Format Pengumpulan Tugas (MetPen)

Berikut ini format pengumpulan tugas agar terjadi keseragaman dan memudahkan pengkoreksian.
Ukuran kertas : A4
Margin (Atas : 4 cm), (Kiri : 4 cm), (Kanan : 3 cm), dan (Bawah : 3 cm)
Minimal terdiri dari 2 halaman (cover dan isi) maksimal 4 halaman.
Disimpan dalam format document MS Office 2003 (bukan docx untuk menghindari ketidak-kompabilitasan)
File dikirimkan ke kelasbunp@gmail.com paling lambat tanggal 3 Februari 2012 karena proses penggabungan tugas dari teman-teman cukup memakan waktu. Don't be late



Halaman Pertama

Tugas Metodologi Penelitian

Judul

Nama Mahasiswa

NIM Mahasiswa

Program Magister (S2)

Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan

Fakultas Teknik Universitas Negeri Padang

2012

Halaman Kedua

Latar belakang
Silahkan menuliskan latar belakang di halaman kedua sesuai dengan kaidah penelitian metode deduktif atau metode induktif berikut disampaikan kembali tentang metodologi menurut donald ary:

DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Ancient Greek philosophers made perhaps the fi rst signifi cant contribution to the development of a systematic approach for gaining knowledge. Aristotle and his followers introduced the use of deductive reasoning, which can be described as a thinking process in which one proceeds from general to specifi c knowl-edge through logical argument. An argument consists of a number of statements standing in relation to one another. The fi nal statement is the conclusion, and the rest, called premises, offer supporting evidence. A major kind of deductive reasoning is the syllogism. A syllogism consists of a major premise and a minor premise followed by a conclusion. For example, “All men are mortal” (major premise); “The king is a man” (minor premise); “Therefore, the king is mortal” (conclusion). In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. Deductive reasoning lets you organize premises into patterns that provide conclusive evidence for a conclusion’s validity. Mystery fans will recall that Sherlock Holmes frequently would say, “I deduce . . .” as he combined previously unconnected facts in such a way as to imply a previously unsuspected conclusion.

INDUCTIVE REASONING
As noted previously, the conclusions of deductive reasoning are true only if the premises on which they are based are true. But how are you to know if the premises are true? In the Middle Ages, people often substituted dogma for true premises, so they reached invalid conclusions. It was Francis Bacon (1561–1626) who first called for a new approach to knowing. He held that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting premises handed down by authority as absolute truth. He believed that an investigator should establish general conclusions on the basis of facts gathered through direct observation. Bacon advised the seeker of truth to observe nature directly and to rid his or her mind of prejudice and preconceived ideas, which Bacon called “idols.” For him, obtaining knowledge required that the thinker observe nature itself, gather particular facts, and  formulate gener-alizations from these findings. 

You can see the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning in the following examples:
Deductive: 

• Every mammal has lungs.
• All rabbits are mammals.
• Therefore, every rabbit has lungs.

Inductive: 

• Every rabbit that has ever been observed has lungs.
• Therefore, every rabbit has lungs. 

In Pirsig’s narrative, we see five steps that are typical in scientifi c inquiry:

1. Identification of the problem. The first step is the realization that a problem exists. The problem may involve a question about something, a discrepancy in findings, or a gap in knowledge. In Pirsig’s example, the fact that the motorcycle did not start constituted the problem.
2. Statement of the problem. The next step is the clarification of the problem. The investigator states more precisely the nature and scope of the problem that has been identified.
3. Formulation of hypotheses. The investigator formulates hypotheses about possible solutions of the problem. In the example, the first hypothesis was that the motorcycle did not start because of trouble in the electrical system.
4. Prediction of consequences. The investigator next predicts the consequences of each hypothesis; that is, what should result if the data support the hypothesis.
5. Testing of hypotheses. The researcher gathers objective data to evaluate the adequacy of each hypothesis formulated. If the data support the hypothesis, it is accepted as a reasonable explanation. If the data do not support the hypothesis, it is rejected.

Selamat berkarya