THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPE GROUP INVESTIGATION TO STUDENT’ CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE
ON TOPIC ELASTICITY GRADE XI FIRST SEMESTER IN SMA N 1 TANJUNG MORAWA A.Y. 2016/2017
By: Asmah Sahfitri ID. 4123322001
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eliglible Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation (GI) to Student’ Conceptual Knowledge on Topic Elasticity Grade XI first Semester in
SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017 Asmah Sahfitri (ID. 4123322001)
ABSTRACT
The research was conducted to analyzed the effect of cooperative learning model type group investigation on student’s conceptual knowledge in Elasticity subject matter. This research was carried out in SMA Negeri 1 Tanjung Morawa. This research used quasi experiment type with pretest-posttest control group design. Population is the whole students in grade XI SMA Negeri 1 Tanjung Morawa on 1st semester, consisting of two classes. Sample was taken using technique of Cluster Random Sampling. The number of research sample is 34 students for experiment class and 35 students for control class. The data of student’s conceptual knowledge is taken by using instrument test in form of essay question from ten indicators. The data analysis used t-test, from the result of achievement score calculation obtained the mean of pre test in experiment class is about 15 while the mean of post test is about 63.70 and the mean of pre test score in control class is about 14 while the mean of post test is about 40.78. During the treatment in experiment class was learned by using cooperative learning model type group investigation, while control class was learned by conventional learning model. The result was shown student’s conceptual knowledge in class of cooperative learning model type group investigation significantly higher than in class of conventional learning model. It means there is an effect of cooperative learning model type group investigation on student’ conceptual knowledge on Topic Elasticity grade XI first semester in SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
iv
ACKNOWLEDMENT
First of all I would like to devote her greatest thankfulness to The Almighty Allah SWT is The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful for His blessing, guidance, strength, health, and His favor which have been given so that I could finally finish this thesis entitled: The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation to Student’s Conceptual Knowledge on Topic Elasticity Grade XI First Semester in SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y. 2016/2017.
In this opportunity, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Sahyar., M.S.M.M as my thesis supervisor that always gave me his time and advices, and also Prof. Dr. Mara Bangun Harahap, M.S, Dr. Derlina, M.Si, and Dr. Rahmatsyah, M.Si as my examiner for their advices, suggestions, guidance, and constructive critics in the process of completing this thesis.
I also like to say thanks to Dr.Nurdin Siregar, M.Si and Dr.Mariati Simanjuntak, M.Si as my instrument valuators for their times and suggestion in development of my research instrument, for Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd, as the dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as coordinator of Bilingual Program, Alkhafi Maas Siregar, M.Si. as the head of Physics Department, Drs. Abdul Hakim S, M.Si as my academic supervisor for all their help in completing my study and this thesis and to all lecturers in Bilingual Physics Education Program.
I also addressed my thanks to Drs. James, M.Pd as the Headmaster of SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa and to physics’ teacher mom Rosellin Siagian and also to all teachers who helped me in doing the research.
v
cousins Intan Desyifa Khairiah and Falih Syauqi Marzuq no other could replace all your love for me.
I also want to say thanks to my beloved friends in Bilingual Chemistry Education 2009, especially for my best friends Dian Purnamasari for her helping in doing this research, and also for Yudistira, Reni, Debora, Rini, Novita,rohani and Dinda for their suggestions. Special thanks also for my beloved teacher supervisor at SMAN 1 Kisaran when I was getting Teaching Experience Program, Syahruddin Lubis,M.Pd for her advice and her prayer that always given for me. Also for my friends in Teaching Experience Program Duryah, Elvi, Lisna, Hamian, Afatar, Dian, Rudi, Irma and Ima and for my beloved students, especially for Agung Tanjung, Ayumi, Fong Erl, Mora Pasca, Aulia Rahman, Tionar, and Intan pertiwi and all of students at SMAN 2 Kisaran and SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa. You are always in my mind. Thank you all.
I have attempted as maximal as I can in doing this thesis. However, in my humble heart the writer hope construct suggestions and critics from the reader for the perfection of this thesis. The writer hopes this thesis can be useful and gives many function to the readers knowledge especially about subject matter which is researched in this thesis.
Walhamdulillahirabbil’alamin.
Medan, August 2016 The Writer
Asmah Sahfitri
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
LEGALIZATION PAPER i
BIOGRAPHY ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv
LIST OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF GRAPHIC xi
LIST OF APPENDIX xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1.Research Background 1
1.2.Problem Identification 7
1.3.Problem Limitation 7
1.4.Problem Formulation 8
1.5.Research Objective 8
1.6.Research Benefit 8
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation 9
2.1.1 Model of Learning Definition 9
2.1.2 Definition of Cooperative Learning 9 2.1.2.1 Excellence of Cooperative Learning Model 10 2.1.2.2 Advantages of Using Cooperative Learning 10 2.1.2.3 Syntax of Cooperative Learning 10 2.1.2.4 Various of Cooperative Learning in Actual Practice 11
2.1.3 Group Investigation 13
vii
2.1.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group Investigation 14 2.1.3.4 Learning Theory of Group Investigation 15 2.1.3.5 Syntax of Group Investigation 16 2.1.3.6 Social System of Group Investigation 17
2.2 Conventional Learning Model 17
2.3 Learning Outcomes 19
2.3.1 Conceptual Knowledge 19
2.4 Subject Matter 24
2.4.1 Elastic and Plastic 24
2.4.2 Strain 24
2.4.3 Stress 25
2.4.4 Elastic Limit 26
2.4.5 Hooke’ Law 27
2.4.6 Energy Potential of String (Work) 28
2.4.7 Hooke’ Law Spring Arrangement 28
2.4.7.1 Series Arrangement 28
2.4.7.2 Parallel Arrangement 30
2.4.7.3 Series-Parallel Arrangement 31
2.4.8 Modulus Elasticity 32
2.5 Group Investigation Related Journals 34 2.6 Similarly and Different of Previous Journal of Group Investigation 36
2.7 Conceptual Framework 37
2.8 Hypothesis Research 38
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODS
3.1. Research Overview 39
3.2. Time and Location of Research 40 3.3. Population and Sample of Research 40
3.4. Research Variable 40
3.5. Type and Research Design 41
3.5.1 Type of Research 41
viii
3.5.2 Design of Research 41
3.6. The Instrument of Research 42
3.6.1 Validity test 42
3.6.2 Reliability test 44
3.7.Technique for the Data Analysis 45 3.7.1 Determine Average Value 45 3.7.2 Determine the Standard Deviation 46
3.7.3 Normality Test 46
3.7.4 Homogeneity Test 47
3.7.5 Hypothesis Pre-test 47
3.7.6 Hypothesis Post-test
3.7.7 Observation
CHAPTER IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Description of Result
4.2. Student Ability 52
4.3. Regulation test to Data Analyze 56
4.4. Hypothesis Data Testing 57
4.4 1.Hypothesis testing to Pre-test Ability 57 4.4.2. Hypothesis testing to Post-test Ability 57
4.5 Discussion 62
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion 68
5.2. Suggestions 69
REFERENCES 70
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. Table of Syntax of Cooperative Learning 11 Table 2.2. Table of Categories of Cooperative Learning 12 Table 2.3. Table of Comparison of Four Approaches to Cooperative Learning 13 Table 2.4. Different between Boolm Taxonomy and Anderson Taxonomy 22
Table 2.5.Modulus Elasticity 37
Table 2.6. Previous Research 38
xii
LIST OF GRAPHIC
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 Classifying an Objective of Conceptual Knowledge 24 Figure 2.2 (a) Given Force,(b) Distance Strain, (c) Compressed strain 25 Figure 2.3 (a) a rubber eraser with a length L and cross-sectional area A is 26
up growing longer by ΔL by force F, (b) If the cross-sectional area used 2A, the force needed to pull the eraser along the ΔL equal to 2F.
Figure 2.4 Elastic Potential Energy of Spring 29 Figure 2.5 Spring Arrangement is Series 30 Figure 2.6 Spring Arrangement in Parallel 31 Figure 2.7 Spring Arrangement in Series – Parallel 32
Figure 2.8 Young Modulus 33
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX
page
Appendix 1.Lesson Plan of First Meeting on Topic Elastic Limit 74
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan of Second Meeting on Topic Hooke Law 82
Appendix 3.Lesson Plan of Third Meeting on Topic Modulus Elasticity 90
Appendix 4.Work Sheet of First Meeting on Topic Elastic Limit 98
Appendix 5.Work Sheet of Second Meeting on topic Hooke Law 108
Appendix 6.Work Sheet of Third Meeting on Topic Modulus Elasticity 119
Appendix 7.Validity Data Distribution 126
Appendix 8.Validity Reliability Calculation 127
Appendix 9. Instrument Test 129
Appendix 10. Pre-test and Post Test Data Distribution of Control Class 144
Appendix 11.Pre-test and Post Test Data Distribution of Experiment Class 145
Appendix 12. The Calculation of Mean, Deviation Standard And Variance 147
Appendix 13. Normality Calculation 149
Appendix 14. Homogeneity Calculation 154
Appendix 15. Hypothesis Testing Calculation 157
Appendix 16. Table Observation Appendix 17.List of critical value for liliefors 164
Appendix 18.Table of Normality-test 165 Appendix 19.Table of F-distribution Appendix 20.List of percentil value of t-distribution
Appendix 21. Documentations 169
Appendix 22. Form of validation of the instrument
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
The future of a nation depends heavily on the quality of human resources and the ability of the participants to master science and technology. For decades, public schools prepared children to be good citizens and good workers. Students were expected to sit, listen, and do exactly as they were told.
Students nowadays should be work hard in order to increase their competitiveness in global competition. As economic and technological changes shape the quality of human resources outlook of today’s students, schools have begun to prepare the 21st century workforce. No longer is it enough for Senior High School and Vocational School graduates simply to know basic facts and skills. To be successful, students must master decision-making, prioritizing, strategizing and collaborative problem solving started from the senior high school level (Five, 1993:53).
Science is a way of understanding the physical universe using observation and experimentation to explain natural phenomena. Science also refers to an organized body of knowledge that includes core ideas to the disciplines and common themes that bridge the disciplines. Physics is a branch of nature science that underlies the development of advanced technologies and the concept of harmonious life with nature. Physics is very necessary to learn at every level of education from elementary school, middle school to college (DEPDIKNAS, 2006).
2
Physics is one of the science lessons and it is a discipline that based on qualitative and quantitative measurements for understanding the natural phenomena around us. Physics is considered to be an exceptionally difficult subject among various students. The percentage of marks in middle and high school examinations in this subject is low in comparison to other subjects of the school curriculum. This backwardness in subject may be due to the lack of interest and wrong methods of learning (Meenakshi, Dahiya : 2011).
Students in physics courses solve problems largely using a process termed means-ends analysis, whereby they search for equations containing the quantities in a problem and try to reduce the “distance” between the goal state and their current state in the solution process. Students are not taught to solve problems simply by manipulating equations since instructors typically mention the concepts and principles that they are applying, but students rightly perceive the equations as being central to obtaining quantitative answers and tend to ignore conceptual information. This approach can be effective at getting answers, but falls short in understanding the conceptual underpinnings of the solution process. It is, therefore, not surprising that students learn or retain little conceptual knowledge following physics courses (Jennifer L, Docktor :2015).
Conceptual knowledge is static knowledge about fact, concept, and principles that apply within certain domain, conceptual knowledge functions as additional information that problem solver add to the problem and that they use to perform the solution . The process of learning concepts begins at an early age and continues throughout life as people develop more and more complex concepts, both in school and out (Arends : 2009).
3
Hooke’ law and elasticity of concepts are particularly important to students for had conceptual knowledge especially in Elasticity subject matter. Further observations conducted by researcher at the class XII SMA with the topic of Elasticity found that the conceptual knowledge students of SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa still below average, From 31 total students that given test and the number of test consist of 10 questions not all question they can solved. Majority students can find working with physics calculations difficult and frustrating to understand. With enough practice, they can memorize a pattern to complete the calculations but have a difficult time understanding the concept. Then, quickly losing their enthusiasm to work with these calculations.
From preliminary observation that have done by researcher through the direct observation by interviewing the teacher of physics and distributing questionnaires to students in SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa the result shown that almost 100% of students are able to achieve minimum completeness criteria (MCC). With 75 point of MCC standard for grade X at second semester last year. However, many students are able to achieve minimum completeness criteria (MCC) only 38.70 % of students can answer analysis question that given by teacher.
The questionnaires also shown most of student confused when learning of Physics, but they still wanted to learn physics. Some students interested in physics and want to learn physics with another teaching method, they need more books’ reference, more practice and more solving physics problems. While student need enjoyable teacher, process of teaching and learning physics in school is also far from being satisfactory. Students was taught verbal, teacher becomes the one and only informant, and using conventional model in learning that create students just memorize or mimic their acts in class, and the method is often used in conventional learning model is the lecture method.
4
experiment and rarely taught by using media also. The students had two type of guide book that used in learning process, but they still want to listen theirs teacher and rarely reading theirs book. There are no laboratory practice book and worksheet, so the students only used the text books as long in learning process until one semester.
To face this problem is need to apply other learning models that can improve student conceptual knowledge. At the high school level, the models of teaching that impact of integrating conceptual knowledge by solved a problem (Jeniffer L, Docktor : 2015) and could build character become critically, logic, objective, creative and innovative then automatically can improve student learning outcomes in conceptual academic knowledge are cooperative learning type Group Investigation and Jigsaw (Arends : 2009).
Cooperative learning is a model where the student learns with group and they are work together. Psychologists generally agree that students easily understand the complex and abstract concepts when accompanied by concrete examples and in working together (Isjoni, 1992). According to Slavin cooperative learning is a learning model where student learn and work in small group consist of 4-6 people with heterogenic structure. Patterns of employment as mention above enable emergence a positive perception about what they have to do to success their group.
Cooperative learning type that accordance to that is Group Investigation. Group Investigation have goal and impact, the cognitive goal of group investigation are conceptual knowledge and inquiry skill, and the impact are students work cooperatively together, they learned to engage in processes of shared thinking which helped them to not only gain a better understanding of the perspectives of others but also to build on their contributions to develop new understanding and knowledge (Brown & Campione, 1994; Rogoff, 1994).
5
in which students work in small groups using cooperative inquiry, group discussion and cooperative planning and projects. Moreover, it is said to be one of the most student-centered methods as students have much freedom to choose their topics of interest for investigation, plan and carry it out, present and evaluate the results.
Group Investigation (GI) technique was developed by Sharan and Sharan in 1989. In the technique firstly the class is divided into several groups that study in a different phase of general issue. After that, study of issue is divided into working sections among the members of the groups. It’s provided to students that pair up the information, arrangement, analyzes, planning and integrate the data with the students in other groups. In this process, teacher must be the leader of the class and ensure that students need to the explanations Knight and Bohlmeyer (in AKÇAY & DOYMUŞ, 2014:18)
Cooperative learning model type group investigation had been examined by Garonia L. Parchment (2009) with the title of “A Study Comparing Cooperative Learning Methods: Jigsaw & Group Investigation”. She focus on academic achievement of students grade 9th from 2008 until 2009 and the result of the scores from previous traditional delivered instruction were used as control group.
In that research the GI activity focused on human impact on the environment. Student investigated different environmental topics in heterogeneous groups and created a poster that illustrated causes and effects of the assigned issue. Quizzes were utilized in both instructional strategies to obtain qualitative data. The data identified group investigation as the most effective method of instruction. The study also concluded that the implementation of both CL methods in a classroom does positively impact student performance, while traditional instruction yields unfavorable results.
6
Pretest score based on C4 (Analyze), C5 (Evaluate) and C6 (create) question in Experimental class is 47.97 and in the Control class is 47.51 when Experiment class teach using Group Investigation method and Control class teach using Conventional method, post test to measure High Order Thinking cognitive test in experimental class is 76.81 and in the Control class is 57.39 the result shown student’ High Order Thinking in experiment class higher than in control class.
Sitinjak, Jovan (2015) using Cooperative learning type Group Investigation focus on student’s learning outcomes consist of cognitive outcomes, affective and psychomotor and his research done in SMA SANTO THOMAS 3 Medan on the Linear Motion topic of physics. That were obtained: pre-test mean value of experiment class was 42.26 and 41.45 for control class and then post-test mean value of the experiment class was 80.48 and 64.03 was the mean value for control class. Then, based on observation that done by observers by using observation sheet of students` affective and psychomotor. Students` affective score on last meeting of experiment and control class are 91.83 and 87.10 and students` psychomotor score on last meeting of experiment and control class are 85.01 and 80.78. the result also shown student learning outcomes in experiment class higher than in control class.
Many researches about Group Investigation method in physics have done by previous scientist its method used in the learning process and its offers a proven, if Group Investigation is one of the great choices models of teaching to increase academic achievement, high order thinking and learning outcomes in the topic of physics. And there is still low research about conceptual knowledge of student and in elasticity topic also. Therefore, in this case the writer chose research entitled “The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Type Group Investigation (GI) to Students’ Conceptual Knowledge on Topic Elasticity Grade XI First Semester in SMA N 1 TanjungMorawa A.Y 2016/2017”.
1.2 Problem Identification
7
1. Most student have some difficulties in understanding physics concept 2. Student’s need more practice and solving problem in physics
3. Teacher less using various teaching method
4. In the teaching and learning process rarely doing an experiment 5. Less of various book’s learning
6. The teacher rarely teaching physics using media
7. The physics teacher still using the conventional learning by lecture method. 8. Less number of students who can solve conceptual knowledge of
instrument test.
1.3 Problem Limitation
By considering subject matter in SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa, this study is limited to the effect of Cooperative Learning model type Group Investigation to student’ Conceptual Knowledge at Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa the expertise of Science in Elasticity subject matter compared with conventional model of learning.
1.4 Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation problem, so the problem formulation are:
1. How is students’ Conceptual Knowledge using cooperative learning model
type Group Investigation (GI) in the subject Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
2. How is students’ Conceptual Knowledge using and conventional learning
in the subject matter Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017?
3. Is the students’ Conceptual Knowledge by using cooperative learning model type group investigation (GI) greater than conventional learning model in the subject matter Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
1.5 Research Objective
8
1. To analyze students’ Conceptual Knowledge by using conventional
learning in the subject Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
2. To analyze students’ Conceptual Knowledge by using cooperative learning model type group investigation in the subject matter Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
3. To analyze whether students’ Conceptual Knowledge by using cooperative
learning model type group investigation is greater than conventional learning in the subject matter Elasticity in Grade XI SMA N 1 Tanjung Morawa A.Y 2016/2017.
1.6 Research Benefit
Once this study is completed then the expected benefits of this research are:
1. For School : can give a good contribution in order to improve the learning process and improve the quality of schools by increasing student Conceptual Knowledge and teacher professionalism.
2. For teacher : As a consideration in selecting learning model better than conventional learning model.
3. For students : Students are more motivated to learn physics, because the abstract concepts of physics can be more real through cooperative learning model Type Group Investigation So, the learning process becomes more interesting and more attractive to increase students’ understanding.
77
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1. Conclusions
Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion, the conclusions of this research are as followings as below:
1. Student’s conceptual knowledge using cooperative learning type Group
Investigation (GI) in subject Elasticity by considering achievement score test shown the Post test score with average value ( =63.70) increased from the pre-test score with average value ( =15) score of student post test were increased 42,46% from origin pre-test score. The result of average value post test =63,70 for student conceptual knowledge taught by Group Investigation learning model still indicate to medium category.
2. Student’s conceptual knowledge using conventional learning model in
subject Elasticity from achievement score test shown the Post test score
with average value ( =40.78) increased from the pre-test score with average value ( =14) score of students post test were increased 19,12% from origin pre-test score. The result of average value post test
=40,78 for student conceptual knowledge taught by Conventional learning model still indicate to low category.
3. Students’ conceptual knowledge by using cooperative learning model
78
5.2. Suggestions
79
REFERENCES
Akçay, N.O., Doymuş, K., (2014), Cooperative Learning Techniques Applied in Teaching Force and Motion Subjects on Students’ Academic Achievements, Journal of Educational Sciences Research2(1).
Akçay, N.O., Doymuş, K., (2014), The Effect of Different Methods of Cooperative Learning Model on Academic Achievement in Physic,
Journal of Turkish Science Education11 (4): 17-30, ISSN: 1304-602.
Anugrah, G. R., Sirait, M., & Science, N. (2014).effect of cooperative type stad aided by macromedia flash toward students ’ learning, 2(1). FMIPA Universitas Negeri Medan : Inpafi
Arends, Richard & Kilcher, Ann. (2010).Teaching for Student Learning:
Becoming an Accomplished Teacher. New York: Routledge.
Arends ,Richard I,. (2009) .Learning to Teach English edition. New York : Mc . Graw Hill
Arikunto, S., (2013), Dasar-DasarEvaluasiPendidikan, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta. Benckert, S., and Pettersson, S. (2008).“Learning Physics in Small-Group
Discussions – Three Examples.”Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education 4 (2): 121–134.
Bicerdi, Maylia. (2014). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Group Investigasi (GI) Terhadap Hasil Belajar Kognitif Tingkat Tinggi Pada Materi istrik Dinamis di Kelas X Semester II Man 1 Medan T.P
2014/2015. Skrpsi. Fmipa Unimed. Medan
Bonwell, C. C. (1996). "Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format" In Sutherland, T. E., and Bonwell, C. C. (Eds.), Using active learning in college classes: A range of options for faculty, New Directions for
Teaching and Learning No. 67.
Bukunola, B.J., & Idowu, O.D. (2012). Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies On Nigerian Junior Secondary Student’ Academic Achievement in Basic Science. The Journal of Education Research, 2(3): 307-325
80
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001 (July, 21th 2016)
Depdiknas, (2006).Kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan.Jakarta :Depdiknas Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. E., Mestre, J. P., & Ross, B. H. (2015). Conceptual
problem solving in high school physics, 020106, 1–13.
http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020106 (July 21th 2016)
Eveline and Hartina Nara.(2010). Teori dan Pembelajaran.Bagor: Indonesia. Five, C. (1993).Teaching Higher-Order Thinking. Educational Leadership, 50(7),
53–61.
Foster, Bob. (2011). Fisika Terpadu kelas XI semester 1.Jakarta :Elangga Giancoli, D. C. 2001. FISIKA 1 Edisi Kelima. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Glencoe (2005). Physics Principle and Problem. United State of America : Mc.Grow Hill. ISBN : 0-07-845823-7
Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving .
American Journal of Physics,60(7), 627-636.
Indrajit, D. 2009. Mudah dan Aktif Belajar Fisika Kelas XI. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan Depdiknas.
Isjoni and MohdArif Ismail.(2008). Model-model pembelajaran mutakhir. Yogyakarta : Pustaka Belajar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the
Classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., (2003), Models of Teaching, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited: New Delhi.
Kakani, S.L . (2005). Mechanics . New Delhi : Viva Book Private Limited. Kanginan, M., (2006), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta.
81
(Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 1-22). New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Lampinen, J. M., & Arnal, J. D. (2009). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. American Journal of Psychology, 122(1), 39–52.
Lauritzen, P. (2012). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematical Functions, (34), 1–172.
Li, M. P., & Lam, B. H. (2013).Cooperative Learning. The Hong Kong Institute of
Education, 1–33.
Munasyir.2014. Modul FIS 11 Sifat Mekanika Bahan. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Sanjaya, Wina. (2008). Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan.Jakarta :Kencana Prenada Media
Sharan, Y., &Sharan, S. (1987). Training teachers for cooperative learning.Educational Leadership. Retrieved from
http://ascd.com/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198711_sharan.pdf
Sharan, Y. &Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investigation. New York: Teachers College Press. Sharan, Y. &Sharan, S. (1994). Group Investigation in the cooperative classroom. In: Sharan, S. (Ed.). Handbook of Cooperative Learning, pp. 97-114. New Jersey: Greenwood Press.
Sharan, Y., &Sharan, S. (1994). Group investigation in the cooperative classroom.In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 97-114). London: Greenwood Press.
Siddiqui, M. H. (2013). Group Investigation Model of Teaching : Enhancing Learning Level Keywords : Group Investigation Model Learning, Indian
Journal of Research (May), 1991–1993.
Sitinjak, Jovan.(2015). The effect of Cooperative learning type Group
Investigation focus on student’s learning outcomes in SMA SANTO
THOMAS 3 Medan on the Linear Motion topic of physics. Skrpsi. FMIPA
Universitas Negeri Medan: Medan.
Slameto.(2003). Belajar dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. jakarta: rineka cipta.
82
(Eds.), Learning to co-operate, co-operating to learn (pp. 5-15). New York: Plenum Press.
Sudjana.(2005). Metode Statistik.Bandung :Tarsito Sutejo, (2011) . Fisika 1.Jakarta :Yudhistira
T.L.Lowe, J.F.Rounce.(2002). Calculations for A-level (Fourth Edition).United Kingdom:Nelson thornes.ISBN : 0 7487 6748 7
Wahyuni, C., & Nasbey, H. (2015). Improvement of Learning Process and Learning Outcomes in Physics Learning by using Collaborative Learning Model of Group Inestigation at High School (Grade X, SMAN 14 Jakarta)
Journal of Education and Practice. 6(11), 75-80. ISSN : 2222-288x
