The Effect of Problem-Based and Discovery Learning Models with the Science Approach to the Understanding Concept and Science Process Skills of the Student Aris Doyan* Master of Science Education Study Program University of Mataram West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia *aris_doyan@unram.ac.id Susilawati, I Wayan Gunada, Hilfan Physics Education Study Program University of Mataram West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia susilawatihambali@unram.ac.id Abstract—This research aims to determine the differences in science process skills between students who follow the learning with problem-based learning model with scientific approach and students who follow learning discovery learning with scientific approach; differences in physics learning result between students who follow learning with problem-based learning model with scientific approach and students who follow learning discovery learning with scientific approach. This research type is quasi experiment with 2×2 factorial design. Sampling using cluster random sampling technique, and research instrument in the form of essay test for science process skill and multiple choice test for physics study result tested validation, reliability, difficulty level, and different problem. The final data (post-test) was tested for normality, homogeneity, and hypothesis with two-t test samples, as well as further tests with the statistical manova Hotelling's Trace. Hypothesis test used is t-test polled variance. The results of t_Calculate are consulted with t-test table at 5% significance level. From the research results obtained as follows: (1) there is influence of discovery learning and problem-based learning model with scientific approach to understanding concept result (t_Calculate = 4.1> t_table = 1.99); (2) there is influence of discovery learning and problem-based learning model with scientific approach to students physics science process skill (t_Calculate = 5,01> t_table = 1,99); (3) there is influence of discovery learning and problem-based learning model with scientific approach to understanding concept and students physics science process skill (F_Calculate = 15,57> F_Table = 1,78). This suggests that the problem-based learning model with a scientific approach is better than the discovery learning model with the scientific approach. Keywords—problem-based learning, discovery learning, scientific approach, understanding concept, science process skills I. INTRODUCTION The learning process in the 2013 curriculum is carried out using a scientific approach. Here also in the physics subject in high school as stated in the 2013 curriculum aims that learning with a scientific approach is to form students' ability to solve problems systematically and obtain high learning outcomes. The goal of implementing the 2013 curriculum is the formation of competence and character of students in the form of a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that students can demonstrate as a form of understanding of the concepts that are studied contextually [1]. So that learning outcomes are obtained based on predetermined goals. This goal is achieved when students are faced with a learning process that involves a cognitive process in solving problems and in the process of discovery. But the reality so far in high school learning carried out by teachers has not led students to the learning process that presents contextual problems to find or solve a concept, theory or principle. The concepts of science and the environment around students can be easily mastered by students through observations of concrete situations. The positive impact of the application of a contextual environmental approach is that students can be stimulated by their curiosity about something in their environment. In addition, the orientation of physics learning is more towards planting knowledge of basic concepts, developing basic skills related to scientific processes, and developing logical thinking patterns [2]. On the other hand, the low student learning outcomes when associated with the implementation of the curriculum in general. Due to several factors including: 1) the curriculum load is too heavy; 2) affective education is difficult to program explicitly because it is considered to be part of the hidden curriculum, the implementation of which is highly dependent on teacher skills and experience; 3) attainment of educational outcomes, especially affective education, takes time so it requires persistence and patience of educators; 4) assessing educational outcomes, especially the affective domain, is not easy [3]. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 566 Proceedings of the 5th Asian Education Symposium 2020 (AES 2020) Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press SARL. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. 274