COMPARISON OF STUDENTS MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY IMPLEMENTING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) AND NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) ON TRIGONOMETRY FOR X GRADE STUDENTS IN SMA NEGERI 1 BATANG NATAL IN THE YEAR OF 2012/2013.

(1)

COMPARISON OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY IMPLEMENTING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) AND NUMBERED

HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) ON TRIGONOMETRY FOR X GRADE STUDENTS IN SMA NEGERI 1 BATANG

NATAL IN THE YEAR OF 2012/2013

By:

Nurhabibah Nasution Reg. Number 409312021

Bilingual Mathematics Education Program

THESIS

Submitted to Fulfill Requirement for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

iii

COMPARISON OF STUDENT’S MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY IMPLEMENTING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) AND NUMBERED

HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) ON TRIGONOMETRY FOR X GRADE STUDENTS IN SMA NEGERI 1 BATANG

NATAL IN THE YEAR OF 2012/2013 Nurhabibah Nasution

Reg. Number 409312021 ABSTACT

Objective of this study is to know whether student’s mathematics achievement who taught with TPS higher than student’s mathematics achievement who taught with NHT on trigonometry.

The type of research which is used in this study is Quasi Experiment Research with Posttest Only Design with two experiment classes. Population of this study is all of students in X grade of SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal. Sample of this study is taken randomly of two classes. They are experiment class I (X2) taught with TPS model and experiment class II (X3) taught with NHT model. Hypothesis test method that is used is independent sample t-test.

(4)

iv

PREFACE

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the universe for His blessings and mercy

so that the thesis with the title ”Comparison of Student’s Mathematics

Achievement by Implementing Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Heads

Together (NHT) on Trigonometry for X Grade Students in SMA Negeri 1 Batang

Natal in the Year of 2012/2013” can be finished.

Making this thesis can not be separated from the support of various

parties. Writer thanks to Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd as thesis advisor who has made

his time for giving brief and guidance from beginning until the end of writing

process of this thesis. Thank also to Dr. E. Elvis Napitupulu, MS, Drs. Syafari,

M.Pd, and Drs. Yasifati Hia as thesis assesor who has given advices and

suggestions from beginning of research planning until the compiling of this thesis

finished. Writer thankk also to Drs. H. Banjarnahor, M.Pd as academic advisor

who has given guidance and suggestion along the study in State University of

Medan.

Writer thanks to Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as head of State University

of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D as dean of mathematics and natural

sciences faculty, Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as head of mathematics department, Drs.

Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of mathematics department, Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si

as head of mathematics education program, Dr.rer.nat. B. Manurung, M.Si as

coordinator of bilingual program and for all lecturers and staffs of mathematics

department who has helped and facilitated during compiling process of this thesis.

Thanks also to Drs. Darwin Nasution as principle of MAN Kase

Rao-Rao who has given permission to do research instrument, Drs. Zainal Arifin, S.Pd

as principle of SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal who has given permission to do

research, Asmara Dewi, S.Pd as mathematics teacher and all teachers and students

in X grade of SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal who has helped writer in conducting

the research.

Special thanks to my dear loving father Ahmad Nasution, my dearest

(5)

v

Alamsyah Nasution, SE, Jufri Affandi Nasution, SH, M. Kholis Nasution, S.Pd,

Zuhairy, ST, Ismail Pahmi Rangkuti, S.Pd, and Zaki Irwan Rifai, S.Pd, my

beloved sister Nelly Asmidar, S.Keb, Nurdiana Nasution, S.Pd, Ilma Rosanna

Nasution, S.Pd, Asmidah Lubis, S.Pd, Ratna Wati Dalimunthe, Gema Sari Lubis,

Am.K., who have given a lot of love, pray, motivation, and spirit who help writer

to finish the study.

Thank also to all of my friends in Bilingual Mathematics Education

2009, Dini, Enny, Evy, Faradilla, Iin, Iwan, Noya, Qori, Retni, Rini, Rizki, Siti,

and Widia. Special thanks also to my beloved friends Joy Juli Great Simanjuntak,

S.Pd, Siska Nopa Tambunan, S.Pd, and Epril Parhusip, S.Pd who has helped and

given big motivation, spirit in every activity that done by writer.

Writer realized that there are still weaknesses in contents and grammar

of this thesis, so writer receives critics and advices from the reader that can make

this thesis be better. Hopefully, this thesis can be useful for education world.

Medan, September 05, 2013 Writer,

(6)

vi

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 Type of Research 28

(7)

vii

3.3 Place and Time of Research 28

3.4 Population and Sample of Research 28

3.5 Variables of Research 29

3.5.1 Independent Variables 29

3.5.2 Dependent Variable 30

3.6 Procedures of Research 30

3.7 Collecting Data Instrument 32

3.7.1. Analysis of Test Quality 32

3.7.1.1. Validity Test 33

3.7.1.2. Reliability Test 33

3.7.2. Analysis of Test Items Quality 34

3.7.2.1. Difficulty Index Test 35

3.7.2.2. Discrimination Index Test 35

3.8. Data Analysis Techniques 36

3.8.1. Calculating Mean Score 36

3.8.2. Calculating Variance 36

3.8.3. Calculating Standard Deviation 36

3.8.4. Normality Test 36

3.8.5. Homogeneity Test 37

3.8.6. Hypothesis Test 38

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 39

4.1. Result of Research 39

4.1.1. Description of Posttest Result 39

4.1.2. Test of Data Analysis 40

4.1.2.1. Normality Test 40

4.1.2.2. Homogeneity Test 40

4.1.3. Hypothesis Test 41

4.2. Discussion 42

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 44

5.1. Conclusion 44

5.2. Suggestion 44

(8)

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1. Variables Impacting Student Academic Achievement 9

Figure 2.2. Right Triangle 15

Figure 2.3. Right Triangles 17

Figure 2.4. Quadrants 18

(9)

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1. Differences Between TPS and NHT 14

Table 2.2. Value of Trigonometry Ratios 17

Table 2.3. Signs of Trigonometry Ratios 19

Table 2.4. Implementing TPS in Learning Math 21

Table 2.5. Implementing NHT in Learning Math 23

Table 3.1. Research Design 28

Table 3.2. Schedule of Research Activity 29

Table 3.3. Blue Print of Posttest items 32

Table 3.4. Criteria of Difficulty Index 35

Table 4.1. Posttest Scores of Two Experiment Classes 39

Table 4.2. Result of Normality Test 40

Table 4.3. Result of Homogeneity Test 40

(10)

x

LIST OF APPENDIX

Page

Appendix 1. Lesson Plan 01 (TPS Class) 48

Appendix 4. Lesson Plan 01 (NHT Class) 66

Appendix 7. Student Activity Sheet (SAS-01) 85

Appendix 8. Problem Solving of SAS-01 90

Appendix 13. Blue Print of Posttest 112

Appendix 14. Posttest Items 113

Appendix 15. Key of Posttest Items 116

Appendix 16. Validity Test of Items 117

Appendix 17. Reliability Test of Items 120

Appendix 18. Test of Difficulty Index 122

Appendix 19. Test of Discrimination Index 124

Appendix 20. Mean, Variance, and Standard Deviation of Posttest Data 126

Appendix 21. Test of Normality 128

Appendix 22. Test of Homogeneity 132

Appendix 23. Test of Hypothesis 134

Appendix 24. Table of Critical Value for Pearson r 136

Appendix 25. Table of Critical Values for Liliefors Test 137

Appendix 26. Table of Normal Distribution 138

Appendix 27. Table of the F Distribution 140

Appendix 28. Table of the t Distribution 141

(11)

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1.Rationale

Mathematics is a subject that is very important at every level of

education, from primary to higher education. This is because mathematics can

train students to think logically, be responsible, have a good personality and have

skill in solving problems in real life. There are many reasons for students to learn

and master mathematics. As Cockroft (1982) (in Abdurrahman, 2009: 253) given

the reasons that mathematics always used in terms of education since all fields of

study require appropriate mathematical skills, it is a powerful means of

communication, it can be used to present information in a variety of ways, it can

improve the ability of logical thinking, accuracy, and spatial awareness, and to

give satisfaction to the efforts to solve challenging issues.

However, many students who still think that mathematics is a subject

which is frightening, because it is one of the main causes of failure of students in

the National Examination. Based on interview with one of mathematics teacher in

SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal, Mrs. Dewi, conclude that student’s mathematics

achievement generally is still low. From the results of semester examination, there

are only about 70%-78% of students who achieve a minimum standard of mastery

learning. It means that there is still 22%-30% of students who have not been

thoroughly studied. If it is reviewed from their daily scores when conducting

learning process, not all of the subject matters have the low percentage of mastery

learning. But one of the subjects is trigonometry. Student’s math test score on

trigonometry is low. It is caused of there are many formulas that must be

memorized and used in trigonometry and students can not apply the formulas to

solve a problem, and they are also have difficulty to derive a formula to obtain a

new formula that can be used for certain problems.

Students' attitudes toward math and mathematics learning is closely

related to students’ achievement in mathematics. Suydam & Weaver (1975) (in

(12)

2

interested in what they learn and they achieve well if they loved math. To be

positive attitudes toward mathematics, concern should be directed towards the

continuous creation, development, maintenance, and encouragement.

This is certainly part of the math teachers’ roles to improve students’

attitudes and achievement. Mathematics teacher needs to guide learners to engage

in higher levels of cognition when using meaningful materials and relevant

strategies for learners (Rao, 2005: 121). In order for students to be positive in

math, the attractive strategies is needed to motivate them in learn, give a sense of

security to learn, and fun for them. In addition, teachers should also be able to

choose more effective strategies in implementing the learning. But, learning

model which is used by teachers sometimes is not relevant with the subject or

topic that is learned.

Killen (1998) (in Sanjaya, 2006: 131) suggested that: “No teaching

strategy is better than others in all circumstances, so you have to be able to use a

variety of teaching strategies, and make rational decisions about when each of the

teaching strategies is likely to most effective”.

Learning strategies that is used by teachers are extremely diverse. There

are teacher-centered and student-centered approaches. The National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (in Macpherson , 2007) recommends that:

Students be provided opportunities to work together cooperatively in large and small groups on significant problems that arise out of their experiences and frames of reference. Group assignments should help learners combine new knowledge with prior knowledge, leading to the construction of new ideas within the group. Students should question, discuss, make mistakes, listen to the ideas of others, provide constructive criticism and summarize discoveries.

Education experts recently gave attention to learning strategies and

encouraged to use the student-centered strategy, one of the strategies is

cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is a series of learning activities

undertaken by students in heterogeneous groups to achieve a common goal. Some

(13)

3

while increasing the ability of social relationships, growing acceptance of self and

others lack, and enhancing self-esteem. Cooperative learning also can realize

students need in learning to think, solving problems, and integrating knowledge

with skills.

More clearly, Slavin (1995) (in Biehler & Snowman, 2009) argued that:

Students who learn cooperatively tend to be more highly motivated to learn because of increased self-esteem, the proacademic attitudes of group mates, appropriate attributions for success and failure, and greater on-task behavior. They also score higher on tests of achievement and problem solving and tend to get along better with classmates of different racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds. This last outcome should be of particular interest to those of you who expect to teach in areas marked by cultural diversity.

Cooperative learning strategy is developed in an effort to increase

student’s participation and generate effective interaction among group members

through discussion. Cooperative small group as learning atmosphere where

students interact with others in small group to complete academic task and to

accomplish a common goal.

Cooperative learning refers to work done by student teams producing a product of some sort under conditions that satisfy five criteria: (1) positive interdependence, (2) individual accountability, (3) face to face interaction for at least part of the work, (4) appropriate use of interpersonal skills, and (5) regular self-assessment of team functioning. (Richard & Rebecca: 2007)

Cooperative learning has many variations of model. Based on research of

Dotson (2003) found that cooperative learning structures could increase student

achievement. Two of the cooperative learning structures are Think Pair Share and

Numbered Heads Together Models.

Think Pair Share is a learning model which proposed by Franklin Lyman

(1985), aims to teach students to be more independent in solving problems which

can generate students' self-confidence. In addition, TPS also teaches students to

accept differences and work together with others. TPS is a learning model

(14)

4

Educational research on the use cooperative learning type TPS has been

studied previously. Ahyar (2011) said that there is significant differences in

student’s achievement who are taught by TPS and Snowball Throwing models.

Students’ mean score in statistics taught by TPS and Snowball Throwing

respectively are 79.123 and 68.889. It concludes that average value of students on

the subject of statistics by implementing TPS is higher than Snowball Throwing.

Another educational study about TPS is research of Rahim (2010) which also

found the improvement of students achievement on the subject of algebra

factorizes.

Numbered Heads Together is a learning model developed by Kagan

(1998) to involve more students in examining a variety of subject matter in a

lesson and to examine their understanding about content of the lesson.

Educational research on the use cooperative learning type NHT has also been

studied previously. Tambunan (2011) found that students mathematics problem

solving on the topic of algebra by implementing NHT and STAD respectively

have average value of 75.475 and 72.456. It indicates that NHT better than STAD

in the topic of algebra.

Since not all learning models are suitable to achieve all the goals and

circumstances and each learning model has its own characteristics. As well as in

mathematics, then not all learning models are effective used for each topic in

mathematics such as trigonometry. Therefore, the selection of in appropriate

learning model will be able to make effectiveness of learning decreases that

indicates the decreasing of students achievement, thus there needs to be concern to

the model that is used by teachers in learning process.

Based on the above explanation, it should be conducted further study

which entitled: “Comparison of Student’s Mathematics Achievement by

(15)

5

1.2.Problems Identification

Based on the background, some issues that can be identified as follows:

1. Mathematics is a frightening lesson for students

2. Student’s achievement on math test scores especially on trigonometry is

low

3. Learning model which is used by teachers is not relevant

1.3.Problems Limitation

Based on the identification of the research problems, the scope of this

study is limited on:

1. Learning models which is used in this study are Think Pair Share (TPS)

and Numbered Heads Together (NHT)

2. Objects of this study are students in X grade of SMA Negeri 1 Batang

Natal

3. Data in this study is data of student’s math scores that is got from students’

math posttest scores.

4. Study is focused on topic of Trigonometry

1.4.Research Question

Research question in this study is: “Is student’s mathematics achievement

who taught with TPS higher than student’s mathematics achievement who taught

with NHT on trigonometry for X grade students in SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal in

the year of 2012/2013?”

1.5.Research Objective

Objective of this study is to know whether student’s mathematics

achievement who taught with TPS higher than student’s mathematics achievement

who taught with NHT on trigonometry for X grade students in SMA Negeri 1

(16)

6

1.6. Research Benefits

The results of this study are expected to provide benefits for:

1. Teachers

a. It helps math teachers in effort to find the effective learning to improve

student’s achievement in math.

b. It can be study reference for teachers and motivates them to conduct

many research in others subject.

2. Students

a. Students achieve math better by applying effective learning model in

learning process.

b. It can improve students’ learning creativity, collaboration, and

responsibility to make learning more qualified.

3. Researchers

a. It can be an input for a similar study

b. It can serve as guidelines in performing their teaching duties in the

(17)

44

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1.Conclusion

Based on study result and data analysis then the conclusion of the

research is: “Student’s mathematics achievement who taught with TPS higher

than student’s mathematics achievement who taught with NHT on trigonometry

for X grade students in SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal in the year of 2012/2013”.

5.2.Suggestions

Based on result of the research, then the suggestions are:

1. To mathematics teachers especially to mathematics teachers in SMA Negeri 1

Batang Natal, implementation of TPS model can be one alternative to

increase student’s mathematics achievement especially in the topic of

trigonometry.

2. To students, teachers and all school party of SMA Negeri 1 Batang Natal in

order to keep trying to develop and to find creative innovation mathematics

learning especially relates to TPS model such as combine TPS with others

supported media.

3. To advance researchers is hoped conducting more study for this research not

only to see the student’s achievement in cognitive domain but also student’s

(18)

45

REFERENCES

Abdurrahman, M. (2009). Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta

Aggarwal, J.C. (2002). Essentials of Examination System: Evaluation, Tests, and Measurement. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House

Ahyar, K. (2011). Perbedaan Hasil Belajar yyang Diajar dengan Menggunakan Metode SnowBall Throwing dan Metode Think Pair Share pada Pokok Bahasan Statistika di Kelas IX SMP Negeri 4Medan T.A. 2011/2012. Skripsi. Medan: FMIPA Unimed

Alice. (2007). Interactive Learning.

(http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/tpshare.html, accessed on February 20, 2013)

Arends, R.I., et al. (2007). Learning To Teach. Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Arifin, Z. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: Rosdakarya

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Yogyakarta: Rineka Cipta

Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan. 2006. Standar Isi, Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar SMA/MA. Jakarta: BSNP.

Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. (2007). Research in Education. 9th Ed. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited

Biehler & Snowman. (2009). Psychology Applied To Teaching: Cooperative Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 8/e. Houghton Mifflin Co. (Chapters 4 & 11).

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

(19)

46

Dotson, J.M. (2003). Cooperative Learning Structures Increase Achievement. (http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/research_and_rationale/increas e_achievement.php, accessed on February 15, 2013).

Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam. (2010). Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan. Medan: FMIPA Unimed

Galloway, D. and Edward, A. (1992). Secondary School Teaching & Educational Psychology: The Effective Teacher Series. New York: Longman Publishing

Huda, M. (2008). Cooperative Learning: Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Penerapan.Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar

Huitt, W., Huitt, M., Monetti, D., & Hummel, J. (2009). A systems-based synthesis of research related to improving students’ academic performance. Paper presented at the 3rd International City Break Conference sponsored by the Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), October 16-19, Athens, Greece. (http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/improving-school-achievement.pdf, accessed on February 19, 2013)

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2008). Models of Teaching Eight 8 Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kelley T.L. (2002) The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 17-24.

Macpherson & Alice. (2007). Southwest Consortium for the Improvement of Mathematics and Science Teaching. Journal of Education. Vol. 1, No. 2.

Mariani, T. (2012). Perbedaan Kemampuan Penalaran Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif tipe TPS dan TAI pada Sub Pokok Bahasan Jajar Genjang dan Belah Ketupat di Kelas VII SMP Hangtuah 1 Belawan T.A. 2011/2012. Skripsi. Medan: FMIPA Unimed Marwanta, et al. (2008). Bilingual Mathematics Senior High School Year X.

Jakarta Timur: Yudhistira

Popham, W.J. (1981). Modern Educational Measurement. America: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

(20)

47

Rahim, U. (2010). Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Matematika Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Faktorisasi Suku Aljabar Melalui Pendekatan Struktural Think Pair Share (TPS) Siswa Kelas VIII SMPN 4 Kendari. Jurnal MIPA. Vol. 9.1. Februari 2010: 78-86

Rao, D.B. (2005). Issues in School Education: The Views of Legendary Educator Marlow Ediger. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House

Richard, M.F. and Rebecca, B. (2007). Active Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences. Journal of Chemical Engineering. ACS Symposium Series 970. Chapter 4

Richard. (2008). Numbered Heads Together

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/17093286/Numbered-Head-Together-NHT, accessed on February 20, 2013)

Sanjaya, W. (2006). Strategy Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana

Sheskin, D., J. (2000). Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. Second Edition. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC

Sudjana. (2005). Metoda statistika. Bandung: Tarsito

Tambunan, M. (2011). Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Model Kooperatif Tipe Numbered Heads Together (NHT) dan Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). Skripsi. Medan: FMIPA Unimed

Tampomas, H. (2008). Seribu Pena: Matematika Jilid 1 untuk SMA/MA Kelas X. Jakarta: Erlangga

Trianto. (2009). Mendasain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif. Jakarta: Kencana

COMPARISON OF STUDENTS MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY IMPLEMENTING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) AND NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) ON TRIGONOMETRY FOR X GRADE STUDENTS IN SMA NEGERI 1 BATANG NATAL IN THE YEAR OF 2012/2013.