THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES IN
STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X S M A N E G E R I 3 M E D A N
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak Reg. Number 4103322003 Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquires Eligible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENT’S LEARNING OUTCOMES IN STATIC FLUID TOPIC OF CLASS X SMA
NEGERI 3 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Evi Kamelia Simanjuntak (Reg. Number 4103322003)
ABSTRACT
vi
CONTENTS
Agreement Sheet i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Preface iv
Contents vi
Figure List x
Table List xii
Appendix List xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background 1
1.2Problem Identification 4
1.3Problem Limitation 4
1.4Problem Formulation 5
1.5Research Objectives 5
1.6 Benefit of Research 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1Understanding of Learning 6
2.2Learning Purposes 7
2.3Learning Outcomes 7
2.3.1 Cognitive Domain 8
2.3.2 Affective Domain 9
2.3.3 Psychomotor Domain 10
2.4 Learning Model 11
2.4.1 Understanding of Learning Model 11
2.4.2 Conventional Learning 12
2.4.3 Problem Based Learning Model 12
2.4.3.1 Special Features of Problem Based Learning 14
vii
2.5 Static Fluid 16
2.5.1 Density 16
2.5.2 Hydrostatic Pressure 17
2.5.3 Hydrostatic Paradoxical 19
2.5.4 Pascal’s Principle 19
2.5.5 Archimedes’ Principle 21
2.5.5.1 Floating 22
2.5.5.2 Suspending 22
2.5.5.3 Sinking 23
2.6 Conceptual Framework 24
2.7 Research Hypothesis 25
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Location and Research Time 26
3.1.1 Research Location 26
3.1.2 Research Time 26
3.2 Research Population and Research Sample 26
3.2.1 Research Population 26
3.2.2 Research Sample 26
3.3 Research Variable 27
3.3.1 Independent Variable 27
3.3.2 Dependent Variable 27
3.4 Research Type and Research Design 27
3.4.1 Research Type 27
3.4.2 Research Design 27
3.5 Research Procedure 28
3.6 Research Instrument 29
3.6.1 Instrument of Student's Learning Outcomes
of Cognitive Domain 29
3.6.2 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
viii
3.6.3 Instrument of Student’s Learning Outcomes
of Psychomotor Domain 32
3.6.4 Instrument of Student’s Learning Activity 33
3.6.5 Validity Test 34
3.7 Data Analysis Techniques 34
3.7.1 Determine Average Value 34
3.7.2 Determine The Deviation Standard 35
3.7.3 Determine the Homogenity Test 35
3.7.4 Normality Test 36
3.7.5 Hypothesis Test 36
3.7.5.1 Pre-test Ability Test (Two Tail Test) 36
3.7.5.2 Post-test Ability Test 38
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of Research 39
4.1.1 Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cognitive Domain 39 4.1.1.1 Pretest Data in Experimental and Control Class 39 4.1.1.2. Posttest Data in Experimental and Control Class 40
4.1.1.3. Data Analysis Test 41
4.1.1.4. Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant 41
4.1.1.5. Normality Test 42
4.1.1.6. Homogeneity Test 42
4.1.1.7. Hypothesis Test 43
4.1.1.7.1. Hypothesis Test for Pretest Ability 43
4.1.1.7.2. Hypothesis Test for Posttest Ability 43 4.1.2 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Affective Domain 44 4.1.3 Student’s Learning Outcomes in Psychomotor Domain 46
4.1.4 Student’s Learning Activity 47
ix
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 57
5.2 Suggestion 58
xii
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1 Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
According to Arends 15
Table 2.2 Syntax of Problem Based Learning Model
according to Ibrahim and Nur 15
Table 2.3 Density of Substances 17
Table 3.1 Design of Research 27
Table 3.2 The Specification Learning Outcomes Test
(Cognitive Domain) 30
Table 3.3 Rubric of Affective Assessment 31
Table 3.4 Criteria Assessment of Student’s Affective Domain 32
Table 3.5 Rubric of Psychomotor Assessment 32
Table 3.6 Criteria Assessment of Student’s Psychomotor Domain 33 Table 3.7 Rubric of Student’s Learning Activity Assessment 33 Table 3.8 Criteria Assessment of Student’s Learning Activity 34 Table 4.1 Average Value, Deviation Standard and Variant 41 Table 4.2 Normality Test Data in Experimental and Control Class 42 Table 4.5 Homogeneity Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class 42
Table 4.4 Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Pretest Ability 43
Table 4.5 Summary of Calculation Hypothesis Test
for Post Test Ability 44
Table 4.6 Affective Data In Experimental and Control Class 45 Table 4.7 Psychomotor Data in Experimental and Control Class 46 Table 4.8 Pretest Value, Student’s Learning Activity Value
and Posttest Value 47
Table 4.9 Grouping of Pretest, Learning Activity
and Posttest Value 51
x
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy 9
Figure 2.2 Hydrostatic Pressure 18
Figure 2.3 Four Vessel with Different Shapes
Contain The Same Liquid 19
Figure 2.4 Pascal’s Principle Sprayer 20
Figure 2.5 Hydraulic Jack, that Work Based on
Pascal’s Principle 20
Figure 2.6 Archimedes’ Principle 21
Figure 2.7 Floating Body 22
Figure 2.8 Suspending Body 23
Figure 2.9 Sinking Body 23
Figure 3.1 Schema of Research Procedure 29
Figure 4.1 Bar Chart of Pre-test Data in Experiment
and Control Class 40
Figure 4.2 Bar Chart of Post-Test Data in Experimental
and Control Class 41
Figure 4.3 Bar Chart of Affective Domain in Experimental
and Control Class 45
Figure 4.4 Chart of Students’ Psychomotor in Experimental
and Control Class 46
Figure 4.5 Chart Bar of Pretest, Learning Activity,
Posttest Category 50
Figure 4.6 The chart bar of pretes value, learning activities value, posttes value of experiment class based on lower learning activity value to the higher learning activity value. 53 Figure 4.7 The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
xi
pretest value to the higher pretest value. 54 Figure 4.8 The chart bar of pretest, students learning activity,
postest value of experimental class based on lower pretest
xiii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 61
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 2 72
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan 3 83
Appendix 4 Student's Worksheet I 96
Appendix 5 Student's Worksheet II 101
Appendix 6 Student's Worksheet III 105
Appendix 7 Lattice of Research Instrument 111
Appendix 8 Cognitive Research Instrument 119
Appendix 9 Pretest and Posttest Data in Experimental Class 124 Appendix 10 Pretest and Posttest Data in Control Class 126 Appendix 11 Calculation of Average Value Deviation Standard
and Variance 128
Appendix 12 The Calculation of Normality of Data 131
Appendix 13 Homogeneity Test 137
Appendix 14 Calculation of Hypothesis Test 140
Appendix 15 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Experimental Class 144
Appendix 16 Observation Table of Students’ Affective
in Control Class 146
Appendix 17 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Experimental Class 148
Appendix 18 Observation Table of Students’ Psychomotor
in Control Class 150
Appendix 19 Student’s Learning Observation Result 152 Appendix 20 List of Critical Value for Liliefors 158 Appendix 21 List of Percentil Value for Distribution t 159 Appendix 22 Atable of Region Under Norml Curve 0 to z 160
Appendix 23 F Distribution Values 161
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Education has a very important role to ensure the survival of a nation and the state, because education can improve and develop the quality of human resources (HR). In Law Republic Indonesian Number 20 Article 1 of 2003 on National Education System has determined that: "Education is a conscious and deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of learning and learning process so that learners are actively developing their potential to have the spiritual strength of religious, self-control, personality, intelligence, noble character , as well as the necessary skills themselves, the community, the nation and the state ". Therefore education is obliged to prepare a new generation capable of facing the challenges of the coming age.
Education also plays an important role in nation building, because education is the foundation of nation building. Success of development in the field of education will affect development in other field. The development of education will influence the development of science and technology (science and technology). This can be seen with the rapid development of science and technology. All of this, can’t be separated from the progress of physics that produce a lot of new findings in the field of science and technology. Therefore, physics is placed as one of important subjects.
2
But in fact, the students feel bored when studying physics, since most teachers teach by lecture method (conventional learning) and tend to be monotonous and teachers-centered, which resulted in students becoming passive and bored when learning physics. Teacher more emphasis on students to memorize theories especially the formulas that can be used by students in answering general tests or national exams, without emphasizing the understanding and application of concepts in their daily lives. Thus, students will further assume that the learning physics has no meaning for their life, abstract and hard to understand.
Similarly in SMA Negeri 3 Medan when doing observations there, by giving the questionnaire instrument to the students class X which have 40 respondents and interview the physics teachers, the observation results indicate that: 44.4% of students stated that learning physics in classroom is difficult to understand and boring, 33.3% stated that learning physics ordinary, and 22.2% stated that teaching physics in class is interesting and challenging. Based on the questionnaire also found that before the physics material taught in class, 10% said students are studying at home and notes what they don’t understood, 25% said sometimes learn at home, 35% just look at the topic title, and 30% did not learn and open physics book (nothing their preparation). Through a questionnaire instrument is also known that almost all respondents said that the usual way of teaching by physics teacher is lecturing, note and give the question to do.
3
Therefore, to overcome the low physics student learning outcomes, it is necessary to use an approach or method or model of learning that can drive the spirit of each student to be actively involved in the learning experience. One of the learning model is suitable for that purpose is Problem Based Learning. This model is chosen because in learning process, the student faced to the really daily lives problem. So, student able to solve the problem and get the knowledge and important concept by their selves (L. A. Kharida, A. Rusilowati, K. Pratiknyo, 2009). Problem based learning aims improve students’ ability to work in a team, showing their coordinated abilities to access information and turn it into viable knowledge (Ibrahim Bilgin, Erdal Senocak, Mustafa Sozbilir, 2009). Problem
based learning is an effective method for improving students’ problem-solving
skills. Students will make strong connections between concepts when they learn
facts and skills by actively working with information rather than by passively
receiving information (Valerie Ross, 2001).
Problem-based learning model begins by presented a problem to the learners. The students will search for, collect and process data logically related to the problems encountered, either through discussion or through guided practice and facilitated by the teacher, in this learning model students are expected actively to find answers or solutions to these problems. The use of problem-based learning model is expected to improve student learning outcomes. Learning activities that involve thinking, problem solving, and understanding often have more positive effects on student achievement than do more traditional teaching methods Brown & Palincsar (in Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010).
4
class, had the increase of value pretest to posttest in experiment class is 38,95 and in control class is 35.744. From these studies it can be seen that, there is the effect between problem based learning model and student learning outcomes.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher want to do a research with the title “The Effect of Problem Based Learning Model on Student’s Learning Outcomes in Static Fluid Topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan
Academic Year 2013/2014”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described above, some problems can be identified as follows:
1. Teaching and learning process in school is still teacher-centered. 2. Learning model still not variated that used by teacher
3. Learning physics is boring and monotonous 4. Low of student’s learning outcomes for physics 5. Students are not actively in learning process.
1.3. Problem Limitation
In order to keep this research become more focused and directed, the researcher limit the problems as the following:
1. Students that observe are high school students grade X in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014
2. Learning model used is a problem based learning model on the experimental class and conventional learning on the control class.
5
1.4. Problem Formulation
The problem formulation of this research are:
1. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based learning model in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. How does the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional learning in Static Fluid topic of Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014?
3. Is the student’s learning outcomes in the Static Fluid topic using problem based learning model greater than conventional learning?
1.5. Research Objectives
The research objectives as follows:
1. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use problem based learning model in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. To know the student’s learning outcomes after teaching use conventional learning in Static Fluid topic in SMA Negeri 3 Medan Class X Academic Year 2013/2014?
3. To know is the student’s learning outcomes in Static Fluid topic using problem based learning model greater than Conventional Learning in Class X SMA Negeri 3 Medan, Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6. Benefits of Research
The expected benefits of this research are:
1. Adding the experience of researchers in improving student’s learning outcomes based problem based learning model that can be used in the future. 2. Opening teachers thinking conception in developing teaching and learning
59
REFERENCES
Arends, L., R., (2009), Learning to Teach, Mc.Graw-Hill, New York Arends, L., R., Kilcher, A., (2010, Teaching for Student Learning Becoming an Accomplished Teacher, Routledge, New York
Arikunto, S., (2007), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Bilgin, I., Senocak, E., Sozbilir, M., (2009) The Effects of Problem Based Learning Instruction on University Students’ Performance of Conceptual and Quantitative Problems in Gas Concepts, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 5: 153-164
Djamarah, S., and Zain, A., (2002), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Gultom, J. S. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Outcomes In Static Fluid Topic For Class XI At SMA Negeri 3 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Hewitt, P., G., (2006), Conceptual Physics, Tenth Edition, Pearson Addison Wesley, San Fransisco
Joyce, B., and Weil, M., (1967), Models of Teaching, Prentice/Hall International, Inc, New Jersey.
Kanginan, M., (2013), Fisika untuk SMA/MA Kelas X, Penerbit Erlangga, Jakarta. Kharida, L. A., Rusilowati, A., Pratiknyo, K., (2009), Penerapam Model
Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Elastisitas Bahan, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia 5: 83-89 Lestari, N.N.S., (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah (Problembased Learning) dan Motivasi Belajar Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Fisika, Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia
Masek, A., and Yamin, S., (2008), Problem Based Learning: Adapting Model of Monitoring and Assessment Towards Changing to Student Centered Learning, Journal of Technical Education and Training
60
Ross, V., (2001), Problem-Based Learning, Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching, CTL Journal Teaching and Learning 11: 1
Sanjaya, W., (2008), Kurikulum Pembelajaran , Penerbit Kencana, Jakarta. Sardiman, A.M., (2010), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
Siahaan, A.B. (2013), The Effect Of Problem Based Learning Model On Student’s Achievement At Light Topic In 8 th Grade SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi A.Y 2012/2013., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Sitanggang, N. (2012), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Materi Pokok Kesetimbangan Benda Tegar Di Kelas XI MAN 1 Medan., Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed, Medan.
Slameto, (2003), Belajar Dan Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Sudjana, (2005), Metoda Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Sugiyono, (2010), Metode Penelitian Kuantatif Kualitatif Dan R & D, Penerbit Alfabeta, Bandung.
Trianto, (2010), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progesif, Penerbit Prenada Media, Jakarta.
Zaelani, A., Cunayah, C., Irawan, E.I., (2006), 1700 BANK SOAL Bimbingan Pemantapan FISIKA untuk SMA/MA, Penerbit Yrama Widya, Bandung
UPI(2008),http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FPMIPA/JUR._PEND._FISIKA/IKA_M TIKA_SARI/EVALUASI_PENDIDIKAN/BAHAN_AJAR_%28MINGGU_K
