THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND
STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
By:
Descey Natalia Simbolon Reg. Number: 4123131011
Chemistry Education Study Program 2012
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
THE DIFFERENCES OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES AND STUDENTS’ CHARACTERS THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPES IN SOLUBILITY AND SOLUBILITY
PRODUCT TOPIC
DESCEY NATALIA SIMBOLON (4123131011) ABSTRACT
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, and Mother Marry, who always give blessing and provide health, wisdom, strength, spirit, knowledge and materials for the writer in composing this thesis accordance with the planned time.
The title of thesis is “The Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and Students’ Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic” that arranged to obtain the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Chemistry Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, State University of Medan (Unimed).
In this opportunity, the writer would like to express thanks and great appreciation to the Dr. Ajat Sudrajat, M.Si as my thesis supervisor for his valuable time spent in giving guidance, advices, motivations and suggestions during completing this thesis. The writer also thanks to Prof. Drs. Manihar Situmorang, M.Sc., Ph.D., Dra. Ani Sutiani, M.Si., and Dr. Murniaty Simorangkir, M. S., as the reviewer counselor for this thesis that giving me advices, suggestions, guidance and constructive comments for this thesis’ completeness.
The writer also says thanks to Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd., as the Dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Faculty, State University of Medan, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si., as the Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mrs.Nora Susanti, S.Si, Apt., M.Sc., as the Secretary of Bilingual Program, Agus Kembaren, S.Si., M.Si as the head of chemistry department, Mr. Syamsudin and Mr. Iqbal as the administrator of Bilingual Office for their advices and other necessary administrative business. The great thanks are also given to Drs. Eddyanto, Ph.D., as my academic supervisor for his guidance during my academic process in this University. The writer also says thanks to Prof.Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as the instrument’s validator in this research.
v
teacher, Mr. S. Sihombing, S.Pd; and Principal of SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, Alberto Colia, M.Pd., for the chemistry teacher, Mrs. Mariani Barus, S.Pd.
A deepest love, appreciation and thanks also go to my beloved parents, Mr. Kiris Simbolon and Mrs. Sormada Sinaga for their love, motivations, prays, and financial support to me during my university lecture process, also for my family, my sisters and brothers of cousins for their fighting and prays.
Special thanks are given to all my classmates in Bilingual Chemistry Education 2012 that always give me the best memory in my education process. For my sisters and brother of CESP 2013.Special thanks also for my PPL Team in SMAN 2 Balige; Ruben, Arny, Corry, Carol, Rani, Bella, Arif, Ivana, Marianna, Rohani, and Jerry for the love, motivations, supports, and spending time together. For all my students at SMAN 2 Balige especially, Elescour, Aselcif, Alkana ,Qafoess, and Nommensen. Thanks for being my strengths. Thanks for my students at SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi as my researches’ students and schools. The writer also would like to say thanks to my childhood friend as sister, Borisma Anastasia Sinaga, my best friend from Junior High School until now Novi Serliana and everyone in my life that can’t be mentioned one by one for your support and helping in my thesis process.
Finally, writer hopes this thesis can be used for those who would like to explore more about learning model in solubility and solubility product topic. The writer realizes that this thesis is still far from being perfect. Therefore, critiques and suggestions are needed for future improvement of this thesis.
Medan, June 2016 The Writer,
vi
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
Ratification Sheet i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of Contents vi
List of Appendix ix
List of Table x
List of Figure xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background 1
1.2Identification Problems 4
1.3Scopes of the Study 4
1.4Formulation Problems 5
1.5Research Objectives 5
1.6Research Significances 5
1.7Operational Definition 6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY
2.1 Learning Process 7
2.1.1 Learning Process 7
2.1.2 Learning Activities 8
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes 9
2.1.4 Factors Affecting the Learning Outcomes 9 2.1.5 The Essence of Chemical and Chemistry Learning 10
2.2 Cooperative Learning Model 12
vii
2.2.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of STAD 16 2.3 Team Games Tournaments (TGT) Type 16
2.3.1 Steps of TGT Type 16
2.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of TGT 17
2.4 Jigsaw Type 18
2.4.1 Steps of Jigsaw Type 18
2.4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Jigsaw Type 18
2.5 Characters 19
2.5.1 Character Education 19
2.5.2 Character Values 20
2.5.3 Assessment Criteria of Character Education 21 2.6 Solubility and Solubility Product 21
2.6.1 Solubility 22
2.6.2 Solubility Product 22
2.6.3 Chemical Equilibrium and Solubility 24 2.6.4 Relationship between Solubility and Ksp 25 2.6.5 Molar Solubility and Solubility Products 25
2.7 Hypothesis Research 26
2.8 Statistic Hypothesis 26
2.9 Conceptual Framework 27
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Place and Time of Research 28
3.2 Population and Samples 28
3.3 Research Variables 29
3.4 Research Instruments 29
3.4.1. Validity 30
3.4.2. Validity of Item Test 30
3.4.3. Reliability 31
3.4.4. Difficulty Level 31
3.4.5. Discrimination Power 32
viii
3.5 Research Design 33
3.6 Research Procedure 35
3.7 Data Collection 36
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of School Sample 38
4.2 Description of Cooperative Learning Model Type in Solubility 38 and Solubility Product.
4.3 The Instruments’ Analysis 42
4.3.1. Observation Sheet of Students’ Characters 42
4.3.2. Validity of Evaluation Test 43 4.3.3. Reliability of Evaluation Test 43 4.3.4. Difficulty Level of Evaluation Test 43 4.3.5. Discrimination Power of Evaluation Test 44
4.3.6. Destructor Index 44
4.4 Results of Data 45
4.4.1. Data of Students’ Characters 46
4.4.2. Data of Students’ Learning Outcomes 46
4.4.3. Gain Data 48
4.5 Data Analysis 48
4.5.1. Normality Test 49
4.5.2. Homogeneity Test 49
4.5.3. Hypothesis Testing 51
4.6 Discussion 51
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion 56
5.2 Suggestions 56
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Comparison between Cooperative Learning and Learning Group 13
Table 2.2 Table of Cooperative Learning’s Phases 15
Table 2.3 Character Values 20
Table 3.1 Population and Samples in state SHS 28
Table 3.2 Research Planning 33
Table 4.1 Description of Class Samples 38
Table 4.2 Description of Subject Matters with STAD 39
Table 4.3 Description of Subject Matters with TGT 40
Table 4.4 Description of Subject Matters with Jigsaw 41
Table 4.5 Summary of Instrument Analysis 45
Table 4.6 Improvement the Characters 46
Table 4.7 Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 46
Table 4.8 Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Sidikalang 47
Table 4.9 Learning Outcomes of Pretest SMAN 1 Berastagi 47
Table 4.10 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 47
Table 4.11 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Sidikalang 47
Table 4.12 Learning Outcomes of Posttest SMAN 1 Berastagi 48
Table 4.13 Gain Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 48
Table 4.14 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang 48
Table 4.15 Gain Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi 48
Table 4.16 Normality Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 49
Table 4.17 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang 49
Table 4.18 Normality Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi 49
Table 4.19 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 50
Table 4.20 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Sidikalang 50
Table 4.21 Homogeneity Data of SMAN 1 Berastagi 50
Table 4.22 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 50
Table 4.23 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Sidikalang 50
Table 4.24 Homogeneity Data with Characters of SMAN 1 Berastagi 50
Table 4.25 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 T.Tinggi 51
Table 4.26 Hypothesis Testing of SMAN 1 Sidikalang 51
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Syllabus 60
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 63
Appendix 3 Instrument Analysis 96
Appendix 4 Instrument Test before Validation 103 Appendix 5 Students’ Character Assessment 109
Appendix 6 Characters Value 111
Appendix 7 Development of Characters 138 Appendix 8 Table of Validity Instrument 147 Appendix 9 Table of Reliability Instrument 148 Appendix 10 Table of Discrimination Power 149 Appendix 11 Table of Difficulty Test 150
Appendix 12 Destructor Index 151
Appendix 13 Instrument Test after Validation 153
Appendix 14 Gain Data 160
Appendix 15 Pretest and Posttest Result 169
Appendix 16 Normality Data 187
Appendix 17 Homogeneity Data 193
Appendix 18 Hypothesis Testing 197
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1Research Background
Chemistry is one of the most important branches of science; it enables learners to understand what happened around student. Because chemistry topics are generally related to or based on the structure of matter, chemistry proves a difficult subject for many students. Chemistry curricula commonly incorporate many abstract concepts, which are central to further learning in both chemistry and other sciences. These abstract concepts are important because further chemistry/science concepts or theories cannot be easily understood if these underpinning concepts are not sufficiently grasped by the student (Sakti, 2014).
Based on the experienced of PPLT in the SMAN 2 Balige, Generally teachers do not use cooperative learning model in teaching chemistry topic. Most of teacher who teach chemistry through face to face in the classroom using conventional learning, which is dominated by the lecture method. Thus, these methods of learning is still teacher-centered learning, have not been able to increase the active role students in the learning process, and provides less opportunity for students to express their understanding and skills. Students will find it is hard to follow or get the essence of learning materials, so that their activities are limited to take notes apocryphal. The pattern of active learning with students’ teachers is passive low efficacy and can’t develop the active participation in the learning process.
2
Teachers should be known to teach the learning material by used method combined with media compatible. The teachers need to be more creative and innovative in teaching, especially in the learning chemistry topic. Education without technological advances is boring. The tendency of a teacher in delivering subject matter using the same method in chemistry courses, asked students to read and memorize the learning materials make students feel bored, annoyed and less active. (Hamalik,2008). It is make decrease of students’ interest inquired for the material being taught and understand it. The teachers should keep students’ interest and motivate to learn in different ways of teaching, using varies teaching method and combined with teaching media in improving students’ motivation and students’ achievement. (Mulyani, 2009).
The facts 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. This condition is one factor causing low student learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers need to develop learning that can improve the character and student learning outcomes with the use of appropriate learning strategies. One model of learning that can be used is the model cooperative learning.
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 (Muhammad, 2010). Cooperative learning model is method that can be done because it can improve learning progress; makes positives attitudes of students; increases motivation and confidence of students.(Slavin, 1995).
3
Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) is a cooperative learning model for mixed-ability groupings involving team recognition and group responsibility for individual learning. STAD cooperative learning model is one of the simplest models of cooperative learning and is an appropriate model for starters for teachers who use cooperative approach. On STAD learning model teachers prepare and develop the concept of the material before learning begins is a good step and precise enough to be able to support the learning process.
While the cooperative learning model TGT (Team Games Tournament) is a teaching and learning techniques to engage students interested in studying the material covered in the lesson and check their understanding of the lesson content. TGT is a cooperative learning designed to develop the knowledge in saying the idea or opinion verbal and compare with the others’ ideas. (Trianto, 2009).
Cooperative learning model Jigsaw is one type of cooperative learning where students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be responsible for the assignment. (Lie, 1993).
Character is something that has influence in the learning process. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, stated that good character is a practice of correct behavior. 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.
4
and students’ characters through implementation of cooperative learning model types in solubility and solubility product. The study is conducted to high school students in North Sumatera (three SHS).
Based on descriptions above, researchers want to apply various types of cooperative learning model is not only on learning outcomes but also on the character of students, so researchers interested in conducted research with the title “The Differences of Students’ Learning Outcomes and Students’ Characters through Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic”.
1.2Problem Identifications
Based on the background above, so the problems that can identified as following:
1. Generally teachers do not use cooperative learning model in teaching chemistry topic.
2. Teacher use monotone and less attractive method in classroom so that students’ learning outcomes and motivation is low.
3. The concepts of Chemistry still difficult understanding by the students.
1.3Scopes of The Study
In this study, the problems are limited to scope:
1. This research is focused to Senior High School in class XI on the subject matter Solubility and Solubility Product.
2. To know the increasing of student achievement with cooperative learning model (STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw).
5
1.4Problem Formulations
Based on the problem identification above, the formulation problem in this research are:
1. Is there any difference of learning outcomes from students on learning solubility and solubility products among the Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw classes?
2. How the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw classes?
3. How many increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw?
1.5Research Objectives
The research objectives in this case are to investigate the best method in teaching Solubility and Solubility Products topic. The specific objectives of the study are:
1. To know difference of learning outcomes from students on learning colloids system among the Cooperative Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw classes.
2. To know the characters of students who taught by STAD, TGT and Jigsaw classes.
3. To know the increasing of students’ learning outcomes who taught by STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw.
1.6Research Significances
The significances of this research are: 1. For the Researcher :
a. Improving the knowledge of research
b. To increase the students’ achievement in subject matter that taught 2. For Teachers
a. As the alternative in learning process
6
3. For the Prospective Teacher
a. To train the own self to find the solution in process of the learning activity in the classroom.
b. Training the own self to make the learning tools. 4. For School
Giving the donation for school in leaning repairs.
1.7Operational Definition
The operational definitions 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. TGT has the academic games, so that it can be process of learning become pleasure and create the team competition that based on the responsibility of each individual. Students work in the group that consists of 5-6 people with the different academic knowledge, gender, and ethnic group.
3. Jigsaw cooperative learning model is one type of cooperative learning where students form group responsible of the material assigned student teaches then teach it to the other members in the group. The concept of the jigsaw is peer tutoring learning. Learning jigsaw expected to improve the students to be responsible for the assignment. It consists of 4-6 people per group member. 4. Solubility is the amount of solute to that of solvent. Solvent is substance used
56 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some conclusions that gotten, they are:
1. There are significant differences of students’ learning outcomes and
treatments (STAD, TGT and Jigsaw model) are in SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi (STAD > TGT > Jigsaw), SMAN 1 Sidikalang (STAD > Jigsaw > TGT ) and SMAN 1 Berastagi (Jigsaw > STAD > TGT).
2. There are significant differences of students’ characters in SMAN 1 Tebing
Tinggi, SMAN 1 Sidikalang, and SMAN 1 Berastagi for each experimental classes.
3. There are significances differences increasing students’ learning outcomes that taught by Cooperative Learning Model Types STAD, TGT, and Jigsaw in three different schools. In SMA Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi from the three models
for each class, the student’s gain is 70 %, in SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang is 66%,
and in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is 72 %.
5.2Suggestions
From the result of the research, there are some suggestions must be raised: 1. Chemistry teachers can use the differences of students’ learning outcomes and
students’ characters through implementation of Cooperative Learning Model
Types in Solubility and Solubility Product Topic in learning process.
57
REFERENCES
Adesoji, F. A., & Ibraheem, T. L., (2009), Effect of Student Teams Achievement Divisions and Mathematic Knowledge on Learning Outcomes in Chemical Kinetics. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(6), 15-16. Albertus, Doni Koesoema., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter, Strategi Mendidik Anak
di Zaman Global, Grasindo, Jakarta.
Alebiosu, K. A., (1998), Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Models on Senior
Secondary School Students’ Learning Outcomes in Chemistry,
Thesis.Dept.of Teacher Education. University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Arikunto, S., (2009), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, PT Bumi Akasara, Jakarta.
Arsyad,A.,(2009), Media Pengajaran, PT Grafindo, Jakarta.
Blanchard, A., (2001), Contextual Teaching and Learning. Ohio: Bowling Green State University.
Doymus, K., (2008), Teaching Chemical Bonding through Jigsaw Cooperative Learning, Journal of Research in Science & Technological Education, vol
26(1), 47-5.
Gagne, Robert M., (1963), The Condition of Learning, Third Edition, Florida State University, Rinehart and Winston. Inc., Canada.
Giancarlo, L.C., and Slunt, K.M., (2004), The Dog ate My Homework: A Cooperative Learning Project for Instrumental Analysis, Journal of Chemical Education 81: 868-869.
Gultom, A., and P.M. Silitonga., (2009), Pengaruh Kemampuan Awal dan Model Pembelajaran terhadap Hasil Belajar Kimia SMA, Journal Pendiidikan Matematika & Sains 4(2): 77-81.
58
Jansoon, N., (2008), Thai Undergraduate Chemistry Practical Learning Experiences Using the Jigsaw IV Method, Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia, vol. 31(2), 178-200.
Justiana, S., (2010), Chemistry for Senior High School, Yudistira, Jakarta.
Lie, A., (1993), Cooperative Learning : Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-ruang Kelas, cet. Ke-7, PT. Grasindo, Jakarta .
Muhammad, R., (2010), Effect of Cooperative Learning Instructional Strategy on Students’ Performance in Biology, Journal of Theoretical and Empirical Studies in Education 2 (1), 222-278.
Mulyani, A., (2009), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, UM Press, Malang.
Rusman, (2011), Model-Model Pembelajaran Mengembangkan Profesional Guru, Rajawali Pers , Jakarta.
Sakti, V.A.B., (2014), Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Team Games Tournaments (TGT) Type with Structure Exercise Method to Gain Improve Motivation and Students’ Learning Outcomes on Hydrolysis Matter at SMAN 1 Kebomas-Gresik, Journal of Chemistry Education vol 3(3), 216-223.
Sani, U., (2015), Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Senior Secondary High School Students’ Performance in Quantitative Chemistry. Journal of Education and Social Science, vol.1, Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic,
Nigeria.
Siegel, C., (2005), Implementing a Research-Based Model of Cooperative Learning, Journal of Educational Research, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 339–349. Sirhan, Ghassan, (2007), Learning Difficulties in Chemistry: An Overview,
Journal of Turkish Science Education, Vol. 4, access on
59
Situmorang, M. (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) untuk Mata Pelajaran Kimia, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Slavin, Robert E., (1995) Cooperative Learning, Review of Educational Research, vol. 50, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University , Sage Publications.
Sudrajat, A, (2013), Pengembangan Perangkat Asesmen Kompetensi Praktikum Kimia Analitik Dasar Berbasis Task With Student Direction (TWSD) Bagi
Mahasiswa Calon Guru., Disertasi, UPI, Bandung.
Suprijono, A., (2009), Cooperative Learning Theory, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.
Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, PT Grafindo, Jakarta.
Utami, B., (2009), Kimia Untuk SMA Kelas XI, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta.
Wang, P., (2009), Applying Slavin’s Cooperative Learning Technique to EFL Conversation Class, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 112–120.
Yasemin, K., (2010), The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetics, Journal of Turkish Science Educations, vol.7 , Ataturk University, Turkey.