THE ABILITY OF STUDENT IN SOLVING CONTEXTUAL PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY CONCEPT AT GRADE X SMA NEGERI 2 LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

(1)

THE ABILITY OF STUDENT IN SOLVING CONTEXTUAL PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL IN DYNAMIC

ELECTRICITY CONCEPT AT GRADE X SMA NEGERI 2 LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

By

Debora Hutasoit ID. Number. 4123322004

Bilingual Physics Education Study Program

THESIS

Submitted to Acquire Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

ii

BIOGRAPHY

Debora Hutasoit was born in Lintongnihuta on January14Th 1993. Father’s name

is Manihar Hutasoit and Mother’s name is Ruspita Sianturi, and she is the seventh

of eight siblings. In 1999, the author entered SD N 176354Lintongnihuta and

graduated in 2005. In 2005, the author continued hiseducation in SMP N 4

Lintongnihuta and graduated in 2008. In 2008, the author continued his education

to SMA N 1 Pagaran and graduated 2011. In 2012, the author was accepted in

Physical Education Studies Program in Department of Physics, Faculty of

(4)

iii

The Ability of Student in Solving Contextual Problem with Problem Based Learning Model in Dynamic Electricity

Concept at Grade X SMANegeri 2 Lintongnihuta Academic Year 2015/2016

Debora Hutasoit (ID. 4123322004)

ABSTRACT

Problem Based Learning , which is a teaching approach that uses real-world problems as a context for students to learn about critical thinking and problem solving skills, as well as to acquire the knowledge and concepts are the essence of the subject matter. This research aimed to know and describe the ability of student’s in solving contextual problem with problem based learning about dynamic electricity.

This research employed a quasi experimental pretest and posttest with control design. The populations were 60 students grade X-science in SMA N 2 Lintongnihuta academic year 2015/2016. The samples consist of two classes, one class with 30 students as experiment class and one class as control class with 30 students, while the sampling technique used cluster random sampling. Research instrument used essay test of solving contextualability . The data obtained in the study were analyzed by the computer program Ms.Exel

From the research the pre-test average value of experiment class 26.66 and controlclass 27.83, after giving the treatment the post-test with the average value of experiment class 59.66 and control class 49.50. The result of t test tcount = 3.158 while ttable= 1.661. Because tcount>ttable(3.158>1.661) so Ho rejected. The result showed that student’s solving contextual problem abilty in experiment class had been treated with problem based learning model had been significantly different from control class which had been treated with conventional learning. In addition, the improvement of solving contextual problem skill in PBL class was greater than in control class. This meant implementation project based learning has a significant effect toward student’s solving contextual problem skill.

(5)

x

TABLES LIST

Table 2.1 Table of the syntax of PBL model 16

Tabel 3.1 The research design 32

Table 3.2 The specification learning outcomes test (cognitive domain) 35

Table 3.3 Rubric of affective assesment 36

Table 3.4 Criteria Assessment of Student’s affective domain 37

Table 3.5 Rubric of psychomotor assessment 38

Table 3.6 Criteria Assessment of Student’s psychomotor domain 39

Table 3.7 Rubric of student’s learning activity assessment 39

Table 3.8 Criteria Assessment of Student’s learning activity 40

Table 4.1 Calculation of Average Value, SD and Variance 47

Table 4.2 Result of Normality Test in Experiment and Control Class 48

Table 4.3 Homogenity Test Result of the both of Class 49

Table 4.4 Calculation hypothesis test of post-test 49

(6)

vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Identification5

1.3 Problem Limitation5

1.4 Problem Formulation5

1.5 Research Objective6

1.6 Research Benefit6

1.7 Definition . 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical . 7

2.1.1 Learning Defenition 7

2.1.2 Learning Achievement 8

2.1.3 Learning Model 9

2.1.4 Contextal Teaching and Learning 10

2.2. Problem Based Learning Model 13

2.2.1. Defenition and Characteristic of PBL model 13 2.2.2. Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model 16 2.2.3. Advantages and Disadventages of PBL model 17

2.3. Conventional Learning 18

2.4. Learning Material 18

2.4.1. Definition of Electric Current 18

2.4.2. Defnition of Voltage 20

2.4.3. Measurement of Electric Current 20

2.4.4 Measuring of Voltage 22

2.4.5 Ohm's Law and Electrical Resistance 24

2.4.6 Electrical Resistance of a Conductor 25

2.4.7 Arrangement of Electrical Resistance 25

(7)

vii

2.4.7.2 Parallel Resitance 26

2.4.8 Electrical energy 27

2.4.9 Electrical power 28

2.5. Conceptual Framework 29

2.6. Hypothesis 30

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. Research Location and Research Time31

3.1.1. Research Location31

3.1.2. Research Time 31 3.2. Research Population and Research Sample31

3.2.1. Research Population31

3.2.2. Research Sample 31 3.3 Research Variables32

3.4. Research method and Research Design32

3.4.1 Research method32

3.4.2. Research Design32

3.5. Research Procedure33

3.6. Research Instrument35

3.6.1. Instrument of Student’s outcomes of cogntive domain35

3.6.2. Instrument of Student’s outcomes of affective domain36 3.6.3. Instrument of Students’s Outcomes at Psychomotor Domain 37 3.6.4.Insturment of Student’s Learning Activity39 3.6.5. Validity Test 40

3.7. Data Analysis Techniques41

3.7.1. Determine Average Value41

3.7.2. Determine The Deviation Standard41

3.7.3. Normality Test41

3.7.4. Determine The Homogenity Test43

3.7.5. Hypothesis Test43

3.7.5.1. Pre-test ability (two tail test)43

3.7.5.2. Post Test Ability Test 44

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 . Result of Research 46

4.1.2. Student Outcomes on Experiment Class 47 4.1.3. Student Outcomes on Control Class 48

4.1.4. Data Analysis 48

4.1.5. Hypothesis Test Result 49

4.2. Discussion 50

(8)

viii

4.2.2. Outcomes of Control Class 51

4.2.3. Outcomes of Experiment and Control Class 51

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion 54

5.2. Suggestion 54

(9)

ix

FIGURES LIST

Figure 2.1. Direction of current and electrons flow 19 Figure 2.2. Ammeters arranged in series 21 Figure 2.3. Installation ofshunt resistance 22

Figure 2.4. Voltmeter arranged in parallel

23Figure 2.5. Installation of front resistance 23 Figure 2.6 Arrangement of resistance in series

(10)

x

TABLES LIST

Table 2.1 Table of the syntax of PBL model 16

Tabel 3.1 The research design 32

Table 3.2 The specification learning outcomes test (cognitive domain) 35

Table 3.3 Rubric of affective assesment 36

Table 3.4 Criteria Assessment of Student’s affective domain 37

Table 3.5 Rubric of psychomotor assessment 38

Table 3.6 Criteria Assessment of Student’s psychomotor domain 39

Table 3.7 Rubric of student’s learning activity assessment 39

Table 3.8 Criteria Assessment of Student’s learning activity 40

Table 4.1 Calculation of Average Value, SD and Variance 47

Table 4.2 Result of Normality Test in Experiment and Control Class 48

Table 4.3 Homogenity Test Result of the both of Class 49

Table 4.4 Calculation hypothesis test of post-test 49

(11)

xi

APPENDIX LIST

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 58

Appendix 4 Students Worksheet 1 99

Appendix 7 Essay Test Question 114

Appendix 8 Affective Instruments Research 123

Appendix 9 Psychomotor Instrument Research 127

Appendix 10 Calculation of Average, Varians and Standard Deviation 128

Appendix 11 Normality Test. 131

Appendix 12 Homogenity Test 136

Appendix 13 Hypothesis Test 139

Appendix 14 Documentation 142

Appendix 15 List of Critical Value for Lilliefors Test 146

Appendix 16 Table of Ranging Area in Below Normal Curve 0 until Z 147

Appendix 17 List of Percentil Value for F Distribution 148

(12)

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background

Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of

knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. Education holds the important role

to produce Indonesian human resources, like as individu or as society because

education can improve and develop the quality of human resources. Improving the

quality of education deserve serious attention and careful. Therefore, various

attempts have been made to improve the quality of education. One is the

developmentof research in the field of education, especially in the

teaching-learning process (Sanjaya, 2006:1-2). Learning exposes one to a range of

possibilities and choices that life has to offer.The learning process is both a mirror of one’s life in relation to others and to the wider environment, as well as a compass to help us to map our way in our life’s journey (Ramphele,2015). Education is expected to produce human resources highly skilled, including

critical thinking, logical, creative, and willingness to work together effective that

can be developed through education of physics.

National educationaccording tolawNo.20, 2003, serves to developthe

abilityand character developmentandcivilization ofthe nation's dignityin theminds

of the people. To that end,educationaims to developstudents' potentials tobecomea

man of faith, andfear of GodAlmighty, the noble character, healthy,

knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, and become citizens of

ademocratic and responsible ( Mulyasa, 2013:20).

Physicsas a scienceisone of the subjectsrelated to naturesodemandingin

learningthe necessaryinvestigationsin the form ofan experiment onsuch

knowledge. Physics as a subject is not an exception here. Physics is hard to learn

because of the need to understand the laws and know numerical facts,

(13)

2

cannot be understood just by knowing factual data (Fauziah et al, 2016). The

science and its applications are part of daily life to make our life better and therefore the development of an individual’s understanding of science and its applications is one of the objectives of science instruction. Learningphysicsin

schoolsis still dominatedby theactivities of teachers. In the sense

ofactiveteachersto teachand learnerspassivein learning (Hamid, 2011). Therefore,

todevelopafield ofphysicsnecessarysupportinginfrastructuresuch

aslaboratoryequipment andinstrumentssufficientmaterialphysics experiments, the

libraryis sufficient todevelop thebasicthinkingof students, andother

learningsupportatschool. According Brown et al., 1983; Entwistle and Ramsden,

1983 in (Selcuk, 2014) Students use basic strategies (e.g., rehearsal and

memorization) to remember facts and formulas, whereas higher level strategies

are used to understand main ideas and concepts. Therefore, not all types of

Learning strategis necessarily improve the acquisition of conceptual

understanding. Research also suggests that higher level strategies are expected to

promote conceptual understanding. Various studies exist in the physics education

literature investigating the effectiveness of Learning strategi on student

learning.Untilnowmost schoolswillhaveto cleanthat purpose.However, the

learning outcomesof students instudyingphysicshas not shownsuccess

andsatisfaction.

Learning outcomesare alsoassociated withstudent lifeperspective (Ronfeldt

et al,2015). Afact thatwhen thechildrenwere young, their worldis full ofquestions.

Invariousfacets of life, theyget the ideathat beingan adult meansleft the

worldquestioningto enter the worldknow the answer. Schoolstend to encouragethe

movementofquestiontoanswer becausesuccessby simplyplacingthe correct

answerblankormarkthe correct response. Questioninschooltend to haveone correct

answerandquestions thatno responseis rare. Therefore, if wewant to knowhow

tolearnismore importantthan knowingall the answers, thenwemustrealizethata

good questionis moreimportant thanthe right answer. Teaching

(14)

3

answers theycouldprovide.According toNasution(2000: 94) in Wahyuni and

Siswanto (2010), The lesson willbeinterestingandsuccessful, when

linkedwithexperiencesin whichthey can see, feel, give, do, try, think, and so forth.

In this case thelearning approachused in schoolsare lessprecise.

Observations has been conductedbyresearcherson studentsof

SMAN2Lintongnihuta, there aresomeproblemsthat are found inphysicslearning.

Perspectivephysicsstudents will beunfavorable. Learningphysicsis oftena

frightening specterfor them, filled withformulas, interestingbutdifficultto

understand thestudy, there are even someopinionrevealsthat physics

isonlyforscientists. Furthermore, the way of teachingphysics teacherin the

classroomtends totake notes andwork on the problems. In addition, about60% of

studentsineach classXIsciencestillhas a value belowKKMstandards.

Monotonousteaching methodsis the reasonwhy thestudyof

physicsbelearninglessinterestingfor students. Moreover,whengiven aproblemmost

studentsdo not getto readaboutanddeterminewhatformulais used. Teachers do not

always adopt new instructional strategies seamlessly. According Ravitz (2003) in

(Tamim and Grant, 2013) posited that, even when teachers show enthusiasm

about the constructivist teaching approach after participating in professional

development workshops, they might not find it easy to implement it in their

classrooms. Hence developassumptionson studentsthatphysicsis suitable onlybe

learned bythosewhowant tobe a scientistora physicistmore details. At the time

ofteaching and learning activitiestake place, the activity ofstudents inworking on

the problemsof physicsgiven by the teacheris still lacking,

althoughstillcapitalized,seethe notes andonly some studentswereactive. Another

casewhenthe teacherasked thestudents ifthe material presentedisunderstandable,

studentsonlysilencein other wordsno student isgiven a definite answer.

Additionally, whenatimethe teachergave a demonstration, students were alsoless

activein its implementation.It showsstudentsjustreceived the knowledgeofthe

teacherwithoutthe initiative tofindtheir own. Furthermore, fromthe results oftests

(15)

4

the materialof static Fluidhas not reachedthe expected target. Informationabout

thephysicsstudentlearning outcomesobtainedfrom interviews, the average

valuefor3years in a rowhas not reached theminimumcompletenesscriteria. From

thisit appears thatstudent learning outcomesare still low in physics.

Problem-based learning model isaninstructional modelthatpresents

acontextualproblemthatstimulatelearners tolearn. In classes

thatimplementproblem-based learning, studentswork in teamsto solvereal-world

problems. So, student able to solve the problem and get the knowledge and

important concept by their selves ( Etherington, 2014).

Problem based learning aims improve students ability to work in a team,

showing their coordinated abilities to access information and turn it into viable

knowledge ( Eldy,2013). PBLwillhappenwithmeaningful learning. Learners

wholearn to solveaproblemthen theywillapply theknowledge possessedorsoughtto

knowthe necessary knowledge. Learning can bemoremeaningful andcan be

expandedwhenstudentsare dealingwitha situationin whichthe conceptis applied.

PBLcan improvecritical thinking skills, fosterinitiativeslearners inwork, internal

motivation tolearn, andcandevelopinterpersonalrelationshipsin theworkinggroup.

One advantage of PBL is that discussion in a small group will empower students

to be more independent in their study. Which means they will stimulate

themselves to be more responsible and directly lead them to spend more time on

their studies (Dolmans et al., 2016).In the fact showsstudents are lessableto relate

theinformationthathas been obtainedfrom theteacherwithinformation thatwill be

studiedandrelatedtoeveryday life. This relates tothe lack ofpracticeovertheory

learnedandlaboratory usearenoteffectivein schools.

(16)

5

in Dynamic Electricity Concept at Grade X SMA Negeri 2 Lintongnihuta Academic Year 2015/2016”.

1.2. Problems Identification

Based on description of background above, problem can be identified as

follows:

1. Low ability of student in solving contextual problem in physics

2. Student learning outcomes for physics lesson is still not optimal (not reached

KKM)

3. Lack of motivation of students to physics so that students cann’t solving

contextual problem

4. Teaching and learning process in school is still teacher-centered

5. Learning model still not variated that used by teacher

6. Students are not actively in learning process

1.3. Problems Limitation

Problem that developed in this paper should be limited to provide a clear

description of the problems that will be reviewed. In accordance by problem

identification,problems limitation of this paper as follows:

1. Application of Problem Based Learning

2. Student ability in solving contextual problem in physics

1.4. Problem Formulation

Based on the problems limitation which describe above, hence the

problems formulation in this research are;

1. Is the students learning ability solving contextual problem by using Problem

Based Learning model better than Conventional learning?

(17)

6

The goals of this research is:

1. To know if there are differences in student learning achievement solving

contextual problem using Problem Base Learnig model with Conventional

Learning model.

1.6. Research Benefits

The expected benefits of this research are:

1. Adding the experience of researchs in improving students learning outcomes

based Problem Base Learning model that can be used in the future.

2. Opening teacher thinking conception in developing teaching and learning

model on using Problem Base Learning.

1.7. OperationalDefinition

1. The learning model of problem-based learning is the use of various intelligence

necessary to confront the challenges of the real world, the ability to confront

everything new and existing complexity.

2. Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) is a learning strategy that emphasizes

the process of involvement of students to find the material, which means that

the learning process is oriented to the process of direct experience.

3. The learning outcomes is the ability of the students after receiving the learning

process is completed is a value that includes cognitive, affective and

(18)

54

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclusion

Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion, the conclusions of

this research are as followings as below:

1. Conventional Learning before being given treatmentaverage pretest 27.83and

after giving the treatment the average post-test 49.50

2. Problem Based Learning model before being given treatmentaverage pretest

26.66and after giving the treatment the average post-test 59.66

3. From the result of hypothesis test tcount> ttable is3.158 > 1.661, so that H0 is

rejected and Ha is accepted. It can be concluded that there is a difference of

student learning achievement using problem based learning model with

conventional, on the other word the learning achievement by using problem

based learning better than conventional learning.

5.2. Suggestions

Based on the research results and conclusions of the above, then as a

follow-up of this research suggested some of the following:

1. Should mastered all the syntax in Problem Based Learning and arrange a time

to implement all the syntax in a timely manner and the students had no

difficulty in following all the syntax.

2. Should do a simulation before trying out this model to the students so that

students better understand and are trained in the workings of this model when

doing research, so that this problem based learning model can be completed

(19)

54

REFERENCES

Akınoğlu, Orhan and Ruhan Özkardeş Tandoğan,(2007).The Effects of Problem Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education 3:71-81

Arends, L., R, (2009), Learning to teach. New York: Mc.Graw-Hill.

Arikunto, S.,(2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Dolmans, D. Wolfhagen, I & Vleuten, C. (2006). Why aren’t They Working?. In P. Schwartz, S.Mennin, & G. Webb. Problem-Based Learning: Case Studies, Experience and Practice.London & New York. Routledge.

Eldy, E.F and Fauzian,S. (2013). The Role of PBL in Improving Physics Student’s Creative Thinking and its Imprint of Gender, International Journal of Education and Research 1(6).

Etherington,M.B.,(2014), Investigate Primary Science: Problem Based Learning Approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36(9).

Fauziah, S. (2016). Leadership and Cooperative Learning and its Relation

Towards Students’ Grade Achievement in Problem-Based Learning

Environment,International Journal of Education and Research 4(1).

Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan, (2012), Buku Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi dan Proposal Penelitian Kependidikan. Medan : FMIPA Unimed.

Istarani,(2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan:Media Persada.

Kanginan, M., (2013), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Kharida,L.A,dkk,(2009).Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Elastisitas Bahan,Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia 5:83-89

Mulyasa, H.E.,(2013), Pengembangan dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

(20)

55

Heat and Temperature at Year X SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/2013. Skripsi. Medan : FMIPA Unimed.

Ramphele, M. (2015). Meaning and Mission. European Journal of Education 50(1).

Ronfeldt,M, Farmer, and McQueen. (2015), Teacher Collaboration in Instructional Teams andStudent Achievement, American Educational Research Journal 52(3): 475-514.

Rusman,(2012), Model-Model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Sardiman, (2011), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.

Sanjaya, W., (2011), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta Prenada : Media Grup.

Selcuk , S. G. (2014). A Comparison of Achievement in Problem-Based Strategic and Traditional Learning Classes in Physics 4(1): 1309-6249.

Simanjuntak, E. K., (2014). The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model on Student’s Learning Outcomes in Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2013/1014. Skripsi. Medan: FMIPA Unimed.

Slameto, (2003). Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. . Jakarta: RinekaCipta.

Sudjana, N. , (2009),Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT RemajaRosdakarya,

Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif. Jakarta: Penerbit Kencana.

Tamim, R.S and Michael, M.G.,(2013), Defenitions and Uses: Case Study of Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 7(2).

(21)

56

Trianto, (2013), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Progresif, Konsep Landasan dan Implementasinya Pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta : Kencana Predana Media Group.

Widodo, T., (2009), Fisika Untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

THE ABILITY OF STUDENT IN SOLVING CONTEXTUAL PROBLEM WITH PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL IN DYNAMIC ELECTRICITY CONCEPT AT GRADE X SMA NEGERI 2 LINTONGNIHUTA ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.