THE EFFECT OF CTL APPROACH AND MOTIVATION FOR LEARNING OUTCOME OF RELATION AND FUNCTION
AT VIII GRADE SMP NEGERI 1 TEBING TINGGI ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
By:
Eva Puspita Sari ID. Number 408 111 007
Mathematics Education Study Program
THESIS
Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
BIOGRAPHY
Eva Puspita Sari was born in Gunting Saga, December 31th1990. Writer’s father name is Ngalimun, SE. and mother’s name is Swartik. She is the second child from fourth children. She has two sisters and one brothers. In 1996, writer studied in primary school SD Negeri 114349 Sidua-dua and was graduated in 2002. In 2002, the writer continued her study in junior high school SMP Negeri 1 Kualuh Selatan and was graduated in 2005. In 2005, writer also continued her study in senior high school SMA Negeri 1 Kualuh Selatan and was graduated in 2008.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah SWT, most gracious, most merciful and master of the judgment. Thanks are to Allah who gave the strength and ability to the writer, so that this thesis can be finished. An innovation and greeting to Rasulullah SAW, who brought people from the darkness into lightness. The title of this research was “The Effect of CTL Approach and Motivation For Learning Outcome of Relation and Function at VIII Grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2012/213” as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Sarjana Pendidikan of the Mathematic Department, Faculty of Mathematic and Natural Science State University of Medan.
In this occasion, the writer would like to express thank you very much to her supervisor Prof. Dian Armanto, M.Pd., M.A., M.Sc., Ph.D for his advice, motivation, suggestion and guidance to finish this thesis. To her lecturer examinator Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd, Prof. Dr Mukhtar,M.Pd, Dr. W. Rajagukguk, M.Pd for their correction with valuable comments to correct the manuscript of scientific writing, to her academic lecturer Drs. H. Banjarnahor M.Pd for his advice support to her.
The writer also would like to express thank you to Mr. Prof.Ibnu Hajar,M.Si as ahead of university and staff in office of university head, to Mr. Prof. Motlan, M.Sc,Ph.D as a dean of Mathematic and Natural Science Faculty and staff in Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, to Mr. Prof. Dr Mukhtar,M.Pd as a head of Mathematic Department, Mr.Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as ahead of Mathematics Education Program, Mr. Prof.Dr.Herbert Sipahutar, M.S, M.Sc as a coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mr. Drs.Yasifati Hia,M.Pd as secretary of Mathematic Department, Mrs. Dr. IIs Siti Jahro, M.Si as secretary of Bilingual program, and all staff in Mathematic Department and Bilingual program to help the writer.
to mathematics teacher Mrs. Dumaria Samosir, S.Pd and all teacher and staff in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi that help the writer to do the research.
The writer also would like to express her deepest love gratitude to her father Ngalimun, SE., her mother Swartik, her sister Ratna Dewi Murni,S.Pd., Suzan Damayanti, her brother Muhammad Syahputra affectionately which gave birth and enlarge to writer, gave morale support, material and pray and so all her family. Thanks for Mas Ari Rifqi Pratama which gave motivation in finished this thesis, thanks for all Mas Ri. To her lovely friends Rida S.Pd, Yanti S.Pd, Ira, Siti S.Pd, Pea (Siti Rafiah), Fatimah, Misna, Emil, S.Pd, Togu, and all friends in mathematics bilingual program 2008 thank you very much for your support, helping to finish this thesis.
The writer has effort as maximal as she can in doing this thesis. But with her humble heart, the writer hopes construct suggestion and critics from the reader for perfection this thesis. The writer hopes this thesis can be useful and give many function to the reader specifically about subject matter which was researched in this thesis.
Medan, January 2013 Writer
v CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Framework 2.1.1 Learning Outcomes
2.1.1.1 Definition of Learning Outcome
2.1.1.2 Factors that Influence The Learning Outcome 2.1.2 Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) Approach
2.1.2.1 Definition of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) 2.1.2.2 Characteristics of CTL Approach
2.1.4.2 Characteristics of Motivation 2.1.4.3 The Forms of Motivation 2.1.4.4 The Kinds of Motivation 2.1.4.5 The Functions of Motivation 2.1.5 Relation and Function
3.1Research Place and Time 3.2Population and Sample
3.2.1Population 3.2.2Sample 3.3Research Variable
3.4Type and Design of Research 3.5Research Procedure
3.6Instrument of Data Collecting 3.6.1Kinds of Instrument CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
vii
4.1.1 Motivation Questionnaire of Experiment I and Experiment II 4.1.2 Post test of Experiment I and Experiment II Class
4.1.3 Normality Test 4.1.4 Homogeneity Test 4.1.5 Hypothesis Test
4.1.6 Observation Result of Learning Process 4.2 Discussion of Research Result
4.2.1 The Student’s Learning Outcome of Relation and Function Taught by CTL Approach and DI Approach
4.2.2 The Student’s Learning Outcome of Relation and Function with High Motivation and Low Motivation
4.2.3 The Interaction between Learning Approach and Student’s Motivation to Student’s Learning Outcome
4.2.4 Student’s Answer in Solving The Test
54 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
FIGURE LIST
Page Figure 2.1 Example of An Arrow Diagram
Figure 2.2 An Arrow Diagram with Showing Relation “has hair style” Figure 2.3 Cartesian Diagram with Showing Relation “has hair style” Figure 2.4 An Arrow Diagram that Describe a Function
Figure 2.5 An Arrow Diagram that Describe Mapping from Set A to Set B Figure 2.6 The Relation between Teaching Approach and Motivation to
Learning Outcome
Figure 4.1 The Average of Student’s Learning Outcome of Experiment I and II
Figure 4.2 The Average of Student’s Learning Outcome of High and Low Motivation
27 27 28 28 29 37
56
ix
TABLE LIST
Table 3.1 Type of Research
Page 39
Table 3.2 Factorial design of 2 x 2 40
Table 3.3 Indicator in preparation motivation questionnaire 42 Table 3.4 The Criteria in assesment of motivation questionnaire 43 Table 3.5 Blueprint of post-test for experiment I class 44 Table 3.6 Blueprint of post test for experiment II class 44
Table 3.7 The result summary of Two Ways ANOVA 53
Table 4.1 Motivation questionnaire result 54
Table 4.2 Post test result of the experiment I and experiment II class 55 Table 4.3 Post test result based on motivation level 55 Table 4.4 Student’s learning outcome that have high motivation and low
motivation
56
Table 4.5 Summary of normality testing 58
Table 4.6 Summary of homogeneity testing 58
Table 4.7 Summary result summary of Two Ways ANOVA 59
Table 4.8 The result of hypothesis test 60
Table 4.9 Summary of observation sheet for teacher
Table 4.10 The percentage of student’s answer based on indicator
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 First Lesson Plan for Experiment I Class
Page 71 Appendix 2 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment I Class 76 Appendix 3 Third Lesson Plan for Experiment I Class 81 Appendix 4 First Lesson Plan for Experiment II Class 86 Appendix 5 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment II Class 89 Appendix 6 Third Lesson Plan for Experiment II Class 92
Appendix 7 Student Activity Sheet I 95
Appendix 8 Student Activity Sheet II 99
Appendix 9 Student Activity Sheet III 103
Appendix 10 Post-test Question for Experiment I Class 106 Appendix 11 Post-test Question for Experiment II Class 110
Appendix 12 Key Answer of Post-test 113
Appendix 13 The Motivation Questionnaire 114
Appendix 14 Validation Sheet of Motivation Questionnaire 117 Appendix 15 Observation Sheet of Teacher Activity Using Contextual
Teaching and Learning (CTL) Approach
119 Appendix 16 Observation Sheet Of Teacher Activity Using Direct Instruction
(DI) Approach
121 Appendix 17 Validation and Reliability Analysis of Learning Outcome Test 123
Appendix 18 Analysis of Difficulty Index 130
Appendix 19 Analysis of Discrimination Power 133
Appendix 20 Validation Analysis of Motivation Questioner 136
Appendix 21 Reliability of Motivation Questioner 138
Appendix 22 The Result of Motivation Questioner 139
Appendix 23 The Result of Post Test 140
Appendix 24 The Result of Post Test Based On Motivation Level 141
Appendix 25 Normality Test 142
Appendix 26 Homogeneity Test 143
Appendix 27 Two Ways – ANOVA Test 144
Appendix 28 Student’s Answer in Solving the Test 148
iii
THE EFFECT OF CTL APPROACH AND MOTIVATION FOR LEARNING OUTCOME OF RELATION AND FUNCTION
AT VIII GRADE SMP NEGERI 1 TEBING TINGGI ACADEMIC YEAR 2012/2013
Eva Puspita Sari (ID. Number 408 111 007)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to know whether the student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Direct Instruction (DI) approach, whether the student’s learning outcome of relation and function with high motivation is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function with low motivation, whether there is an interaction between learning approach and the student’s motivation to student’s learning outcome.
Type of the research is quasi experiment with factorial design of 2x2. The population of this research is all students in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi and the number is 225 students that divided into nine classes. The sampling technique was cluster random sampling. The sample of this research is 38 students that divided into two classes; those are 21 students in VIII-A was taught using CTL approach and 17 students in VIII-B was taught using DI approach. Hypothesis test was done by Two Way Analysis of Variance (Two Way ANOVA).
The research result show that (1) the student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher than the student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Direct Instruction (DI) approach (2) the student’s learning outcome of relation and function with high motivation is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function with low motivation (3) There is significant interaction between learning approach and the student’s motivation to student’s learning outcome.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
Education is the process of developing the power of reason, morality and life skills in the potential of every human being. A quality education in an educational process is said to take place effectively, humans gain a meaningful experience for him and product education are the individuals that benefit the community and nation building. To achieve the educational goals the government has tried to carry out development in various sectors, improving the quality of teachers and educational system or curriculum reform.
However, government efforts to improve the quality of education in Indonesia have not been entirely successful. According to the 2004 UNDP Indonesia is ranked 110th of 173 countries in the world (www.depdiknas.go.id ). Mathematics is a universal science that underlies the development of modern technology, have an important role or key position in different disciplines and promote the human intellect. Therefore, mathematics is given at every level of education to prepare students to face the development of an increasingly fdeveloped and developing rapidly. Cornelius about the importance of learning mathematics (in Abdurrahman, 2003:253) states that:
"There are five important reasons to learn mathematics is because math is: (1) means a clear and logical thinking, (2) a means for solving problems of daily life, (3) the means to know the patterns of relationships and generalization of experience, (4) a means to develop creativity, and (5) means to increase awareness of cultural development."
2
Indonesia's Rating to 39 below Thailand and Uruguay. (http://ugm.ac.id/index.php?page=rilis&artikel=4467)
It also looks at the Ujian Nasional result in 2012, Mendikbud M.Nuh
(http://www.kompas.com/edukasi.kompas/read/2012/06/02/10035432/Banyak.Sis
wa.Tak.Lulus.Ujian.Matematika) explains that most of students failed in mathematics. From the above quotations provide clear information that until now the learning outcomes results mathematics students have not achieved the desired level.
Conditions are not much different also found in VIII grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. Based on the interview on January 21, 2012 with one teacher who taught mathematics in VIII grade, Mr. Saheri S.Pd. revealed that the mathematics learning outcomes of students in VIII grade is far from what was expected. This is evident in student learning outcomes in 2011 are still very low with average grades for mathematics class is 55-60. He also revealed that:
"The low math student learning outcomes is largely due to the lack of a strong desire or urge to further pursue the concentration of these subjects. Students are less serious, often complain of difficulties in learning mathematics that tend to be less motivated to learn in school and repeat the lesson at home ".
From the above statement can be concluded that the lack of motivation in the learning process can lead to poor learning outcomes. Students were not getting something from what has been learned, so that students are reluctant or less zealous in every teaching and learning activity. As revealed by Mulyasa (2008:196) that: "Motivation is one factor that helped determine the effectiveness and success of learning, because students will learn in earnest when highly motivated."
In addition, factors that also affect students' learning outcomes are the use of a less appropriate approach by the teacher. Bloom in Iif (2011: 68) say that:
and achievement. Cognitive learning is giving students the material in order to achieve maximum results and provide knowledge about something that is useful for future students. "
However, often found on the field that the teacher mastering of a subject matter very well but can not do learning activities very well. It happened because these activities are not based on a model or a particular learning approach so that the learning outcome of student is low. According to Sobel and Maletsky (1998:2) a lot of math teachers using lesson time to discuss tasks first then give a new lesson and then give the task again to the students. This approach is carried out every day (routine) can be regarded as BTD is Boring, Threatening, and Deplete the whole interest of the students.
By using the wrong approach or method is not appropriate, students will also have difficulty to understand academic concepts, so that they can not apply it in daily life. Iif (2011:115) says that: "The biggest problem faced by the learners (students) right now is they have not been able to connect between what they learn and how that knowledge will be used. This is because the way they get information and self-motivation has not been touched by a method that can really help them. "
The selection of appropriate learning approaches is needed to teachers to facilitate the process of formation of knowledge in students, but teachers must also consider whether the use of learning approaches that have been effective application and efficient. One approach to learning that can be used in efforts to improve learning outcomes approach is Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL). Namely the concept of learning that helps teachers to link between what is taught with real-world situations of students and encourage students to make connections between its knowledge with its application in their lives as members of the family and society.
4
but can be stored in long-term memory. So that will be lived and applied in tasks (Iif, 2011:116).
Kunandar (2007:293) states:
"Target-oriented learning mastery of the material proven to be successful in the competition 'remember' the short term, but failed to equip the children to solve problems long term. Therefore, there should be a more meaningful approach to learning so as to equip students to face life problems faced by current and it came. Learning approach that is suitable for the above is the approach Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL). "
With Contextual learning involves seven principles, namely modeling, questioning, inquiry, constructivism, authentic assessment and reflection, is expected to more meaningful learning for students that result in improved student learning outcomes. The learning process takes place naturally in the form of student work and experience for themselves, not a transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. This environment is also expected to create a feeling of comfort for the students so that they better understand what they are learning that in turn can enhance students' mathematics learning outcomes.
One of the mathematics materials that can be taught to approach the application of CTL is relation and function in VIII grade and SMP / MTs
Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan By providing the motivation and involve
students directly in constructing knowledge and finding relation and function concepts, to share opinions with friends and teachers, and reflection activities at the end of the learning activities it is expected that a more meaningful learning activities and learning outcomes of students increased math.
Based on the above authors are interested in doing research with the title "The Effect of CTL Approach and Motivation for Learning Outcome of Relation and Function at VIII GradeSMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year
2012/2013”.
1.2Identification of Problem
From the description background above existing problems can be identified are as follows:
1. Quality of mathematics education in Indonesia is still low when compared with other countries.
2. The learning outcome of students at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi in relation and function is still low
3. Lack of student motivation in mathematics.
4. Learning approaches that teachers use less precise with the material presented.
1.3 The Scope of Problem
Based on the identification of the above problems, the researchers scope the problem to effect of CTL approach and motivation for learning outcome of relation and function at VIII Grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year
2012/2013”.
1.4 Research Question
Based on the background and the limitation of issues raised, then the research questions in this study are:
1. Is the student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by
Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach higher than student’s
6
2. Is the student’s learning outcome of relation and function with high
motivation higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function
with low motivation?
3. Is there an interaction between learning approach and the student’s
motivation to student’s learning outcome?
1.5 Research Objectives
a. To know whether the student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher
than student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Direct
Instruction (DI) approach.
b. To know whether the student’s learning outcome of relation and function
with high motivation is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function with low motivation.
c. To know whether there is an interaction between learning approach and
the student’s motivation to student’s learning outcome.
1.6 Research Benefits
The benefits which expected of this research are: a. The benefits for author
Increasing knowledge of the authors in conducting research in educational field in the future
Gaining experience in applying learning model and provide a quality learning
b. The benefits for education
As consideration for the teachers in formal educational institutions in an effort to improve student achievement in mathematics
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the result research from data analysis, can be obtained some conclusion, those are:
1. The student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function taught by Direct Instruction (DI) approach. 2. The student’s learning outcome of relation and function with high motivation
is higher than student’s learning outcome of relation and function with low motivation. In which the learning outcome of student with high motivation taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher than student’s learning outcome of student with high motivation taught by Direct Instruction (DI) approach. The learning outcome of student with low motivation taught by Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach is higher than student’s learning outcome of student with low motivation taught by Direct Instruction (DI) approach.
3. There is significant interaction between learning approach and the student’s motivation to student’s learning outcome. It means that both factors namely, learning approach and student’s motivation influence student’s learning outcome.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on research result, then the suggestions that can be given by wrire are: 1. For mathematic teacher, CTL approach can be used as alternative learning
approach in teach of relation and function materi because it can be make of student’s learning outcome is higher than student’s learning outcome taught by DI approach.
67
3. For mathematic teacher who want to give some topic to student, make sure that student has mastered prerequisite material so that learning process more effective.
4. For students, especially students in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi are suggested to cooperate in discussion based on rule from the teacher.
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman, Mulyono. 2009. Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Aunurrahman. 2009. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Bandung: Alfabeta
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2009. Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
Berns, Robert G and Patricia M.Erickson. 2001. Contextual Teaching and
Learning Preparing Students for the New Economy. Columbus: CTE
Cohen, Louis, and friends. 2007. Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.
Creswell, John W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. USA: Pearson,.
Djamarah, Syaiful Bahri. 2002. Psikologi Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Ginting, Naomi. 2012. Pengaruh Strategi Pemecahan Masalah dan Motivasi Belajar Matematika terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa di SDN No 060933
Medan., Tesis, Program Pascasrjana, Unimed, Medan.
Johnson, Elaine B. 2002. Contextual Teaching and Learning: what it is and why
it’s here to stay.California: Corwin Press Inc.
Joyce, Bruce and Marsha Weil. Models of Teaching Fifth Edition.USA: Allyn and Bacon
Iif, Khoiru Ahmad, Etc. 2011. Strategi Pembelajaran Sekolah Terpadu. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka.
Kunandar. 2007. Guru Prefosional Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan (KTSP) dan Sukses dalam Sertifikasi Guru. Jakarta: Rajawali
Pers.
69
di Lubuk Pakam TP. 2008/2009., Tesis, Program Pascasarjana, Unimed,
Medan.
Pratiwi, Indah. 2012. Penerapan Pendekatan CTL untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa pada Opersai Hitung Penjumlahan dan Pengurangan Bilangan Bulat di Kelas VII SMP Negeri 2 Perbaungan Tahun Ajaran
2012/2013, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Riduwan. 2011. Dasar-dasar Statistika. Bandung: Alfabeta
Sardiman. 2011. Interaksi & Motivasi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Sitohang, Risma. 2010. Penggunaan Pendekatan Kontekstual dalam Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar pada Mata Kuliah Konsep
Dasar IPS Mahasiswa PGSD S1 Unimed., Thesis, Program
Pascasarjana, Unimed, Medan
Slameto. 2010. Belajar & Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Sobel, Max A. Maletsky, Evan M. 1998. Teaching Mathematics: A sourcebook of
Aids, Activities, and Strategies. USA: Allyn & Bacon
Sudijono, Anas. 2009. Pengantar Statistika Pendidikan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers Sudjana. 2005. Metoda Statistika. Bandung: Tarsito
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya
Sugiyono. 2008. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif,
Kualitatif dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta
Sugiyono. 2011. Statistika untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta
Sutikno, M. Sobry. 2009. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Bandung: Prospect
Syah. Muhibbin. 2010. Psikologi Pendidikan dengan Pendidikan Baru. Bandung: Rosda.
Trianto. 2008. Mendesain Pembelajaran Kontekstual (Contextual Teaching and
Learning) di Kelas. Jakarta: Cerdas Pustaka Publisher.
Trianto. 2009. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresive: Konsep, Landasan, dan Implementasinya Pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Uno, Hamzah B. 2011. Teori Motivasi & Pengukurannya Analisa di Bidang
Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Woolfolk, Anita E.2006. Educational Psycology MayLabSchool Series Tenth
Edition. USA: Pearson
http://ugm.ac.id/index.php?page=rilis&artikel=4467 accessed February 2012
http://www.kompas.com/edukasi.kompas/read/2012/06/02/10035432/Banyak.Sis wa.Tak.Lulus.Ujian.Matematika accessed February 2012
