EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME IN BIODIVERSITY TOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.

(1)

EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNINGMODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING

OUTCOME

IN BIODIVERSITYTOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA N 3 MEDANACADEMIC YEAR 2015/201 6

By:

Atika Julia Handayani Nasution 4113141007

Bilingual BiologyEducation

THESIS

Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Degree Sarjana Pendidikan

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

BIOGRAPHY

(4)

BIOGRAPHY

(5)

EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME

IN BIODIVERSITY TOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA N 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016

Atika Julia Handayani Nasution 4113141007

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were to know the effect of SAVI in Jigsaw cooperative learning model on students’ (1) activity and (2) learning outcome in biology at biodiversity topic. This research was conducted in SMA Negeri 3 Medan, academic year of 2015/2016. Type of research was quasi-experimental design. Population of research was all X Grade students. There were three classes as the samples whichchosen by cluster random sampling technique. Experimental class I used SAVI approach in Jigsaw model, experimental class II used Jigsaw model only, and control class used Direct Instruction model. Students’ activity was measured by using observation sheet as non-test instrument. The data were analyzed with ANAVA by using SPSS v.18 software. The research result indicates that there is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative learning model on students’ activity (F = 110.70; P = 0.00). Students were more active in experimental class I with mean value is 40.04 rather than in experimental class II and in control class with mean value are 35.10 and 4.36. Students’ learning outcome was measured by using multiple choice-tests. The data were analyzed with ANCOVA by using SPSS v.18 software.The research result also indicates that there is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative learning model on students’ learning outcome (F = 5.90; P = 0.04) with the highest mean value is 71.52.

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, praise and gratitude the writer prayed to Allah SWT, for His blessing and grace the writer is able to finish this thesis by title “Effect of SAVI Approach in Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model on Students’ Activity and Learning Outcome in Biodiversity Topic in X Grade of SMA N 3 Medan Academic Year 2015/ 2016” to fulfill one of the requirements for degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Biologi Department, FMIPA UNIMED.

The enormous appreciation and gratitude the writer presented to Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M. Si. as thesis supervisor who has given guidances, suggestions, comments, encouragements, and spent precious time, so this thesis comes to its present form. The writer also would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, MS, M. Sc., DR. Fauziyah Harahap, M. Si., Selvia Dewi Pohan, S. Si., M. Si., as thesis examiners who have given criticisms and valuable advices. Special thanks to all lectures of Biology Bilingual Education Program, Headmaster and also Biology teachers in SMA N 3 Medan who helped the writer during the research.

Deepest gratitude the writer presented to beloved parents, Hartaty and Wardana Nasution for their love, encouragement throughout entire life, and also to beloved sisters and brother, Winda, Wulan, Fahmi for their kindness. Finally, the writer also thank to amazing women in circle of fraternity for their support, sharing experiences and to friends in Biology Bilingual 2011 for togetherness during four years and to Fatimah and Saras who helped the writer in the research, and to all people who helped and supported the writer in other way. May Allah bless and reward all those who contributed in the completion of this thesis. Hopefully, the thesis will be beneficial to contribute idea in education.

Medan, Januari 2016 Writer,

(7)

3.1. Location and Time Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2. Population and Sample Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. Research Variables Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4. Research Design Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5. Research Instrument Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.1. Non-Test Instrument Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2. Test Instrument Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2.1. Validity Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2.2. Reliability Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2.3. Item Difficulty Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2.4. Item Discriminant Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6. Research Procedure Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.7. Data Analysis 28

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgement iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

List of Appendices ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW

(8)

3.7.1. Student’s Activity Data 28

3.7.2. Learning Outcome Data 29

3.7.3. Student’s Cognitive Data 29

3.7.3.1. Normality Test 29

3.7.3.2. Homogeneity Test 29

3.8. Hypothesis Test 30

4.1. Result Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.1. Students’ Activity Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2. Learning Outcome Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3. Test of Hypothesis Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.1. Students’ Activity Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3.2. Students’ Learning Outcome Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2. Discussion Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3. Research Limitation 36

5.1. Conclusion 37

5.2. Recommendation 37

CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

(9)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.4. Revised Blooms' Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain 17

Table 3.4. Test Reserch Design 21

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Table 2.1. Cone of Experience Diagram 7

Table 2.5. Critical Framework 19

Table 3.6. Research Procedure 28

Table 4.1.1. Chart of Students’ Activity 31

(11)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Syllabus 42

Appendix 2. Lesson Plan 46

Appednix 3. Observation Sheet 66

Appendix 4. Students’ Worksheet 69

Appendix 5. Assessment Rubric 67

Appendix 6. Cognitive Test 78

Appendix 7. Validity of Cognitive Test 86

Appendix 8. Students’ Activity Data 88

Appendix 9. Learning Outcome Data 91

Appendix 10. Analysis of Learning Outcome Data 94

Appendix 11. Analysis of Students’ Activity Data 96

Appendix 12. Research Documentation 97

(12)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Learning biology is required of learning experience from students. The result of learning is the ability of the student after receiving a learning experience (Sudjana, 2008). This experience is really needed by students to achieve the learning outcomes in accordance naturally with biology as a science. The success of the learning process conducted by the teacher can be seen from the student’s learning outcome. International survey of TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) in 2007 stated that Indonesia was ranked 35 out of 49 countries in the field of science with a score far below from international average of 500, with an average score obtained is 427 (Litbang Kemendikbud, 2011). The results of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) in 2009 also revealed that the ability of students' scientific literacy Indonesia was ranked 60 out of 65 countries with an average score obtained is 383.

The low of student’s learning outcomes are caused by several factors, they are: (1) Teaching and learning process are still teacher centered (Chotimah, 2007; Sulastri, 2009), (2) Model and method used by teacher are not varied and tend to use conventional method (Arahim, 2006; Ghazi, 2003; Oleyede, 2011) (3) Students tend to memorize than to understand the concept so makes them easily to forget the subject matters (Yusuf, 2006).

Wijyanti et al.(2013) also revealed student’s learning outcome in control class is still low. It is shown at the time of the third meeting that students have difficulties when they did the evaluation test. From calculation of the researchers, the results of study in control class has an average value is lower than the experimental class on aspects of cognitive (58.54), psychomotor (51.67), and affective (62.08).

(13)

are less enthusiastic in the learning process and student’s learning outcome is still low. The mean of student’s activity in control class which is taught with Direct Instruction model was 14.85% if it is compared with experimental class was 62.03%. Result of study also shown the different of student’s cognitive learning outcome in control class which is obtained from the post-test I was 84.15 is lower than experimental class was 88.03.

Based on observation in SMA N 3 Medan which done by researcher on 11th February 2015, particularly in X grade, one of problems on biology learning are teacher centered. Students were listening to the teacher talk continuously for a certain time during the learning process and made them less active and tend to become bored. They became unfocuse and their minds drifted everywhere while students without thinking can listen to an average of 400-500 words per minute (Silberman, 2009). The teacher guided students to begin presentation in class. Most students did not focus to pay attention and to understand the explanation that was given by their friend when presentations per group were being held. There was less of asking and less of giving opinion. Most of them did not write the point of presentation and teachers’ explanation. Class circumstance was not conducive and the process of transferring information by the method of group presentation was not optimal.

(14)

Type of students’ learning also affects their learning outcome and it also depends on teachers’ ability to generate students’ enthusiastic provides opportunity for students to learn on their own or do activities is effective to improve their activity when learning process in the class (Hamalik 2007). Paul B. Diedrich (Hamalik, 2007) stated that activity is the important thing which can make students actively engage on learning process such as visual activity, oral activity, listening activity, and mental activity. These activities need learning strategy that oriented to the learning approach of students. Learning approach and learning strategy determine the success rate of the learning process. Learning strategy refers to the behaviors and thought processes used by students that influence what is learned, including memory and metacognitive process (Arends, 2009). Besides, subject matters of biology need students' involvement actively because relate to real objects in daily environment (Wendraningrumet al., 2014).

SAVI is learning approach which is consisted of four components; Somatic is learning by moving and doing, Auditoryis learning by talking and hearing, Visualis learning by observing and picturing, and Intellectualis learning by problem solving and reflecting, so all this components must present and integrated to do optimization on learning process (Meier, 2000). SAVI approach is effectively implemented to students and can improve students’ activity and learning outcome in biology learning (Elina, 2009; Mustikasari, 2012) particularly in biodiversity topic (Wendraningrum, 2014). Lindawati (2009) stated that effect of SAVI approach on Mathematics learning also can improve students’ activity with percentage is 67.45%.

(15)

Arends (2009) revealed that cooperative learning strategies is excel to help students to understand the concepts and also to courage students in ability of collaboration, critical thinking and develop student’s social attitude. Armstrong (2007) research results indicated that cooperative learning can help students improve their knowledge on biological materials.Use of Jigsaw is more successful in mastering the concept compared to Direct Instruction model (Kilic, 2008). Jigsaw makes students are able to connect their existing knowledge with new knowledge gained and discuss with their friends in group through the process of cooperative learning. It is easier for students to master concepts that have built together (Kuswardhani, 2011).

Based on the background above, researcher needs to conduct research by using learning approach through cooperative learning modelto actively engage students during the learning process through cooperation in a team.

1.2. Problem identification

Problems were found relate to student’s mastery still low on ecosystem topic which has been caused by:

1. Most teachers use conventional approach on learning process

2. Students are difficult to understand and to memorize the biology concept 3. Student’s activity and learning outcome are still low

4. There is less variation of learning model

5. Learning model design has not involved students actively so that students to be less excited and bored.

1.3. Problem Scope

According to background and problem identification which have been described before, so this research is limited on:

1. The treatments of research used SAVI approach and Jigsaw cooperative learning model for experimental class and Direct Instruction model for control class

(16)

1.4. Research Question

Focus on the background, the problem questions are:

1. Is there significant effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s activity?

2. Is there significant effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s learning outcome?

1.5. Research Objectives

The aim of this research is to know:

1. The effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s activity

2. The effect of learning model (SAVI in Jigsaw) on student’s learning outcome.

1.6. Research Contribution

This result of research is expected to be useful both theoretically and practically:

Theoretically

1. This result of research can be used as study material of similar research on biology learning in senior high school

2. This result of research can be used as strengthening of theory on SAVI approach and Jigsaw cooperative learning model to improve student’s activity and learning outcome.

Practically

1. Teacher can modify this research to do innovation on biology learning in senior high school

2. Students obtain useful learning experience to enhance their activity and learning outcome on biology learning

(17)

Based on the result of research, it can be concluded as follows:

1. There is significant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative learning model on students’ activity in biodiversity topic for X Grade of SMA N 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016.

2. There issignificant effect of SAVI approach in Jigsaw cooperative learning model on students’ learning outcome in biodiversity topic for X Grade of SMA N 3 Medan, academic year 2015/2016.

5.2. Recommendation

Based on the result of conclusion, there are some recommendations for further research as follows:

1. SAVI approach could be used with other cooperative learning model to do innovation and to modify biology learning process in senior high school. 2. Preparing enough time to design biology learning process by using SAVI

approach that combines with other cooperative learning model.

3. Further research could use an observer for each of groups in class to observe students’ activity in order to get higher significant effect.

(18)

REFERENCES

Adlini, M. (2013). The Effect of SAVI Approach on Students’ Activity, Learning Outcome, and Retention in Human Regulatory System Topic for Grade XI

IPA SMA N 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/ 201. Thesis. Medan:

State University of Medan.

Allen, D. and K. Tanner. (2005). Infusing Active Learning into the Large-enrollment Biology Class: Seven Strategies, from the Simple to Complex.

Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262-268.

Arahim, Z. (2006).Peningkatan Minat Belajar Biologi Siswa SMP Melalui Model Pembelajaran TGT. Thesis. Surakarta: PPS Universitas Muhammadiyah. Arends, R. I. (2009).Learning to Teach (9th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill. Arikunto, S. (2006). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta:

Rhineka Cipta.

Armstrong, N., Chang, S., and Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes. CBE-Life Science Education, 6(2), 163-171.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978).The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.

Ausubel, D. P. (1986). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston

Chotimah, H. (2007). Peningkatan Proses dan Hasil Belajar Biologi dalam Pendekatan Kontekstual Melalui Model Pembelajaran Think-Pair-Share pada Peserta Didik Kelas X-6 SMA Laboratorium Universitas Negeri Malang.Journal Penelitian Kependidikan,17(1), 1-14.

Caskey, M. M. and Vincent A. A. Jr. (2007). Research Summary: Young Adolescents’ Developmental Characteristics. Portland State University: PDXScholar.

Coletta,V. P., J. A. Phillips., and J. J. Steinert. (2007). Why You Should Measure Your Students’ Reasoning Ability.The Physics Teacher,45(4), 235-238. DePorter, B. and Hernacki. (2002). Quantum Learning: Membiasakan Belajar

(19)

Dimyati and Mudjiono. (2002).Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Elina, T. (2009). Efektivitas Media Comic Strip pada Pembelajaran Materi

Pewarisan Sifat di SMPN 2 Taman Kabupaten Pemalang dengan Pendekatan SAVI. Skripsi. Semarang: Universitas Negeri Semarang. Ghazi, G. (2003). Effects of The Learning Together Model of Cooperative

Learning on English as Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic, Self-esteem, Feelings of School Alienation.Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 451-469.

Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Learning Styles and Their Impacts on English Language Teaching. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 104-103.

Gunawan, A. W. (2004). Genius Learning Strategy. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Hamalik, O. (2007).Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Hobri. (2009). Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Jember: Center for Society Studies (CSS) Jember

Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (2003).Model of Teaching. New Delhi: Prentice Hall Inc. Katherine, H. (2005). Getting The Picture: Using Visual Learning Techniques to

Foster Higher Order Thinking Skills and Encourage Connection in The Secondary Classroom.Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 21(2), 41-47. Khanifah, S., K. K. Pukan and S. Sukaesih. (2012). Pemanfaatan Lingkungan

Sekolah sebagai Sumber Belajar untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa. Unnes Journal of Biology Education, 1(1), 83-89.

Kilic, D. (2008). The Effect of The Jigsaw Technique on Learning The Concept of The Principles and Methods of Teaching. World Applied Science Journal,4(1), 109-114.

Kuswardhani, A. L. (2011).Pembelajaran Biologi Model Jigsaw II dan Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar dan Kreativitas Siswa. Surakarta: Universitas Sebelas Maret.

(20)

Maynard, T. and J. Waters. (2007). Learning in the outdoor Environment: a Missed Opportunity? Early Years: An International Research Journal, 27 (3), 255-265.

Meier, D. (2000).The Accelerated Learning Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill. Milawati, T. (2011). Peningkatan Kemampuan Anak Memahami Drama dan

Menulis Teks Drama Melalui Model Pembelajaran Somatis, Auditori, Visual, Intelektual (SAVI).Journal Penelitian Pendidikan, 14(2), 70-78.

Mustikasari, I., N. R. Utami, and Supriyanto. (2012). Efektivitas Pemanfaatan Macromedia Flash dengan Pendekatan SAVI Materi Sistem Gerak di SMA N 1 Kajen.Unnes Journal of Biology Education, 1(2), 1-7.

Oleyede, O. I. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Effects of the Advance Organizers on Acknowledgement and Retention of Senior Secondary School (SSS). Int. J. Edu. Sci, 3(2), 129-135.

Ozcan, T., Ozgur, S., Kat, A., and Elgun, S. (2013). Identifiying and Comparing the Degree of Difficulties Biology Subjects By Adjusting It is Reasons in Elementary and Secondary Education.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,116(2014), 113-122.

Pratiwi, D., Suratno and Pujiastuti. (2014). Pengembangan Bahan Ajar Biologi Berbasis Pendekatan SAVI (Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual) pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Pernapasan Kelas XI SMA dalam Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar Siswa.Jurnal Edukasi Unej, 1(2), 5-9.

Silberman, M. L. (2009). Active Learning: 101 Strategi Pembelajaran Aktif. Yogyakarta: Insan Media

Slavin, R. E., (2008).Cooperative Learning. Bandung: Nusa Media. Sudjana, N. (2005).Metoda Statistika. Bandung: PT Tarsito.

Sudjana, N. (2008).Penialaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosadakarya.

Sugiyo, W. L. and Z. Abidin. (2008). Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa dengan Model Pembelajaran Team Game Tournament Melalui Pendekatan Jelajah Alam Sekitar dan Penilaian Portofolio.Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Kimia, 2 (1), 236-243.

(21)

Survei International TIMSS. (2011, August 15). Retrieved from http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/timss

Sutrisno., Mardiyana., & Usodo, B. (2013). Eksperimentasi Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe STAD dan TPS Dengan Pendekatan SAVI Terhadap Prestasi dan Motivasi Belajar Ditinjau Dari Gaya Belajar Siswa. Jurnal Elekronik Pembelajaran Matematika, 1(7), 661- 672.

Tarigan, D. (1986). Teknik Pengajaran Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

Wijayanti, T. F., Prayitno, B. A., & Marjono. (2013). Pengaruh Pendekatan SAVI Melalui Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe STAD Terhadap Hasil Belajar Pada Siswa Kelas VII SMP Negeri 14 Surakarta. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi,5(1), 1-14.

Wendraningrum, D., N. Kariada and A. Marianti. (2014). Penerapan Pendekatan SAVI (Somatis, Auditori, Visual, dan Intelektual) pada Materi Keanekaragaman Hayati di SMA. Unnes Journal of Biology Education, 3(1), 44-52.

Winkel, W. S. (2009).Psikologi Pengajaran. Jakarta: Gramedia.

EFFECT OF SAVI APPROACH IN JIGSAW COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS’ ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME IN BIODIVERSITY TOPIC IN X GRADE OF SMA NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2015/2016.