optimizing the Discussion Methods in Blended Learning to Improve Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills,” ERIC Document ED614302, 2023.
[21] J. Anderson and M. Liu, “Active Learning in STEM: Proven Methods to Improve Student Understanding,” STEM Educ. J., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 44–59, 2024.
[22] R. Rahman and D. Iskandar, “Interactive Discussion in Secondary Education: Effects on Conceptual Understanding,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 189–203, 2023.
[23] E. White and G. Thomas, “The Role of Discussion-Based Pedagogy in Classroom Engagement and Learning Outcomes,” Teach. Coll. Rec., vol. 125, no. 7, pp. 155–172, 2022.
[24] S. Santoso and L. Lestari, “Comparative Study of Discussion Method vs. Lecture-Based Teaching in High School,” J. Sch. Teach. Learn., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 77–89, 2024.
[25] M. Rahim and F. Kurnia, “Enhancing Learning through Dialogic Pedagogy in Secondary Classrooms,” Dialog. Edu. Stud., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 61–75, 2023.
[26] H. Budiarto and R. Sari, “Peer Discussion and Its Effect on Critical Thinking and Comprehension,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 88–102, 2025.
[27] P. Dewi and M. Haryanto, “Implementing Interactive Discussion in Large-Class Settings: Challenges and Outcomes,” High. Educ. Rev., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 310–324, 2022.
[28] E. Hidayah, “Designing Effective Discussion Activities to Foster Deep Learning,” Innov. Teach. Learn. J., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 45–60, 2024.
[29] A. Gunawan, “Teacher Facilitation in Discussion Learning and Student Conceptual Gains,” J. Teach. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 55–70, 2023.
[30] T. Nelson and D. Cooper, “Dialogic Discourse and Student Understanding in Secondary Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis,” Rev. Educ. Stud., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 91–108, 2025.
[31] J. Ahmad, A. ul Hasan, T. Naqvi, and T. Mubeen, “A Review on Software Testing and Its Methodology,” Manag. J. Softw. Eng., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 2019.
[32] E. A. Shams and A. Rizaner, “A novel support vector machine based intrusion detection system for mobile ad hoc networks,” Wirel. Networks, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1821–1829, 2018.
[33] S. Aljawarneh, M. Aldwairi, and M. B. Yassein, “Anomaly-based intrusion detection system through feature selection analysis and building hybrid efficient model,” J. Comput. Sci., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 152–160, 2018.
[34] Y. I. Kurniawan, A. Rahmawati, N. Chasanah, and A. Hanifa, “Application for determining the modality preference of student learning,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019, vol. 1367, no. 1, pp. 1–11.
[35] Y. Guo, S. Han, Y. Li, C. Zhang, and Y. Bai, “K-Nearest Neighbor combined with guided filter for hyperspectral image classification,” in International COnference On Identification, Information and Knowledge in the Internet of Things, 2018, pp. 159–165.
[36] Y. I. Kurniawan, E. Soviana, and I. Yuliana, “Merging Pearson Correlation and TAN-ELR algorithm in recommender system,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2018, vol. 1977.
[37] M. Sridevi, S. Aishwarya, A. Nidheesha, and D. Bokadia, Anomaly Detection by Using CFS Subset and Neural Network with WEKA Tools. Springer Singapore.
[38] C. Low, “NSL-KDD Dataset,” 2015. .
[39] D. Handoko, “Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Seleksi Penentuan Penerima Beasiswa Dengan Metode Simple Additive Weighting (SAW),” Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 2016.
[40] A. P. Azhari, S. Maryanto, and A. Rachmansyah, “Interpretation of Bouguer Anomaly to Determine Fault and Subsurface Structure at Blawan-Ijen Geothermal Area,” vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016.
[41] B. M. Sukojo and R. Mardiana, “Geothermal Potential Analysis Using Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2 (Case Study: Mount Ijen),” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 98, no. 1, 2017.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Neza Hariati, Suandi Suandi, Safka Mawarzani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
