HE DEFFERENCE OF SUDENS MAHEMAECS LEARNENG OUCOMES BY USENG ARCS LEARNENG MODEL AND AE
LEARNENG MODEL A SMP NEGERE 3 MEDAN
By: Yerni Silalahi ED 4113312016
Mathematics Education Study Program
HESES
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MAHEMAECS DEPARMEN
FACULY OF MAHEMAECS AND NAURAL SCEENCES SAE UNEVERSEY OF MEDAN
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to The Almighty God, my Lord Jesus Christ, for His blessing and for the entire things that She has done to the writer life especially in completing this thesis well. This thesis that titled “The Difference of Students’ Mathematics Learning Outcomes by using ARCS Learning Model and TAI Learning Model at SMP Negeri 3 Medan” is aimed to fullfil one of the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at Mathematics Departement, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan.
The writer comes upon many difficulties during the writing of this study, due to her limited knowledge and experiences. However, many people have contributed and helped her directly during completing of this thesis. For this chance the writer would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to: Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd as her thesis supervisor, for her valuable guidance, advices, corrections, comment, suggestion, and her precious time that she spent on supervising the draft of writing this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si, Dr. Asrin Lubis, M.Pd and Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, M.S as her tester lectures, for their advices, corrections, comments and suggestion for this thesis, and Dr. Waminton Rajagukguk, M.Pd as her academic supervisor, Prof.Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as her coordinator of bilingual program, Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as her rector in State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc.,Ph.D as the dean of faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan, Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si as the head of Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of the Mathematics Department, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si, P.hd as the head of Mathematics Education study program and all lecturer and employes of Mathematics Department who have taught, advised, and guided his throughout his academic years at the university.
v
Negeri 3 Medan, Rumondang Simanungkalit, S.Pd, Sir Limbong, S.Pd as the mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 3 Medan, and Repia Samosir, S.Pd as the mathematics teacher of SMP Negeri 28 Medan for their support, suggestion, and administrative assistance to the writer during this research.
Extraordinary the writer special thanks to beloved father Welminter Silalahi and beloved mother Poloria Sidabutar, S.Pd for their pray, advice, high motivate, endless love and financial support that have enable him to finish her thesis. Her beloved sisters Ria Melisa Silalahi, S.E, and Feronika Silalahi for her support, motivation and pray. Thank you so much to big family of Silalahi and Sidabutar, who always gave supports and prays.
Special thanks to big family in Bilingual Mathematics Class 2011: Natalita, Dewi, Aprita, Samantha, Vera, Kristiani, Lestari, Rony, Anna, Widi, Yohannes, Debby, Nelly, Sapta, Dwi, Leni, Mawaddah, Rizky, Asifa, Tika, Evan, Fahrozy, Elvi and Galang and PPLT Sidikalang’s members: Saut, Arta, Septe, Natalita, Dewi, Mia, Theresia, Angela, Juwita, Vera and Rusdi for for their support, kindness, pray and their contributing during the process of completing his thesis.
The author already gave the big effort to write this thesis, and about the weakness of thesis the author need some suggestions to make it better. For the last, the author hopes the contents of this paper would be useful in enriching the knowledge
Medan, July 2015 Author,
THEDIFFERENCEOFSTUDENTS’MATHEMATICSLEARNING OUTCOMESBCUSINGARCSLEARNINGMODELAND
TAILEARNINGMODELATSMPNEGERI3MEDAN
CerniSilalahi(IDN4113312016) ABSTRACT
he aim of this research is to knoo ohether there is no or the difference of students’ mathematics learning outcomes taught by ARCS learning model and taught by AI learning model. he research method is quasi experiment. he population is all students SMP Negeri 3 Medan. he sample of this research conduct too classes and consist of 26 students, VIIN as experimental class I taught by ARCS learning model and VIIO as experimental class II taught by AI learning model.
he taking sample by cluster random sampling. his research using posttest only. From the result of conditional test of data, all of data from posttest are normal distribution and homogeneous. here are ten problem for posttest. All the problem are valid.
vii
3.5 Procedure of Research 32
3.5.1 Preparation Phase 32
3.5.2 Implementation Phase 33
3.5.3 Last Phase 33
3.6 Instruments of Research 35
3.6.1 Learning Outcomes Objective Test 35
3.6.2 Instrumental Trial 37
3.6.3 Test of Validity 37
3.6.4 Test of Reliability 38
3.7 Techniques of Analyzing Data 39
3.7.1 Calculating Mean Score 39
3.7.2 Calculating Standard Deviation 40
3.7.3 Normality Test 40
3.7.4 Homogeneity Test 42
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test 42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 44
4.1 The Description of Research Result 44
4.1.1 The Score Mathematics Learning Outcomes Test 44
4.2 The Analysis Data of Research Result 46
4.2.1 Normality Test 46
4.2.2 Homogeneity Test 47
4.2.3 Hyphotesis Test 48
4.3 Research Discussion 49
4.4 Weakness of Research 52
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 53
5.1 Conclusion 53
5.2 Suggestion 53
BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
iii
IST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure3.1 TheProceduralResearch 34
Figure3.2 GraphicofCumulativeProbability 41
Figure4.1 HistogramofMathematicsLearningOutcomes 45
IST OF APPENOIX
Page Appendex1 LessonPlan1(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS) 56 Appendex2 LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeARCS) 60 Appendex3 LessonPlanI(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI) 66 Appendex4 LessonPlanII(CooperateveLearnengtypeTAI) 70 Appendex5 Student’sActevetySheetI 76 Appendex6 Student’sActevetySheetII 78 Appendex7 Student’sActevetySheetIII 80 Appendex8 AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-1 82 Appendex9 AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-2 84 Appendex10 AlternateveSoluteonofSAS-3 86 Appendex11 Posttest–Blueprent 87
Appendex12 Posttest 88
CHAPTERI
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Many countries recognize educational problems as complicated problems, but they all ieel that education is a very important task oi the country. Budiningsih (2005: ) states that "Bangsa yang ingin maju, membangun, dan mencoba untuk meningkatkansituasi masyarakat dan dunia akan mengatakan bahwa pendidikan adalahkunci, dan tanpa kunci itu, usaha mereka akan gagal”.
Education is the basic ioundation oi human personality and the ability to develop in accordance with the values prevailing in society. Education is also a liietime requirement. The quality oi education determines the progress oi a nation. Thus, education can be used as a benchmark oi quality development oi a nation.
According Trianto (200: ) said that Education is one oi the maniiestations oi human culture a dynamic and iull growth. Thereiore, change or development oi education is indeed supposed to happen consistent with changes in the culture oi liie and be constantly in anticipation oi iuture interests.
Meaningiul learning takes students on a memorable learning experience. The experience the students gained will be more impressive ii the their learning process is the result oi understanding and discovery by themselves. In this context, the students do and experience things by themselves. The learning process that takes place involves the students to iormulate entirely their own concept. The involvement oi teachers is only as iacilitators and motivators in the learning process.
Trianto (200: 7) said that "Belajar merupakan aspek yang kompleks aktivitas manusia, yang tidak sepenuhnya dijelaskan". Simple learning can be deiined as the product oi an ongoing interaction between development and liie experiences. Learning the meaning oi the complex is the conscious eiiort oi a teacher to teach students (direct interaction oi students with other learning resources) in the series achieve the expected goals.
2
incisive language, and in this level oi the abstract oi mathematic is on high level. Mathematics is also one oi the areas oi study that occupies an important role in education, a sit occupies more school hours than other subjects.
According to Ibrahim (in Novitasari: 202: 20) said Mathematics is a universal science that underlies growth modern technology, have an important role in a variety oi disciplines and advance the human intellect. Learning math has some speciiic goals that must be achieved, one oi them is to develop problem-solving abilities.
Mathematics is one oi the most important subjects that provide several vital skills to the learners. Some oi the skills that people get irom math include: the ability to identiiy and analyze patterns, logic and critical thinking skills, ability to see relationships and problem solving skills. Mathematics has a structure and a strong and clear linkage between concepts as to enable a student has skill to think rationally (Depdiknas, 2007). Cornellius (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that:
"Lima alasan untuk belajar matematika karena () matematika adalah cara pemikiran yang jernih dan logis, (2) matematika adalah sarana untuk memecahkan masalah kehidupan sehari-hari, (3) matematika adalah sarana untuk mengetahui pola hubungan dan generalisasi pengalaman, (4) matematika adalah sarana untuk mengembangkan kreativitas, dan (5) matematika adalah sarana untuk meningkatkan kesadaran pembangunan budaya".
Furthermore, Cockroit (in Abdurrahman, 2008: 253) states that mathematics should be taught to students because it is always used in everyday liie, all subjects require the appropriate mathematics, mathematics is a means oi communication that is strong and clear, can be used to present iniormation in a variety oi ways, can improve the ability to think logically, and can give satisiaction to attempt to solve a challenging problems.
3
oi course poses a considerable gap between what is expected oi learning mathematics with the iact that occurs in the iield.
Dimyati (2002: 3) stated that learning outcomes are things that can be viewed irom two sides, the side oi the students and teachers. From the side oi the students, learning outcomes is the better level oi mental development than it was beiore the study. While, Hamalik (200:55) states that a person has learned ii there is a change in the person's behavior, ior example, irom not knowing to knowing, and oi not understanding to understood.
The low oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes is a problem that must be iaced today. Many iactors can lead to low mathematics student learning outcomes, these iactors may be the arrival oi the student (internal iactors) and also irom outside the student (external iactors).
Meanwhile, (Dimyati, 2002: 236-253) stated that internal iactors may include: attitudes toward learning, learning motivation, learning concentration, process oi teaching materials, save recovery teaching materials, explore the learning outcomes, coniidence, learning interest, talent, intelligence, learning styles and iuture goals. While external iactors may include: teacher as mentor students learn, inirastructure and learning, assessment policy, social environment oi students in school and school curriculum.
The low oi mathematics learning outcomes and a lack oi knowledge and ability oi the students in understanding mathematics also occur at SMP Negeri 3 Medan. Meanwhile, a math teacher, Mr. Limbong (in an interview January 2, 205, at SMP Negeri 3 Medan), stated that:
4
Based on the observation oi the mathematics learning activities in SMP Negeri 3 Medan, discovered the iollowing matters. Learning activity is still dominated by the teacher, student learning activities are still low, very iew students were asked during the learning process, students have not dared to express their opinions in discussions and skills to solve problems not yet entrenched. Most students in learning just memorize concepts and less able to use these concepts ii you see a problem in real liie associated with the concept owned.
Furthermore students even less able to determine the problem and iormulate it so oiten questions given by the teacher oi students with less can be solved well. This is indicated by the average value oi daily tests oi class VII quadrilateral material has not reached the minimum passing grade (KKM). From these data indicates that the learning outcomes oi students oi SMP Negeri 3 Medan more visible especially oi abstract materials that require visualization, namely the aspect geometry.
The material is a material quadrilateral geometry junior class VII. For example, in square and rectangular material. In these materials, the students tend to memorize the concepts and iormulas. These results are still less than the standard mastery learning, which generally reaches 85%. Based on the above realities, the role oi the teacher is indispensable in successiul learning.
A signiiicant problem in learning process is the low student learning activities, that it is very iniluential on the outcome. The learning model applied by teachers oiten is the conventional model or with the lecture method. This model makes the teacher dominates the teaching and learning activities in the classroom, and students become passive. From these statements, it can be concluded that the teaching model applied ior mathematics in SMP Negeri 3 Medan causes the students to have low learning outcomes.
5
Oi this study, researchers iocused on the material Perimeter and Area oi Rectangle and Square, where students are required to understand the iormula in order to solve the problems properly. In order ior the concept oi the Perimeter and Area oi Rectangle and Square iirmly entrenched in the minds oi learners, they should know where the iormula originated. For the students to think and iind out ior yourseli with media support. The thought process here is very important because the process oi thinking is the process by which knowledge is acquired as a result oi transier irom another person, but rather acquired through interaction them with objects, phenomena, experiences, and the existing environment.
Paying attention to the problem above, it is proper and necessary in the teaching oi mathematics ior an innovation in the learning process so that students are more interested in the learning activities. There are many models applied in cooperative learning to make the students' learning activities more active. Two oi the cooperative learning models that can be used are Attention, Relevance, Coniidence, Satisiaction which is abbreviated as ARCS and Team Assisted Individualization abbreviated as TAI. These models were able to achieve success in school learning and can be used as one oi the alternative solutions in order to improve the activity and outcomes oi student learning.
Kagan (2009: 4) said that Cooperative learning is not only a poweriul set oi instructional strategies, it is a poweriul approach to assessment. Using cooperative learning enables us to easily periorm on going, authentic assessment that accurately captures students’ level oi understanding across many dimensions. During our cooperative lessons, projects, and challenges,we can observe our students interact. We can plainly see what they can do and what they can’t. We can measure how well they can use their knowledge and creativity to create projects and solutions, rather than merely select the correct answer ona test or complete a worksheet. Cooperative learning promotes verbalization oi the content; it enables us to listen in and hear notonly what our smartest students know, but what all our students know.
6
with the relationship between learning materials with matters relating to the lives and needs oi students, coniidence is a beliei that can increase the activity and hope to succeed, and satisiaction will appear when students reach their learning success. By applying the learning model ARCS will iacilitate and assist students in learning mathematics can understand better and improve students' coniidence in dealing with problems in learning.
Team Assested Individualization (TAI) was designed to allow each student to progress at his or her own rate, workingon the skills he or she needs the most. At the same time, each student is part oi a team, caring about and encouraging the progress oi team mates. TAI was designed by Slavin, Leavey, and Madden 25 to create a happy marriage between cooperative and individualized learning. As students progress at their own pace through careiully designed individualized learning modules, they earn points ior their teams. Unlike typical individualized programs, in TAI students do the routine checking and management. TAI uses heterogeneous teams and team recognition, much like in STAD. There is some peer tutoring in TAI (team members turn to their team mates ior help), but because the individual learning modules are designed to be seli-explanatory and because team members are usually working at quite diiierent levels, cooperative interaction is minimal. There are some learning modules that students receiveas a group, but the groups are oi students with similar academic ability.
Ii you look at the implementation oi learning in the classroom, using a variety oi learning is still very low and teachers tend to use the lecture method and reduce the interest oi students in each learning activity undertaken. This may be due to lack oi mastery oi learning models is in need to improve teachers' proiessional ability and absorption oi learning materials by students. Meanwhile, student centered learning requires a process oi learning and creative learning, innovative, and curriculum that supports learning, to develop independent learners capable oi critical thinking skills to empower learners.
7
Satisiaction (ARCS) and learning model Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) that can help students learn to get results as expected.
Based on the above explanation, the researcher is interested in conducting the research to reveal whether the learning model Aenion, Relevance, Confidence, Saisfacion (ARCS) and Team Assesed Individualizaion (TAI) can improve students' mathematics learning outcomes as one oi academic human contribution in improving the quality oi education in Indonesia. Thereiore, this research title is "The Difference of Students’ Mathematics Learning OutcomesbyusingARCSLearningModelandTAILearningModelatSMP Negeri3Medan".
1.2. IdentificationofProblem
Based on the above, several problems have been identiiied, namely: . Mathematics is oiten perception as diiiicult subjects and less
preierred the students.
2. Lack oi student interest in learning mathematics 3. The low student learning outcomes
4. Lack oi active participation oi students in learning mathematics 5. The monotone oi learning activity
1.3. ProblemLimitation
From the above, so that author is iocused in the diiierence oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes between taught by Attention, Relevance, Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) in Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 204/205.
8
Based on problem limitation above, so that the problem iormulation in this research is: “Is there any diiierences in students’ learning outcomes by using ARCS and TAI in Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 204/205””.
1.5. ResearchPurposes
The purposes oi this research is to know whether there are diiierences oi students’ learning outcomes ability using ARCS with TAI in Rectangle and Square at class VII SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 204/205.
1.6. BenefitsofResearch
The Beneiits oi this research is: . For the Teacher
As an input iniormation ior teachers oi SMP Negeri 3 Medan in order to implement the Attention, Relevance, Coniidence, Satisiaction (ARCS) and can be used as comparisons ior teachers in an eiiort to improve student’s learning outcomes.
2. For student
It is to increase learning activity, achievement, and students’ learning outcomes. This research will be useiul because they indirectly helped in being taught mathematical concepts that provide opportunities ior students to improve their learning outcomes to be optimal.
3. For Researcher
As an experience and knowledge in doing research and seli training in application oi speciiic knowledge about mathematics concept and as iniormation matter in order to handle matter to researcher in carrying out teaching task as a teacher candidate in the iuture.
9
Operational deiinition is necessary to avoid errors in interpreting and interpret in the context oi this study variables. Operations oi each variable is described as iollows:
. Learning outcomes are deiined in terms oi the knowledge, skills, and abilities that students have attained as a result oi their involvement in a particular set oi educational experiences.
2. The indicator oi students’ mathematics learning outcomes which will be measured are :
a.
Absorption oi the material that has been taught the lessons oi high achievement, either individually or in groups.b.
The behavior outlined in the special purpose oi teaching or instructional student has achieved both individually and in groups.3. The syntaxes oi ARCS like the iollowing a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the class and the student pay close attention.
b. Introduce the objectives and beneiits oi learning (R)
Teacher describes objectives and beneiits oi learning that will be presented.
c. Using concrete examples (A and R)
Intended use concrete examples oi this is to ioster or keep the attention students (attention) and provide compatibility between learning presented by the experience oi learners or everyday liie students (relevance).
d. Give guidance oi learning (R)
Teacher motivating and directs students to make it easier to understand the learning material presented.
0
Teacher provides the opportunity ior students to ask questions, respond, or do the questions about the learning material presented.
i. Give ieedback (S)
Teacher gives a ieedback which can certainly stimulate the thinking patterns students.
g. Conclude any material that has been presented at the end oi the lesson (S)
Students to make inierences about the new material they learn to use their own language.
4. The syntaxes oi TAI like the iollowing a. Presentation Teacher
The teacher explains the outline oi the material in iront oi the class and the student pay close attention.
b. Group
Student are distributed in small groups are heterogenous ior the disccusion.
c. Quiz
Student doing the individual test. d. Individual Scores
Student donated points on his team based on how much their quiz scores exceeded their baseline score.
e. Team Award
3
HAPTER V
ONLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 onclusion
Based on the result and discussion in the previous chapter, can be concluded that students mathematics learning outcomes bh using Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) learning model and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) learning model in experimental class I is better than students mathematics learning outcomes bh using TAI learning model in experimental class II on topic Quadrilateral at SMP Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2014/201.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the research result and conclusion above, there’re some suggestions offered, theh are:
1. For teacher
Teacher can use ARCS learning model as a alternative teaching to increase the students mathematics learning outcomes.
2. For students, to be more active in learning process. 3. For other researcher
4
ILIOGRAPHY
Abdurrahman, M., (2008), endidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Amaliyah, N., (2011), engaruh enggunaan Metode Kooperatif Model Team Assisted Individualy (TAI) Terhadap Motivasi Belajar Mata elajaran endidikan Agama Islam Siswa Kelas X Smk Negeri 2 Surabaya, UIN Sunan Ampel, Surabaya.
Anonymous, (2012), Uji Normalitas dengan Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(http://research-indonesia.blogspot.com/2012/07/uji-nromalitas-dengan-spss.html), accessed on 17th, May of 201 at 14.46 p.m.
Arends, R, and Kilcher, A., (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge, New York.
Arifin, Z., (2009), Evaluasi embelajaran: rinsip, Teknik, rosedur, PT Remaja Rosdakarya Offset, Bandung.
Arikunto, S., (2012), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi endidikan (Edisi Revisi), Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Asmin, and Mansyur, A., (2012), engukuran dan enilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik dan Modern,LARISPA, Medan.
Best and Kahn., (2007), Research in Education, Prentice Hall, Amerika Serikat. Bloom, B., (196), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals, David McKay Company, USA.
Budiningsih, A., (200), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Candiasa, M., (200), Analisis Data dengan SSS, IKIP Negeri Singaraja, Singaraja.
Depdiknas, (2007), Kamus besar Bahasa Indonesia, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta Dimyati, (2002), Belajar dan embelajaran, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Dinc, P., (2010), Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on kindergarten childrenys mathematics ability, Journal of Educational Research.
FMIPA UNIMED., (2012), edoman enulisan roposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa rogram Studi Kependididkan, FMIPA, Medan.
__________., (2008), erencanaan engajaran berdasarkan endekatan Sistem, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Handayani, R., (2012), enerapan model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe TAI untuk peningkatan Hasil Belajar Matematika siswa kelas VIII E SM Negeri 1 Kec. Siman onorogo Tahun elajaran 2011/2012, Skripsi, Universitas Muhamadiyah Ponorogo, Ponorogo.
Hanifah, S., (2013), engukuran Gejala usat, Statiska Pendidikan, Jakarta. Kagan, S., (2009), Kagan Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing, San
Clemente, CA.
Komang, B., (2014), engaruh enerapan Model embelajaran Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction (ARCS) dan Motivasi Berprestasi Terhadap Hasil Belajar IS pada siswa kelas V Sekolah Dasar Negeri di Gugus XIII Kecamatan Buleleng, Jurnal, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, Bali.
Noor, J., (2011), Metode enelitian Skripsi, Tesis, Disertasi, dan Karya Ilmiah, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Novitasari, I., (2012), Efektivitas Metode embelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Team Assisted Indiviualization (TAI) dengan Teknik ermainan terhadap emahaman Konsep dan Keaktifan Siswa SM, Skripsi, Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi, Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta. Nurhanika, (2010), enerapan Model pembelajaran Attetntion Relevance
Confidence Satisfaction (ARCS) pada materi Termokimia di kelas XI MIA SMA Kartika XIV-1 Banda Aceh, Skripsi, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam.
Panjaitan, B., (2006), Karakteristik ebelajar dan Kontribusinya Terhadap Hasil Belajar, Poda, Medan.
Slavin, (199), Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Boston. Sudjana, N., (200), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model embelajaran Inovatif-rogresif, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Welpa, H., (2012), The Differences of Student’s Mathematics Learning Outcomes Using Think Talk Write (TTW) Learning and Conventional Learning at First Grade SMAN 1 Tebing Tinggi, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan. Widyantini, (2006), Model embelajaran Matematika dengan endekatan
