THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY BETWEEN TAUGHT BY STUDENTS TEAMS – ACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION (STAD) AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) AT CLASS VII SMP NEGERI 1 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2011 / 2012
By:
Blessing Goklas Hutagaol ID. Number 408111033 Mathematics Bilingual Education
THESIS
Of The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Title : The Difference of Student’s Problem Solving Ability Between Taught by Students Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI) At Class VII SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2011 / 2012
Name : Blessing Goklas Hutagaol
NIM : 408111033
Study Program : Mathematics Education Bilingual Department : Mathematics
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The greatest thankfulness is given to The Almighty God, my Lord Jesus Christ, for His blessing and for the entire things that He has done to the writer life especially in completing this thesis well. This thesis that titled “The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability Between Taught by Students Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI) at Class VII Smp Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2011/2012” 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 his limited knowledge and experiences. However, many people have contributed and helped him directly during completing of this thesis. For this chance the writer would like to express his gratitude and special thanks to:
Prof. Dian Armanto, M.Pd.,M.Sc.Ed.,Ph.D as his thesis supervisor, for his valuable guidance, advices, corrections, comment, suggestion, and his precious time that he spent on supervising the draft of writing this thesis.
Prof. Dr. Sahat Saragih, M.Pd., Drs. Syafari, M.Pd., Dr. Izwita Dewi as his tester lectures, for their advices, corrections, comments and suggestion for this thesis and Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd as his academic supervisor, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as his coordinator of bilingual program, Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as his 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, Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd as the head of Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as secretary of the Mathematics Department, Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as the head of Mathematics Education study program and all lecturer and employees of Mathematics Department who have taught, advised, and guided his throughout his academic years at the university.
BudiMurni-2 Medan, and Hisar Pardosi, S.Si as the mathematics teacher of SMP Swasta HKBP P.Bulan Medan for their support, suggestion, and administrative assistance to the writer during this research.
Extraordinary the writer special thanks to his beloved father J. Hutagaol, S.Pd and his beloved mother B. Pardede for their pray, advice, high motivate, endless love and financial support that have enable him to finish his thesis. His beloved sisters Christy Adventhree Hutagaol for her support, motivation and pray. Special thanks to Tulang Aldo for his support, motivate and pray, also special thanks to his beloved Meylina J.R. Sitorus for her support, love, pray, high spirit and motivate. The writer will be more have a spirit to finish this thesis after he heard her motivate and do this thesis beside her.
Special thanks to B’Rustam Simamora, Kak Yanty Gurning and Kak Widya Sitorus for their support in giving best suggestion and motivation also for his best friends Petra Aritonang, Togu M.Banjarnahor, Putri Welpa Hutajulu, and Janna Sri Bina Barus, to his friends in Mathematics Bilingual Class ’08, , his friends in “NHKBP JUNIOR Choir” and all that can not mentioned one by one for their support, kindness, pray and their contributing during the process of completing his thesis.
Medan, September 2012 The writer,
iii
The Difference of Student’s Problem Solving Ability Between Taught by Students Teams – Achievement
Division (STAD) and Direct Instruction (DI) At Class VII SMP Negeri 1 Medan
Academic Year 2011/2012
Blessing Goklas Hutagaol
ABSTRACT
The research aimed to find out whether there is or no the difference of student’s problem solving ability of quadrilaterals taught by STAD and taught by Direct Instruction.
The research is conducted in SMP Negeri 1 Medan using experiment research on second (even) semester of class VII SMP Negeri 1 Medan academic year 2011/2012. The sample is taken by using cluster random sampling. Research’s instruments in collecting data in this study are a test and an observation sheet. This test is an essay that related to the problem solving questions that was contain of 5 items about quadrilaterals questions. The test was reliable and valid based on judgment of experts.
Data that collected in this research are (1) data of student’s mathematics initial ability that obtained from initial test (pretest) and (2) student’s problem solving measured by using essay test after given the treatments.
Hypothesis test is done by using Two Ways Analysi of Variance (Two Way Anova). The research result shows that on significance level 0.05 (1) the student’s problem solving that taught by STAD is better than taught by Direct Instruction, (2) the students’ with high mathematics initial ability is not better than the students’ with low mathematics initial ability in problem solving and (3) there is an interaction between teaching model and student’s mathematics initial ability to student’s problem solving. The result suggest that in order to teach quadrilaterals, teacher should care about student’s mathematics initial ability in choosing learning model which will be used in learning activity. If the student’s mathematics initial ability is low then the teaching model should be used is Direct Instruction, but if the student’s initial ability is high then it should be used teaching model of STAD.
vi
CONTENTS
Sheet agreement ... i
Biography ... ii
Abstract ... iii
Acknowledgement ... iv
Contents ... vi
List of Appendix ... viii
List of Table ... ix
List of Figure ... x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem Identification ... 6
1.3 Problem Limitation ... 7
1.4 Problem Formulation ... 7
1.5 Research Purposes ... 7
1.6 The Benefits of Research ... 8
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 9
2.1 Theoretical Background... 9
2.1.1 Definition of Learning ... 9
2.1.2 Mathematics Learning ... 10
2.1.3 Learning Outcomes ... 11
2.1.4 Problem Solving Ability ... 12
2.1.5 Learning Strategy ... 15
2.1.5.1 Cooperative Learning ... 16
2.1.5.2 Learning by Constructivism Approach ... 17
2.1.6 Students Teams – Achievement Division (STAD) ... 19
2.1.7 Direct Instruction (DI) ... 26
2.1.8 The Difference Between STAD and DI ... 31
2.1.9 Quadrilaterals ... 32
2.2 The Former Research ... 35
2.3 Conceptual Framework ... 37
2.4 Hypothesis ... 38
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS... 39
3.1 Place and Time of research ... 39
3.2 Population and Sample ... 39
3.2.1 Population of Research ... 39
3.2.2 Sample of Research ... 39
3.3 Type of Research ... 39
3.4 Operational Definition ... 39
3.5 Research Design ... 41
vii
3.7 Research Instrument ... 43
3.7.1 Test ... 43
3.7.2 Students sheet activity... 43
3.7.3 Observation sheet ... 43
3.8. Data Analysis ... 44
1. Hypothesis test ... 44
2. Student’s Learning Activities ... 49
3. Teacher’s activities ... 50
4. Criteria of Student’s Problem Solving Ability ... 50
5. Student’s Mathematics Ability ... 51
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS ... 52
4.1 Research Result Data Description ... 52
4.1.1 Initial Data in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II ... 52
4.1.2 Posttest Data in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II ... 53
4.2 Research Findings ... 56
4.2.1 Prerequisite Data Test ... 56
4.2.1.1 The Normality Test ... 56
4.2.1.2 The Homogeneity Test ... 57
4.2.1.3 The Hypothesis Test ... 59
4.2.2 Observation ... 63
4.3 Discussion ... 65
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION and SUGGESTION ... 70
5.1 Conclusion ... 70
5.2 Suggestion ... 71
ix
LIST of TABLE
Table 2.1 Technique in Giving Problem Solving Score ... 15
Table 2.2 Group determining ... 21
Table 2.3 Phase of Cooperative STAD ... 22
Table 2.4 Progression Score Calculating ... 23
Table 2.5 Group Award ... 24
Table 2.6 Process in Determining Group Award ... 24
Table 2.7 Phase of Direct Instruction ... 29
Table 2.8 The difference between STAD and DI ... 31
Table 2.9 The area and circumference of quadrilaterals ... 32
Table 3.1 Dependability of Each Variables ... 41
Table 3.2 Factorial Design 2 x 2 ... 46
Table 3.3 Summary Table of Anova to Test The Hypothesis ... 48
Table 3.4 Sum of Square Design ... 48
Table 3.5 Criteria Level of Student’s Problem Solving Ability ... 50
Table 3.6 Student’s Mathematics Ability ... 51
Table 4.1 Pretest Data in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II ... 52
Table 4.2 Problem Solving Ability Aspect in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II ... 53
Table 4.3 Posttest Data in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II ... 54
Table 4.4 Problem Solving Ability Aspect in Experiment Class I and Experiment Class II (Posttest) ... 54
Table 4.5 Summary of Pretest and Posttest Mean in both of classes ... 55
Table 4.6 Summary of Pretest and Posttest in Aspect of Problem Solving Ability in Experiment Class I ... 55
Table4.7 Summary of Pretest and Posttest in Aspect of Problem Solving Ability in Experiment Class II ... 55
Table 4.8 Summary of Normality Data Result ... 56
Table 4.9 Summary of Normality Data Result in Each Aspect of Problem Solving Ability ... 57
Table 4.10 The Result Data in Homogeneity Test ... 58
Table 4.11 The Result Data in Homogeneity Test for Each Aspect of Problem Solving Ability ... 58
Table 4.12 The Result Summary of Two Ways Anova ... 59
Table 4.13 Summary of Observation Sheet for Teacher ... 63
x
LIST of FIGURE
viii
LIST of APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan ... 75
Appendix 2 Student’s Sheet Activity 1 ... 95
Appendix 3 Student’s Sheet Activity 2 ... 98
Appendix 4 Student’s Sheet Activity 3 ... 100
Appendix 5 Pretest - Blueprint ... 102
Appendix 6 Pretest ... 103
Appendix 7 Alternative Answer Pretest ... 105
Appendix 8 Posttest - Blueprint ... 107
Appendix 9 Posttest ... 108
Appendix 10 Alternative Answer Posttest ... 110
Appendix 11 Observation Evaluation Scale ... 112
Appendix 12 Result of Analysis Agreement Validator (Pretest) ... 113
Appendix 13 Validator Evaluation Sheet (Pretest) ... 114
Appendix 14 Result of Analysis Agreement Validator (Posttest) ... 119
Appendix 15 Validator Evaluation Sheet (Posttest) ... 120
Appendix 16 Observation Sheet of Teacher’s Activities ... 125
Appendix 17 Observation Sheet of Student’s Activities ... 137
Appendix 18 Summary Observation ... 143
Appendix 19 Technique in Giving Problem Solving Score ... 144
Appendix 20 Validators Sheet ... 145
Appendix 21 The Division of STAD Group ... 146
Appendix 22 List of Pretest and Posttest Mark ... 147
Appendix 23 List of Problem Solving Mark of Each Aspect ... 148
Appendix 24 Calculation of Mean, Variance and Stdev ... 150
Appendix 25 Normality Test ... 156
Appendix 26 Homogeneity Test ... 167
Appendix 27 Initial Test Score Tabulation ... 170
Appendix 28 Posttest Score Tabulation ... 172
Appendix 29 Normalize Gain ... 174
Appendix 30 Interaction Table ... 177
Appendix 31 Dependability of Each Variables ... 179
Appendix 32 Two Ways Anova ... 182
Appendix 33 Diversity of Student’s Answer ... 193
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on result of hypothesis test using significant level α = 0,05 above, it can be concluded that :
1. The student’s problem solving ability that taught by Students Teams Achievement Division (STAD) is better than taught by Direct Instruction (DI) at class VII SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2011/2012. It means that cooperative learning model type STAD gives a significant contribution to the student’s problem solving of quadrilaterals. Based on the aspect of student’s problem solving, the aspect of understanding the problem was more increase rather than making a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back the answer.
2. The students’ with high mathematics ability is not better than the students’ with low mathematics ability in problem solving ability at both of classes.
3. There is an interaction between teaching model and student’s mathematics initial ability to the student’s problem solving. It means that both factors namely, teaching model and student’s mathematics initial ability influence to student’s problem solving. Since some student’s with low initial mathematics ability when given the treatment can achieve the same score with student’s with high initial mathematic ability.
others who do not understand the subject matter, willing to listened explanation given his friend feel comfortable situation and encourage the spirit for success together. Contrast to the student who were taught through learning model of DI was occur more emphasize in listening activity to the teacher explanation in front of class.
5. Based on the teachers’ observation that observedit can be concluding that the teacher who implement the learning model of STAD more attractive rather than who implement the learning model of DI. Because in learning model of STAD, teacher as a facilitator, means that teacher not to directly transfer his knowledge to students but also teacher can build his students’ thinking then conduct them by construct group discussion of students. So, teacher can make learning atmosphere becomes useful and attractive, and in learning model of DI, teacher have a role as a knowledge transferer, means that in teaching learning process was refers to teacher centered than student centered. The teacher has a responsibility to identify learning objectives and a big responsibility for structuring the content or materials or skills and explain to students. The teachers can focus on knowledge that must be achieved by the students, because the teachers’ role in this learning strategy that controls the content of material and the order information to be received by the students.
5.2 Suggestion
From the result of this research, so that suggests that can researcher given: 1. For teacher
In applying cooperative learning model of STAD, teachers should be
In applying learning model of DI, teachers should be more creative in
managing the classroom and should more rely on the activity of students in learning process in order to avoid the one way learning process that emphasize in teacher’s role.
2. For students
For the students with low mathematics ability, it is better to use Direct
Instruction as the method of teaching to deliver the materials, so that students can enhance their problem solving.
For the students with high mathematics ability, it is better to use STAD
as the method of teaching to deliver the material since they can learn by themselves and teacher just facilitate them.
3. For other researcher
73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002.Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2009.Manajemen Penelitian. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Bruce, Joyce. 1996. Models of Teaching Fifth Edition. A Simon & Schuster Company: USA
Daryanto. 2010. Belajar dan Mengajar. Yramawidya: Bandung
Fakultas Matematika Dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan. 2010. Buku Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi Mahasiswa Dan Standar (SOP) Kepembimbingan Skripsi Program Studi Pendidikan. FMIPA UNIMED: Medan
Gulo, W. 2002. Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Penerbit Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia: Jakarta
Gurning, Yanti. 2010. Penerapan Model Advance Organizer dengan Menggunakan
Media Peta Konsep untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi dan Hasil Belajar Siswa
pada Pokok Bahasan Bangun Datar di SMP N I Sidamanik T.P 2009/2010.
FMIPA Unimed: Medan
Huda, Miftahul. 2011. Cooperative learning: Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Model Penerapan. Pustaka Pelajar: Yogyakarta
Hamalik, Oemar. 2010. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bumi Aksara: Jakarta
Hamzah Upu. 2010
http://blog.unm.ac.id/hamzahupu/2010/12/30/effectiveness-of- cooperative-student-team-achievement-division-and-tournament-stadat-in-learning-mathematics/
http://fatonipgsd071644221.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/sintaks-tahapan-model-model-pembelajaran/ access at March 17, 2012
Margono, S. 2009. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Narbuko, Cholid. 1999. Metodologi Penelitian. Bumi Aksara: Jakarta
Radius. 2011. Penerapan Strategi Belajar Think-Talk-Write Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar dan Kemampuan Komunikasi Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Kaidah pencacahan Di Kelas XI SMA NEGERI 4 MEDAN Tahun ajaran 2010/ 2011. FMIPA Unimed: Medan
74
Slavin, Robert E. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Penerbit Nusa Media: Bandung
Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Sugiyono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta: Bandung
Trianto. 2009. Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresive: Konsep, Landasan, dan Implementasinya Pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP).Kencana: Jakarta
Wellington. 2011. Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Pada Pokok Bahasan Kubus Dan Balok Di Kelas VIII SMP Swasta Budi Insani Medan Tahun Ajaran 2010/2011. FMIPA Unimed: Medan
Winataputra, Erman. 1999. Strategi Belajar Mengajar Matematika. Penerbit Universitas Terbuka: Jakarta
