THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING(PBL)MODELANDSTUDENTTEAMSACHIEVEMENT DIVISION(STAD)INGRADEVIISMPNEGERI28MEDAN
By:
Widia Shopa ID. 409312014
Bilingual Mathematics Education
A THESIS
Submitted to Qualify for Academic Title of Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
THE COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ON THE TOPIC OF LINEAR EQUATION IN ONE VARIABLE BY USING PROBLEM – BASED
LEARNING (PBL) MODEL AND STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN GRADE VII SMP NEGERI 28 MEDAN
Widia Shopa (ID 409312014)
ABSTRACT
This research is quasi-experiment. The purpose of this research is to know whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
The population of this research is students of SMP Negeri 28 Medan, whereas the sample consists of 2 classes, namely, VII - 1 as Experiment Class I consists of 32 students and VII - 2 as Experiment Class II consists of 31 students. Experiment class I used Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Experiment Class II used Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD). Collecting data technique of this research is students’ learning outcomes test given in the end of learning either in Experiment Class I or Experiment Class II. The type of this test is objective test.
Before doing hypothesis test, the normality and the homogeneity test should be done. The result of those tests, sample was taken from normal distributed and homogeneous population. The data analysis of experimental classby using t-test with significance levelα = 0.05, it was obtained that tcalculation> ttablethen H0is rejected and Ha is accepted.
It can be concluded that students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
iv
PREFACE
Praise and great thanks to Allah SWT that gives the amazing grace, love,
strength and health so that writer can finish this thesis. The title of this thesis is “The
Comparison Of Students' Learning Outcomes on The Topic of Linear Equation in One
Variable by Using Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model and Student Teams Achiement
Diviasion (STAD) in Grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan ”. This thesis was arranged to
satisfy the requirement to obtain the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan from Faculty
Mathematics and Natural Science in State University of Medan.
In the completion of this thesis, the writer received support from various parties,
therefore it was appropriate writer big thanks to Mr.Drs.Yasifati Hia, M.Si as my thesis
supervisor who has provided guidance, direction, and advice to the perfection of this
thesis. Thanks are also due to Mr.Prof. Dr. Pargaulan Siagian, M.Pd , Mr.Drs. Zul Amry,
M.Si, P.hD and Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as author’s examiners who have provided input
and suggestion from the planning to the completion of the preparation of the research of
this thesis. Thanks are also extended to Mr.Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as academic supervisor
and then thank you so much for all author’s lecturer in FMIPA Unimed.
My thanks are extended to Mr.Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Si as rector of
Unimed, Mr.Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd as Dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Faculty and to coordinator of bilingual Mrs. Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, Mr.Dr. Edy Surya,
M.Si as Chief of Mathematics Department, Mr.Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, Ph.D as Chief of
Mathematics Education Study Program, Mr.Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as Secretary of
Mathematics Education, and all of employee staff who have helped the author.
Thanks to Mr. Horas Pohan, S.Pd as principle of SMP Negeri 28 Medan, Mrs.
T.Sinaga, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teacher, staffs and also the students in
grade VII-1 and VII-2 SMP Negeri 28 Medan who have helped writer conducting the
research.
Especially I would like to express my gratitude to my dear father Edy Supriadi
and my dear mother Mrs. Radiah Djambak, S.Pd continues to provide motivation and
prayers for the success of me completed this thesis. Special big thanks to my beloved
sister Oliviana, A.md and Also my brother Achmad Mustofa for giving support even
moril or material and all my family for all pray, motivation, and support until the end of
I also thanks to my lovely best friends which always help me and support in
every condition without any exception. Especially for Endah Khairin,S.E, Chairani
Siregar, A.Md, Beby Eka Jaya, Fisky F.S, Kiki Youlanda, S.E, for all of the suggestion
and incredible advice. Thank you very much for Debby Masteriana, S.Pd and Widi Aulia
Widakdo, S.Pd for every helping you’ve given as my sisters in this university. I love you
and thanks for every spirit my little family Bilingual Mathematics Education 2009.
At last, the author has finished this thesis in maximum level but author realized
there are some imperfections. For that, the author asks for building comments and
suggestions in order to reach the perfection of this thesis. The author wishes that this
thesis would be useful to improve the knowledge should give a big effort to prepare this
thesis, and the writer know that this thesis have so many weakness. So that, the author
needs some suggestions to make it this be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our
knowledge, understanding and enrich the science education.
Medan, February 2016
Author,
Widia Shopa
CONTENTS
2.1.2. Problem – Based Learning (PBL) 8 2.1.2.1.Steps of Problem – Based Learning (PBL) 11 2.1.2.2.Adventages and Disadvantages of PBL 12
2.1.3. Cooperative Learning Model 13 2.1.3.1. Cooperative Learning Model 13 2.1.3.2. Cooperative Learning Type of Student Teams
vii
2.1.3.3. Steps of Student Teams Achievement Division
(STAD) 19
2.1.3.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Students
Teams Achievement Division (STAD) 20 2.2. Linear Equation in One Variable 21
2.3. Relevant Study 21
2.4. Conceptual Framework 22
2.5. Research Hypothesis 23
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Type of Research 24
3.2. Place and Time of Research 24
3.3. Population and Sample of Research 24
3.3.1. Population of Research 24
3.3.2. Sample of Research 24
3.4. Variable and Instrument of Research 24
3.4.1. Variable of Research 24
3.4.1.1. Independent Variables 25
3.4.1.2. Dependent Variable 25
3.4.2. Instrument of Research 26
3.4.2.1. Validity Test 26
3.4.2.2. Reliability Test 28
3.4.2.3. Difficulty Level Index 28 3.4.2.4. Distinguish Power Index 31
3.5. Design of Research 33
3.6. Prosedure of Research 34
3.7. Data Analysis Techniques 36
3.7.1. Normality Test 36
3.7.2. Homogeneity Test 38
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Descriptive Summary Data 40
4.2. Analysis of Data 42
4.2.1. Normality Test 42
4.2.2. Homogeneity Test 43
4.2.3. Hypothesis Test 44
4.3. Discussion 46
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 49
5.2 Suggestion 49
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1. Syntax for Problem-Based Learning 11 Table 2.2. Score Calculation Developments 18
Table 2.3. Award level group 18
Table 2.4. Phases STAD Cooperative Learning Type 19 Table 3.1. Result of Difficulty Level of Pre-Test 29 Table 3.2. Result of Difficulty Level of Post-Test 31 Table 3.3. Result of Distinguish Power of Pre-Test 31 Table 3.4. Result of Distinguish Power of Post-Test 32
Table 3.5. Design of Research 33
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics of Pre – Test in Experiment
Class Iand Experiment Class II 40 Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Post – Test in Experiment
Class I and Experiment Class II 41 Table 4.3. Result of Normality Test in Pre-Test 42 Table 4.4 Result of Normality Test in Post-Test 42 Table 4.5. Result of Homogeneity Test of Pre-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II 43 Table 4.6. Result of Homogeneity Test of Post-Test in
Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II 44 Table 4.7. Result of Hypothesis Test of Students Learning
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Experimental Class I: Problem Based Learning 52 Appendix 2. Experimental Class II: Student Team Achievement
Division (STAD) 71
Appendix 3. Worksheet Of Solving Equations In One Variable 90 Appendix 4. Blueprint Of Instrument Post – Test 95
Appendix 5. Instrument Of Pre-Test 97
Appendix 6. Instrument Of Post-Test 102 Appendix 7. Answer Of Pre-Test Instrument 111 Appendix 8. Answer Of Post-Test Instrument 112 Appendix 9. Data Of Instrument Test (Pre – Test) 113 Appendix10. Data Of Instrument Test (Post – Test) 115 Appendix11. Result Of Validity: Pre – Test 118 Appendix12. Result Of Validity: Post – Test 127 Appendix 13. Result Of Reliability: Pre – Test 133 Appendix 14. Result Of Reliability: Post – Test 134 Appendix 15. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty
Level Index Of Pre – Test 135
Appendix 16. Discrimination Power Analysis And Difficulty Level
Appendix 17. Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Pre – Test) 146
Appendix 18. The Result Of Students’ Mathematics Achievement
(Post – Test) 148
Appendix 19. Data of Pre-test and Post-test 150 Appendix 20. Result Of Normality Test 151 Appendix 21. Result Of Homogeneity Test 153 Appendix 22. Result Of Hypothesis Test 156
Appendix 23. Documentation 157
1
CAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The key of national development in Indonesia is clearly related with education.The development of sciences and technology nowadays also contributes to the quality of human resources and education itself. Education is a long process and need time to produce effect or result according to what we suppose to have. But,we have to face the same problem of education in Indonesia. In the most of teaching and learning process, students are failed to develop their thinking ability. One of the subject which is needed to be attented is mathematics.
Mathematics is one of the most important subjects that provide several vital skills to the learners. Whole of the skills that produced from mathematics including the ability to identify and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking skills, ability to see relationships and also problem solving skills. All of these skills were contributed well to the learning outcomes of the learners. This is the reason why mathematics has a structure and a strong and clear linkage between concepts as to enable a student has skill to think rationally and is one of the principal subjects taught begin elementary until university (Depdiknas, 2005).
Based on the observationof researcher at SMP Negeri 28 Medan, student’s interest in learning mathematics is relatively less. There’s still the difficulty of teachers for explaining the abstract of mathematics which result in the student learning activities are less enjoyable. Most teachers still rely on the lecture method that students are easily bored, less active and less excited.The learning process mostly happened in conventional way. Teacher directly deliver the matters and dominate the class rather than students. These way of teacher to teach is still not appropriate to students’ interest and needs. As a result, students were bored to study, inactive and theirresult of math test scores is still low.
It is clearly seen from the average result of students’ mid odd semester examination in class VII is 63 which is still under KKM (minimum criteria) that is 75. And almost 84% students got score under 75 in mathematics score. It needs to be concerned well according to better quality of education and make better national development comes true since mathematics is one of very important and crucial to life according to the previous explanation. Because it cannot deny that students’ learning outcomes in a school also contributes to the mainwhole summary of quality education in Indonesia too.
According to the objectives of mathematics education, then a teacher should design and implement various learning strategy which suitable to students’ interest and skill also level of students’ development to take benefits from many sources and learning media such that effectivity of learning process is arised. Learning model is clearly one of the most important thing to teacher teach in class professionally and brings the objectives of learning mathematics (mathematics education) to the reality. According to Cooper (in Trianto, 2009: 14), a teacher is person charged with the responsibility of helping others to learn and to behave in new different ways. It means teacher’s ability to create interesting learning process which related to learning model which used is very crucial to be had.
3
connections) in problem solving is problem-based learning. Supported by the statement Ratumanan (in Trianto, 2009: 92):
“Problem-based learning is an effective approach to teaching higher-order thinking processes. This learning helps students to process information that is already finished in his head and compose their own knowledge about the social world and its surroundings. Learning is suitable to develop basic knowledge and complex.”
In the application of PBL, students are learning in group to solve problems and tell their argumentation about problems in learning mathematics. It requires teacher to motivate and guide the lesson activity by using students’ activity sheet and other medias. Meanwhile student teams achievement division (STAD) as cooperative learning is appeared with the similar form of learning in group which PBL has too. According to Slavin (in Trianto,2011:68).
“STAD cooperative learning model is a learning model that uses small groups consisting of 4 or 5 members in heterogeneous groups, both gender, race, ethnicity, or ability in one group, students use academic worksheet, and then helping students to master each lesson through questioning or discussion antarsesama group members.”
It means in STAD, students are given an opportunity to work in heterogene and small team to solve a problem together. STAD expected students to rise up ideas and activity in class. The objectives in this learning model is solve the problems together in group and increase students’ activity in class. To get the objectives of learning, interesting learning media is needed when execute this model. Students’ activity sheet and power point media are used to rise students’ activity and brave to deliver their ideas, variation, motivation and interest in learning mathematics.
Based on those descriptions above, researcher comes with any doubts whether both of learning models in this case are: PBL and cooperative learning type of STAD, give different result toward students’ learning outcomes. Based on the general description above, then the researcher has interested to do research entitled “The Comparison of Students’ Learning Outcomes on The Topic of Linear Equation in One Variable by Using Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model and Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) in Grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.”
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background above can be identified the problem as follows: 1. The conventional way is often used in SMP Negeri 28 Medan such that
students were bored to study mathematics.
2. Most of learning process is dominated by teacher and students are less active when studying mathematics in class.
3. The average of students’ mid odd semester examination of mathematics in SMP Negeri 28 Medan for class VII is 63, it means the score is under KKM. 4. Learning model is still not appropriate to students’ interest and needs so that
students’ learning outcomes is still in low level.
5. Problem – based learning model and cooperative type of STAD has similar form of learning in group gives confusion whether it produces different result.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the limitation scope of research location, research time and the research variable causes this study is limited in the scope as follows:
1. Students’ learning outcomeson the topic of linear system in one variablefor Class VII in SMP Negeri 28 Medan forOdd Semester 2015/2016.
5
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the background above, the problems are formulated as: “Is students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem – based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan?”
1.5. Research Objectives
The objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To compare the differences of students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem – based learning model and student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
2. To determine whether students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem – based learning model is higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan.
1.6. Research Benefits
This research is expected will give the benefits as follows:
1. For students, helping them to increase their learning outcomes of mathematics and interest to learn mathematics.
2. For teachers, opening their insight and variety about developing teaching well especially in using learning model in class.
3. For school, increasing the quality of school caused by the increasing of students’ learning outcomes and teacher activities.
1.7. Operational Definitions
In order to avoid the differences of clarity meaning about important terms contained in this research, the operational definitions will be noted as following : 1. Learning outcomes are the statements of what a learner is expected to know,
understand or able to do at the end of a module and of how that learning will be demonstrated.
2. PBL is one of model that make active learning is occurred. PBL is a student centered approach that organizes curriculum and instruction around carefully crafted “ill-structured” and real-world problems situations. Learning is active rather than passive, integrated rather than fragmented, and connected rather than disjointed.
49
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the result and discussion of research in the previous chapter, can be concluded that: Students’ mathematics learning outcomes which taught by using problem–based learning model higher than mathematics learning outcomes of students which taught by using student teams achievement division in grade VII SMP Negeri 28 Medan. It can be happened because in the process of problem-based learning, students are studying to analyze the contextual problems such that they are more ready to finish variated kind of question rather than student teams achievement division.
5.2. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and relevant study of this research, there are some suggestions as follows:
1. For mathematics teacher, Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model or Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) Model can be alternative learning model to improve the students’ mathematics achievement. These model can produce the higher mathematics achievement rather than use conventional learning which not involved student actively.
2. For mathematics teacher which provide student activity sheet, it will be better if the problems given have any clue or scaffolding. Student activity sheet of PBL and STAD class should be appropriate and proportional so that students could solve the problem although the composition of group members of PBL and STAD are different.
REFFERENCE
Anonymous, (2015), Levene’s Test. http://changingminds.org/explanations/ research/analysis/levenes_test.htm, accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at 12.36 a.m.
Arends, R. I., (2008),Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill. Arends, R. I., (2012),Learning To Teach, New York: Mc Grew Hill. Arikunto, (2007).Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidika.Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Asmin., (2012),Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Baş, G., (2011), Investigating The Effects Of Project-Based Learning On Students’ Academic Achievement And Attitudes Towards English Lesson, The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 1: 2.
Bell, S., (2010), Project Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. Journal of Routledge Taylor and France Group83: 39-43.
Cockcroft, W.H. (Ed.)., (1982),Mathematics Counts: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
Connery, Cathrene M., (2010), Vygotsky and Creativity, Lang Publishing, Inc., New York.
Cuoco, A. A., and Curcio, F, R., (2001), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics, NTCM.
Damanik, R. S. I., (2013), Penga ruh Pemb elaj ara n Berb asis Mas alah Terh ada p K ema mp u an Rep resentasi d an Minat Belaj ar
Mat emati ka S iswa SMK N eg eri 11 Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Debrenti, E., (2013), Representations in Primary Mathematics Teaching,Patrium Christian University Oradea, Romania,6: 3.
51
Fadillah, S., 2011. Penerapan Pembelajaran Matematika Dengan Strategi React Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi Matematik Siswa Sekolah,Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika,8:104-110
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Goldin, G. A., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1-23). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Harahap, Tua Halomoan, (2013),Penerapan Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Representasi
Matematika Siswa Kelas VII-2 SMP Nurhasanah Medan Tahun Pelajaran
2012/2013,Thesis, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hidayat, Anwar, (3013), Rumus Kolmogorov Smirnor. http://www.statistikian.com/2013/01/rumus-kolmogorov-smirnov.html,
accessed on 9th, March of 2015 at 12:21 a.m.
Harries, T., and Barmby, P., (2006), Representing Multiplication,Procceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics,26: 3.
Howell, David C., (2012), Statistical Methods for Psychology, PWS Publisher, USA.
Kartini, (2009), Peranan Representasi Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika, 361-372 Kent State University, (2014), Independent Sample t Test,
http://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/IndependentTTest , accessed on on 9th, March of 2015 at 12:03 a.m.)
Leonard, David C., (2002), Learning Theories A to Z, Greendwood Publishing Group, USA.
Kritis,Penguasaan Konsep, dan Sikap Siswa (Studi di SMAN 9 Malang),
Prosiding Juni 2015.
Mihardi, dkk., (2013), The Effect of Project Based Learning with KWL Worksheet on Student Creative Thinking Process in PhysicsProblem, Journal of Education and Practice,4:.25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000).Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Newmann, F. M., (1996),Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ngalimun, (2014), Strategi dan Model Pembelajaran, Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode Penelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah, Kencana Prenada Media Group: Jakarta.
Orton, Anthony, (2004), Learning Mathematics 3rd Edition, MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall,Great Britain.
Pound, Linda and Trisha L., (2011), Teaching Mathematics Creatively, Taylor & Francis e-Library, New York.
Prasad, D. R., (2008), The School, Teacher-Student Relations and Values, New Delhi: APH Publishing.
Putriari, M. D., (2013), Keefektifan Project based learning pada pencapaian kemampuan pemecahan masalah peserta didik kelas X SMK Materi
Program Linear, Thesis, FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang.
Sani, R. A., (2014),Pembelajaran Saintifik untuk Implementasi Kurikulum 2013, Jakarta: Bumi Pustaka.
Salkind, G. M., 2007,Mathematical Representation,George Mason University. Sajadi, M., Amiripor, P. and Malkhalifeh, M. R., (2013), The Examining
53
Seameo, (2015), Indonesia. http://www.seameo.org/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=526, (accessed on 1st of April, 2015).
Sedghi, A., Amett, G. and Chalabi, M., (2013), Pisa 2012 results: which country does best at reading, maths and science?,
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-results-country-best-reading-maths-science, (accessed on 7th of April, 2015). Silver, Cindy E.Hmelo, (2004), Problem Based Learning: What and How Do
Students Learn?, Educational Psychology Review,16:235-266.
Stalheim, A. and Smith, (1998), Focusing on Active, Meaningful Learning,Idea Center of Kansas State University, 34: 1.
Sudjana, (2009),Metode Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Syahputra, E., (2013), The Diff er en ce o f Stud ents ’ Math emati cal Rep resentati on Abil ity b y Usin g Instr ucti on of Pr obl em
Bas ed L earni ng and Dir ect In stru cti on in Grad e X, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tambunan, Abdul, (2013),The Effect of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) Approach to Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Learning Style in
Class X SMA Kalam Kudus Medan, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Tamim, S. R., and Grant, M. M.,( 2013), Definitions and Uses: Case Study of Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning, the Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning7: 73.
Taylor and Francis, (2001), The Role of Representation(s) in Developing Mathematical Understanding,Theory Into Practice,40(2): 118-127. Treagust, D. F., and Mills, J. E., (2003),Engineering Education-is Problem Based
or Project Based Learning the Answer?, Australasian Association for
Engineering Education Inc, Australia.
Wahyuningsih, E. S., (2012),Perbedaan peningkatan kemampuan penalaran dan representasi matematis siswa sekolah dasar dengan menggunakan
pembelajaran kooperatif tipe CIRC, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
