THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC.

(1)

1

THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF

C O O P E R A T I V E L E A R N I N G M O D E L I N S A L T H Y D R O L Y S I S T O P I C

By :

Evi Riana Simanjuntak Reg. Number 4123131029

Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fullfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of SarjanaPendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

xiii

THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENT’S CHARACTER THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF

COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL IN

SALT HYDROLYSIS TOPIC

Evi Riana Simanjuntak (4123131029)

Abstract

The objective of this research is to know the difference of student’s learning outcomes and student’s character by implementing cooperative learning model types STAD (Student Team Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair Share). This research was conducted in three different school in grade XI, in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi and SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang where each school consist of three experimental classes, the first experimental class taught by cooperative learning model STAD, second experimental class taught by cooperative learning model NHT and third experimental class taught by cooperative learning model TPS. The research instrument in this research are 20 multiple choice questions from 40 questions that have validated. Before hypothesis test, the data of research had been analyzed by using normality test and homogeneity test, which is shown that learning outcomes are normal distributed and homogenous. For the first school based on hypothesis test using F-Test (α = 0.05), the sig value is 3.949, second school, the sig value is 9.699 and third school the sig value is 4.674. . It show for verbal hypothesis that Ftable (3.11) < Fcount (3.949) means the Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. So, it shown that there is differences in in student’s learning outcomes that taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, NHT and TPS. The student’s character consist of discipline, teamwork, mutual respect and responsibility. The differences of student’s character analyzed by the average score student’s character in observation sheet. By the result in , there’s difference in student’s character taught by cooperative learning model STAD, NHT and TPS in salt hydrolysis topic where STAD > TPS > NHT.

Keyword: Cooperative Learning Model, Student Team Achievement Division (STAD), Number Head Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), Student’s Learning

(5)

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writer say the praise and gratitude to Jesus Christ, for all His graces and blessing who always provide health, strength, spirit and everything to writer in finishing this thesis well.

Thesis entitled “The Differences of Student’s Learning Outcomes and Student’s Character Through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model In Salt Hydrolysis Topic” has been arranged to obtain the S.Pd degree of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of Medan.

In this opportunity, the writer would like to axpress a million thanks for Mr. Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as thesis supervisor, for his guidance, advice, suggestions and big support from begging until the end of completing this research and also to Mr. Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang, M.Sc, Ph.D., Mrs. Dr. Murniaty Simorangkir, M.Si and Mrs. Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si as examiner lecturer who had given advice and suggestion to completing this thesis. Thanks also goes to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as academic supervisor who had motivated and guidance the writer during lecturing, Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as instrument and observation sheet validator, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd, as a dean of FMIPA UNIMED, Agus Kembaren, S.Si,M.Si as Head of Chemistry Department, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si, as Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Nora Susanti,S.Si, Apt., M.Sc, as Secretary of Bilingual Program and for Sir Syamsudin as Bilingual staff for helping in administrative assistance and kindness and all lecturer and staff in chemistry department.

(6)

iii

Sihombing, S.Pd as chemistry teacher, staff administration, and all students grade XI.

The special deepest gratitude and appreciation to my beloved family, my beloved mother Merryana Sirait and my beloved father Hasudungan Simanjuntak. Thanks for loving, caring and supporting me all the times, and thank you for my beloved sister Eva Riana Simanjuntak, for my young brothers Sahat Josua Simanjuntak and Jonatan Simanjuntak and all my family who have prayed and gave me encouragement to complete my study.

The writer also say thanks to my crazy friends, Fany, Ernita, Lady, and Novel for the times we spent during finishing this thesis in the ‘kost’ and all my friends in family of CESP’12, Rimbun, Lestari, Arif, Elviana, Meliana, Seruni, Rina, Lisna, Hariati, Frida, Saadah, Nova , Suditro, Wita, Mariana, Ivana, Rolina, , Biuti, Taufik, Descey. And also for my teaching and learning experience (PPL) friends in Matauli Sibolga Aisyah, Febrina, Putri Wita, Findi, Bowo and Aldo, thanks for the unforgotable experiences and moments. And thanks for all people, whom I can’t tell one by one, who helped and gave support during my study.

The writer has done the maximal effort in the completion of this thesis, but the writer is aware there are many weakness in terms of both content and grammar. The writer welcome any suggestion and constructive criticism from reader for this thesis perfectly. The writer hope the content of this thesis would be useful in enriching the repertoire of knowledge.

Medan, June 2016 Writer,

(7)

ii

CONTENT LIST

LEGALIZATION SHEET i

BIOGRAPHY ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

CONTENT LIST v

LIST OF APPENDICES viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURE xii

ABSTRACT xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Scope 4

1.3 Problem Identification 4

1.4 Problem Formulation 4

1.5 Problem Limitation 5

1.6 Research Objectives 5

1.7 Research Benefits 5

1.8 Operational Definition 6

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Theoritical Terms 7

2.1.1 Definition of Learning 7

2.1.2 Learning Process 9

2.1.3 Learning Activities 9

2.1.4 Learning Outcomes 11

2.1.5 Factors Affecting Learning Outcomes 11

2.2 Cooperative Learning Model 14

2.2.1 Characteristics and Purpose of Cooperative Learning 14 2.2.2 Advantages and Weakness of Cooperative Learning 15

2.3 Character 16

(8)

iii

2.3.2 Character Education 17

2.3.3 Assesment Criteria of Character Education 18

2.4 Salt Hydrolysis Materials 19

2.4.1 Kind Of Salt 20

2.5 Research Hypothesis 22

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS 23

3.1 Place and Time of Research 23

3.2 Population and Sample of Research 23

3.3 Variable and Instrument of Research 23

3.4 Research Design 26

3.5 Research Procedures 27

3.6 Data Analysis Technique 28

3.6.1 Normality Test 28

3.6.2 Homogenity Test 28

3.6.3 One Way ANOVA Test 31

3.7 Learning Outcomes Improvement Percentage 30

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 32

4.1 Research Result 32

4.1.1Data Analysis of Research Instrument 32

4.1.1.1 Validity Test 32

4.1.1.2 Reliability Test 33

4.1.1.3 Difficulty Level 33

4.1.1.4 Discrimination Index 33

4.1.1.5 Destructor 34

4.1.2 Data Desciption of Result 34

4.1.2.1 Student’s Learning Outcomes 34 4.1.2.2 Observation Sheet Data of Student’s Character 36

4.1.3 Data Analysis of Research Result 38

(9)

iv

4.1.3.4 Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character 43

4.1.3.5 Hypothesis Test 44

4.2 Research Discussion 45

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 49

5.1 Conclusion 49

5.2 Suggestion 49

(10)

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.3. Character values in the human life and for this research the

researcher only used four character values to be measured and observed to the students, discipline, responsibility, tolerance,

and social care(team work) 18

Table 2.4. Kind of salt in salt hydrolysis material, there are normal salt,

acidic salt and basic salt 20

Table 3.1 The design of research the difference of students’ learning outcomes and students’ character through implementation of

cooperative learning model types in salt hydrolysis topic 27

Table 4.1.Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Tebing

Tinggi 34

Table 4.2. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Berastagi 34

Table 4.3. Student’s Learning Outcomes Data in SMA N 1 Sidikalang 35 Table 4.4 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental

class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental

class III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi 35

Table 4.5 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental

class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class

III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi 36

Table 4.6 Data of student’s character percentage of each class , experimental

class I (STAD), experimental class II (NHT) and experimental class

III (TPS) in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang 36

Table 4.7. Normality Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in SMA N 1

(11)

x

Berastagi 38

Sidikalang 38

Table 4.10. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Tebing

Tinggi 39

Table 4.11. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Berastagi 39

Table 4.12. Normality Test of Student’s Character SMA N 1 Sidikalang 40

Table 4.13. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Learning Outcomes in

SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi 40

SMA N 1 Berastagi 41

SMA N 1 Sidikalang 41

Table 4.16. Homogeneity Test of Student’s Character in SMA N 1

Tebing Tinggi 42

Berastagi 42

(12)

xi

Table 4.19 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1

Tebing Tinggi 44

Table 4.20 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1 Berastagi 44

Table 4.21 Hypothesis Test of Verbal Hypothesis 1 in SMA N 1

(13)

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Syllabus 53

Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 55

Appendix 3 Instrument Test Lattice 81

Appendix 4 Instrument Test 96

Appendix 5 Key Answer of Instrument Test 100

Appendix 6 Student’s Character Assessment Indicator 103

Appendix 7 Calculation of Validity Test 106

Appendix 8 Calculation of Reliability Test 109 Appendix 9 Calculation of Difficulty Level 111 Appendix 10 Calculation of Discrimination Index 114

Appendix 11 Calculation of Destructor 116

Appendix 12 Data of Student’s Learning Outcomes 117 Appendix 13 Calculation of Improvement Percentage 126

Appendix 14 Calculation of Normality Test 135

Appendix 15 Calculation of Homogeneity Test 147 Appendix 16 Student’s Character Data Calculation 153

Appendix 17 Hypothesis Testing 155

(14)

xii

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 3.5. The overview of research planning to senior high school students, the difference of students’ learning outcomes and students’ character through implementation of cooperative learning model types in salt

(15)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background

Through the education process in schools and learning activities is the most fundamental, this means that the achievement of educational goals much depends on the learning process experienced by students , (Daryanto, 2010). Education is a process of guidance which determine the pattern of growth and development of children towards maturation. Therefore, education is a basic human needs in the process of potential coaching sense, spiritual, physical and moral. The concept of learning rooted to the students and teaching on students.

The problem of education can not be separated from the problem of learning because learning is at the core of education prosses. Improving the quality of education shows on improving the quality of learning processes and outcomes. A good quality education system in term of its process is if the learning process takes place in an effective and students experience significant learning process and supported by sufficient resources (Hamid, 2007: 1). The effectiveness of learning is described by the achievement of learning achieved by the students. In other words, the more effective of learning so the student learning outcomes become better.

(16)

2

The fact are often found is a learning model that is often used by teachers is a conventional model. In this model, the teacher lecturing while students just sit down, take notes and listen to what is presented teacher. Sometimes teachers give students the opportunity to ask if there are things that not understood in the subject matter described. However this is not strong enough to stimulate the students in improving its activity following the learning process.

Student-centered teaching and learning is the recommended approach to modern day pedagogy especially in the Outcomes-based Education where the teachers served as the facilitator of learning activities rather than performing the traditional lecture method (Laguador, 2014). Based on current trends in education which point toward increased use of distance learning and research on the benefits of cooperative learning at all levels, this study investigated the effectiveness of specific cooperative learning (CL) strategies in discussion boards, a commonly used distance learning tool which fosters student engagement online. The results of the study will benefit instructors as well as students participating in distance learning, as they reflect on an improve teaching and learning practices in a virtual classroom (Kupczynski, 2012)

Cooperative learning model is a learning approach that focuses on the use of small groups to work together to maximize the learning conditions for achieving the goal. Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that involves students working in collaboration to achieve common goals.

Cooperative learning model has several types with different steps include learning model STAD (Students Teams Achievement Division), NHT (Numbered Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair Share). Where all three of these methods are equally divide the students into groups of heterogeneous and students work together with the group, so that students can exchange information and learning experiences.

STAD is one of the simplest and most extensively researched forms of all

cooperative learning techniques and it could be an effective instrument to begin with

(17)

3

While the cooperative learning model NHT (Numbered Head Together) is a teaching and learning techniques developed by Spencer to engage students in studying the material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the lesson content. NHT is a cooperative learning designed to meet students' interaction patterns and as an alternative to the traditional classroom structure (Trianto, 2009).

TPS is a cooperative learning that is designed to influence the pattern of student interaction and is an effective way to create an atmosphere variation pattern class discussion, with the assumption that all the recitation and discussion requires setting in the control of the class as a whole (Alpusari, 2013).

Implementation of the various types of cooperative learning model has been widely studied, one by Zuliah Isnaini Siregar (2015) with the title " Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair

Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid

" with an increase of 75% on TPS cooperative learning model and increased 45% on NHT cooperative learning model. Other research conducted by Sopan Nababan (2012) with the title " Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Dengan Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep Pada Materi Pokok

Hidrokarbon " with an increase of 48% on STAD cooperative learning model and

increased 53% on NHT cooperative learning model.

Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior (Lickona, 1991: 50). Furthermore, Aristotle says that life in modern times tend to forget manners including self-orientation, such as self-control, generous attitude, and social sense. Character is a set of traits that define the figure of a person as an individual. Character determines whether someone in achieving the desire to use the correct way according to the environment and comply with the laws and rules of the group.

(18)

4

Differences Of Student’s Learning Outcomes And Student’s Character Through

Implementation Of Cooperative Learning Model In Salt Hydrolysis Topic”

1.2Problem Scope

Based on the background of the problems that have been described, then the scope of the problem in this research is how the influence of various types of cooperative learning model for learning outcomes and students’ character.

1.3Problem Identification

According to background above, researchers identified some problems as follows: 1. Teachers still using conventional model in teaching students

2. Students less interests to studying chemistry because the learning activity is bored

3. Students learning outcomes very low

4. Students less in interaction and pair work in learning process because the “teacher’s centered” model

5. The innovative learning model required that could help students in learning process and activated students comprehension in learning chemistry, especially on Salt Hydrolysis Topic that will taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT.

1.4Problem Formulation

1. Is there any difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT ?

2. How the students’ character taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT?

(19)

5

1.5Problem Limitation

From the formulation of the problem that has been stated above, the researchers need to limit the issues in this study in order to research more directed and focused. The limitation problem in this research are:

1. The learning model used is cooperative model type STAD (Student Team Achievement Division), NHT (Number Head Together) and TPS (Think Pair Share).

2. The principal material which is defined on the subject of salt hydrolysis.

3. The character of the students during the learning process using the cooperative model.

4. The subjects were students of class XI even semester in high school N 11 TP 2015/2016.

1.6Research Objectives

1. To determine the difference on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic between class taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT

2. To determine the students character taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT

3. To determine the increase percentage of students learning outcomes taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT

1.7Research Benefits

The expected benefits of this research are:

(20)

6

2. For chemistry teacher: as consideration for the teacher to select appropriate learning models in the learning process and help teachers in an effort to find a model that is effective and efficient learning.

3. For collegers : as a comparison for the next researcher who will conduct research with the same problem.

1.8Operational Definition

The operational definition in this study are:

1. _{STAD cooperative learning model is a cooperative learning method for mixed} ability grouping involving the recognition of team and responsibility for individual learning group members. Membership according to the level of achievement, gender, ethnicity and 4-5 people in one group.

2. _{The type of cooperative learning model NHT is a learning model that provides} the opportunity for students to exchange ideas. This model consists of four steps: numbering, asking questions, thinking together and giving answers.

3. _{The type of cooperative learning model TPS as the name "Thinking", begins} with the teacher questions or issues related to the subjects to be considered by learners. The next, "Pairing" the teacher asks students in pairs to discuss. "Sharing", the results of discussions with entire pair in the classroom.

4. _{The results of study are the abilities of a person after the end of the learning} activity. Learning outcomes are classified into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains.

(21)

49

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on discussion on Chapter IV, researcher could concluded the research that was from Problem Formulation of Chapter I :

1. There are differences on students learning outcomes in hydrolysis topic between class of each school taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT. NHT model’s the best model compare to STAD and TPS in each of school sample

2. There are differences on students character in between class of each school taught by cooperative learning model types STAD, TPS, and NHT 3. The improvement of students learning outcomes in first school ( SMA N 1

Tebing Tinggi ) are STAD = 63 % , NHT = 70 %, TPS = 49 %. For second school ( SMA N 1 Berastagi ) are STAD = 48 %, NHT = 60 %, TPS = 54 %. For third school ( SMA N 1 Sidikalang ) STAD = 49 %, NHT = 60 %, TPS = 52 %.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on the research through implementation of cooperative learning model various types in students learning, so the researcher have some suggestion there are :

1. The teacher of school should use this model, because it can increases the

student’s learning outcomes

2. Cooperative learning model is a good innovative of learning model

because it is not just incr.ease the student’s learning outcomes but also

student’s character

(22)

50

REFERENCES

Aisha., (2008), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran NHT Dengan Bantuan Problem Posing Untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas Dan Hasil Belajar Akuntasi Siswa Kelas XI SMA Purworejo T.P. 2007/2008 Jurnal Pendidikan 30: 1058-1065

Alpusari, M., Putra, R.A., (2015), The Application of Cooperative Learning Think Pair Share(TPS) Model to Increase the Process Science Skills in Class IV Elementary School Number 81 Pekanbaru City, International Journal of Science and Research 4: 2805-2808

Arifin,Z., (2014), Evaluasi Pembelajaran, PT Rosdakarya,Bandung.

Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta Daryanto., (2010), Belajar Mengajar, Yrama Widya, Bandung.

Dheeraj, D., Kumari, R., (2013), Effect of Co-operative Learning on Achievement in Environmental Science of School Student, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 3: 1-3

Djamarah, B.S., dan Zain, A., (2006), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Djamarah, B.S., (2011), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Hamid, A., (2007), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan.

Holiwarni, B., (2008), Penerapan Metode Penemuan Terbimbing Pada Mata Pelajaran Sains untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas IV SD

016 Pekanbaru (Laporan Penelitian), Lemlit UNRI, Pekanbaru.

Ibrahim, dkk., (2000), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, University Press, Surabaya.

Isnaini, Zuliah., (2015), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Tipe TPS (Think Pair Share) Dengan NHT (Numbered

Head Together) Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid., Skripsi, FMIPA,

(23)

51

Kiran, S., Rashid, M., Satti, A.K., (2012), A Study of Student’s Attitudes towards Cooperative Learning, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2: 141-147

Kupczynski, L., Mundy, M.A., Goswani, J., Meling, V., (2012), Cooperative Learning In Distance Learning: A Mixed Method Study, International Journal of Instruction 5: 81-90

Laguador, J.M., (2014), Cooperative Learning Approach In An Outcomes-Based Environment, International Journal of Social Sciences 2: 46-55

Lickona, Thomas., (2006), Educating For Character, Bantam Books, New York Lie, A., (2007), Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas,

Penerbit Grasindo, Jakarta.

Micheal, M., (2012), The Effect of the STAD Cooperative Learning Method On Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Economics Education, Journal Social Science 33: 261-270

Nababan, Sopan., (2012), Perbedaan Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Dengan Menggunakan Metode STAD dan NHT Berbasiskan Peta Konsep

Pada Materi Pokok Hidrokarbon, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.

Silitonga, P.M., (2011), Statistik Teori dan Aplikasi Dalam Penelitian, FMIPA UNIMED, Medan.

Slameto, 2003, Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.

Siregar, E., dan Nara, H., (2010), Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Penerbit Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor.

Sudarnoto,L.F.N.,http://kuliahdaring.dikti.go.id/materiterbuka/open/dikti/Mata%20K uliah%20Awal/Statistika%20Pendidikan/BAC/Statistika_Pendidikan_unit _4.pdf (accesed on 14/02/2016).

Sudrajat, A, (2013), Pengembangan Perangkat Asesmen Kompetensi Praktikum Kimia Analitik Dasar Berbasis Task With Student Direction (TWSD) Bagi

Mahasiswa Calon Guru., Disertasi, UPI, Bandung

(24)

52