THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT VIEWED OF THE TEACHING MODELS AND STUDENT’S
MATHEMATIC INITIAL ABILITY ON CYLINDERS SUB TOPIC AT IX GRADE SMP NEGERI 1
SIDIKALANG
By:
Karlina M. Bakara 408111070
Mathematics Education Bilingual
THESIS
Of The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
PREFACE
Give thanks to Jesus Christ for His amazing love, blessing and miracles so
that writer can finish this thesis. The title of this thesis is “The Difference of
Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang”. This thesis was arranged to satisfy the requirement to get the Sarjana Pendidikan of Mathematics and Science Faculty in State
University of Medan.
This thesis, writer dedicated for both beloved parents especially, my father
Tumbur Bakara and my mother Frosma Manik who give me some motivation,
pray and my needs until writer can finish this thesis.
The writer also say thanks a lot to all part who give important help,
guidance, and support to finish this thesis. For it, in this chance the writer say
thanks a lot sincerely to:
1. Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar Damanik, M.Si as the Rector of State University of
Medan (UNIMED) and his staffs.
2. Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc., Ph.D as the Dean of FMIPA UNIMED and his
college Vice of Dean I, II, and III in UNIMED.
3. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd as the Head of Mathematics Department.
4. Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as the Head of Mathematics Education Study Program.
5. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as the Secretary of Mathematics Department.
6. Prof. Dr. Herbet Sipahutar, M.Sc as the Coordinator of Bilingual Class.
8. Prof. Dian Armanto, M.Pd., M.A., M.Sc., Ph.D as writer’s Thesis
Supervisor who has given more guidance and suggestion in finishing this
thesis.
9. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd, Dra. Katrina Samosir, M.Pd and Dr. E. Elvis
Napitupulu, M.S, who’s the persons responsible for this thesis.
10. All lecturers and staffs/officials who help writer in lecturing process in
FMIPA UNIMED.
11. Jemsi Mahulae, S.Pd as the Headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang.
12. Hotmedi Purba, S.Pd and Ramly Simbolon, S.Pd as mathematics teacher
in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang who help the writer in the research activities.
13. My big family, there’re my sisters and my brothers, Junita Bakara, SKM,
Rominta S. Bakara, Dewi Bakara, Tionarta Bakara, Tionarti Bakara, Futri
S. Bakara, Sampit Bona Bakara, Siska A. Bakara and youngest brother
Franklyin B. Bakara who always give spirit, motivation and support to the
writer.
14. All my lovely friends in Bilingual Class Mathematics Education 2008
especially for my friends Mesra EZ. Damanik and Angelina Togatorop
who help me so much and always give me motivation. Thank so much my
best friends. I miss you so much.
15. Special someone in my life Obi J.A. Malau, SH who always help and give
motivation for me. I can’t say anything. You’re the best. I hope you can
achieve your best future and be the best for our families. My praying is
The writer has given a big effort to finish this thesis, and the writer
consider that this thesis have so many weakness. For that, the writer needs some
suggestions to make this thesis be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our
knowledge.
Medan, September , 2012
Writer
Karlina M. Bakara
The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub
Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang Karlina M. Bakara
ABSTRACT
This research aimed to find out whether there’s or no the difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders viewed from the teaching models and student’s mathematic initial ability. Population of this research is all students at IX grade RSBI SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang academic year 2012/2013. Research’s samples are taken as many two classes randomly, in which each class consists of 25 students. This research is quasi experiment with design factorial 2 x 2. There are two factors which trial tested namely factor A: teaching models consists of two categories A1 = STAD with Teaching Aids and A2 = Direct Instruction and factor B: student’s mathematic initial ability consists of two categories B1 = High and B2 = Low.
Data that collected in this research is (1) data of student’s initial ability obtained from student’s mathematic final test value when students were on eight grade in second semester academic year 2011/2012 and (2) student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders measured by essay test after given treatments.
Hypothesis test is done by using Two Way Analysis of Variance (Two Way ANOVA). The research result shows that on significance level 5% (1) there’s no significant difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students taught by STAD with teaching aids and Direct Instruction, (2) there’s a significant difference of learning achievement between students have high ability taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction and between students have low ability taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction and (3) there’s an interaction between model of teaching and student’s initial ability to student’s learning achievement. The result of research suggest that in order to teach surface area and volume of cylinders matter, teacher should care about student’s initial ability in choosing learning model which will be used in learning activity. If the student’s initial ability is low then the learning model should be used is Direct Instruction, but if the student’s initial ability is high then it should be used learning model STAD with teaching aids.
The Difference of Student’s Learning Achievement Viewed from The Teaching Models and Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability on Cylinders Sub
Topic at IX Grade SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang Karlina M. Bakara
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui ada tidaknya perbedaan hasil belajar siswa terhadap luas permukaan dan volume tabung bila ditinjau dari model pengajaran dan kemampuan matematika awal siswa. Populasi dari penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa kelas IX RSBI SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang tahun pelajaran 2012/2013. Sampel penelitian ini diambil sebanyak dua kelas secara random, dimana tiap kelas terdiri dari 25 siswa. Penelitian ini merupakan quasi eksperimen dengan rancangan fakorial 2 x 2. Ada dua faktor yang diujicobakan yaitu faktor A: model pengajaran terdiri dari dua kategori A1 = STAD dengan Alat Peraga dan A2 = Direct Instruction dan faktor B: kemampuan matematika awal siswa terdiri dari dua kategori B1 = Tinggi dan B2 = Rendah.
Data yang dikumpulkan dalam penelitian ini adalah (1) data kemampuan awal siswa yang diperoleh dari nilai tes matematika akhir siswa pada saat duduk di kelas dua semester dua tahun pelajaran 2011/2012 dan (2) hasil belajar luas permukaan dan volume tabung yang diukur dengan tes uraian setelah diberi perlakuan.
Pengujian hipotesis dilakukan dengan menggunakan analisis varians dua arah (Anava Dua Arah). Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pada taraf signifikansi 5% (1) tidak terdapat perbedaan hasil belajar luas permukaan dan volume tabung secara signifikan antara siswa yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction, (2) terdapat perbedaan hasil belajar secara signifikan antara siswa kelompok kemampuan tinggi yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dengan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction dan juga antara siswa kelompok kemampuan rendah yang diajar dengan STAD menggunakan bantuan alat peraga dengan siswa yang diajar dengan Direct Instruction, dan (3) terdapat interaksi antara model pengajaran dan kemampuan awal siswa terhadap hasil belajar siswa. Dari penelitian ini disarankan agar dalam mengajarkan materi luas permukaan dan volume tabung hendaknya guru mempertimbangkan kemampuan awal siswa dalam memilih model pembelajaran yang akan digunakan dalam pembelajaran. Jika kemampuan awal siswa rendah maka model pembelajaran yang sebaiknya digunakan adalah Direct Instruction, tetapi jika kemampuan awal siswa termasuk kategori tinggi maka sebaiknya digunakan model pembelajaran STAD dengan menggunakan alat peraga.
CONTENTS
Page
Sheet of Agreement i
Curriculum Vitae ii
Abstract iii Preface v Contents viii
List of Figure xi
List of Tables xii
List of Appendix xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Problem Background 1
1.2. Problems Identification 5
1.3. Problem Restrictions 5 1.4. Problem Formulation 5 1.5. Research Objectives 6 1.6. Benefits of Research 6
1.7. Operational Definition 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1.Theoretical Framework 10
2.1.1. Definition and Theory of Learning 10
2.1.1.1. Definition of Learning 10 2.1.1.2. Theory of Learning 11
2.1.1.3. Learning Achievement 12 2.1.1.4. Factors that Affect Learning and Learning Achievement 14 2.1.2. Cooperative Learning 15
2.1.2.1. Definition and Elements of Cooperative Learning 15
2.1.2.2. Difference of Cooperative Learning Group with Usual
2.1.3. STAD (Student Teams Achievement Division) 19
2.1.4. Direct Instruction 23
2.1.4.1. Principles of Direct Instruction 24
2.1.5. Student’s Mathematic Initial Ability 27
2.1.6. Teaching Aids 29
2.1.7. Student’s Mistake in Solving Mathematic Problems 31
2.1.8. Description of The Subject Material of Surface Area
and Volume of Cylinder 32
2.1.8.1. Definition of Cylinder 32
2.1.8.2. Elements of Cylinder 32
2.1.8.3. Nets of Cylinder 32
2.1.8.4. Area of Cylinder Surface 33
2.1.8.5. Volume of Cylinder 34
2.2. Conceptual Framework 35
2.3. Hypothesis 36
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. The Research Place and Time 37
3.2. Population and Sample 37
3.3. Research Variables and Instrument 37
3.4. Type and Design of Research 40
3.5. Techniques of Data Collection 41
3.6. Techniques of Data Analysis 44
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Description of Research Result 49
4.1.1. Initial Data of Experiment and Control Class 49
4.1.2. Final Data of Experiment and Control Class 50
4.2. Test of Requirement Analysis 51
4.2.1. Normality Test 51
4.2.3. Hypothesis Test 54
4.2.4. Result of Observation Sheet of The Students Activity 56
4.2.5. Student’s Response in Solving The Test 58
4.3. Discussion of Research 59
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion 64
5.2. Suggestion 65
REFERENCES 66
LIST OF TABLE
Page Table 2.1. The difference of cooperative learning group with usual
learning group 17 Table 2.2. The criteria of the calculation of the team score 21
Table 2.3. The criteria of the awards 22
Table 3.1. Factorial design of 2 x 2 40
Table 3.2. Summary table of ANOVA to test hypothesis 47
Table 3.3. Sum of square (SS) design 47
Table 4.1. Categorization of initial abilities data 49
Table 4.2. Data of individual test in experiment and control class 50
Table 4.3. Summary of data normality test by Liliefors test 51
Table 4.4. Summary of data homogeneity test 52
Table 4.5. Summary of test average of experiment and control class 52
Table 4.6. Mastery statistic list 54
Table 4.7. Summary of calculation results Two Way ANOVA 55
LIST OF FIGURE
Pages Figure 2.1. Direct instruction learning visual concept diagram 25
Figure 2.2. A cylinder with the elements 32
Figure 2.3. Nets of cylinder 33
Figure 2.4. Nets of cylinder with radius r 33
Figure 2.5. A cylinder is a regular prism with a lot of numbers of facets 34
Figure 2.6. Conceptual framework 35
Figure 3.1. Scheme of research procedure 43
Figure 4.1. Graph of student’s learning achievement average 53
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1.Problem Background
Along with the rapid development of science and technology nowadays, it
also participates and influences the development of education. The progress of
science and technology provide a challenge for education to increase the quality
and effectiveness of education as a national demand in line with the development
of society. This significantly affects the education program and curriculum in
schools. Curriculum objectives can be achieved well if the program is clearly and
applicably designed. In this case the teachers are required to have proficiency in
designing the program and determine instructional strategies that must be adopted.
Teachers should be skilled at selecting and using appropriate teaching methods to
be applied in an effective learning system.
Mathematics which called the queen of science is subjects that taught from
primary to secondary level. But until recently mathematic is regarded as a difficult
and boring subject and even scary. This is because the mathematics learning tends
to lead to pure mathematics, fast and abstract, lacking attention ability and soul of
the students. It makes students have trouble follow math subject, which in turn
makes them unhappy about mathematic.
Student’s displeasure to the mathematic is caused by the teacher can’t teach mathematic matter in a professional way. In other words the teacher can’t or
less use the methods of mathematic teaching that can foster student interest or
motivation to do and learn (Kasiati, 2008). This is also confirmed by Chomaidi in
Syahputra (2002:2) stated that:
Junior High School is the education that prepares students to be members
of the public who have the ability to hold a reciprocal relationship with the social
environment, culture, and the universe as well as to develop more capacity in the
world of work/higher education. Students at this level generally were aged
between 11-16 years. At that age they do not have perfect analysis and abstraction
capabilities. And according to the theory of cognitive development from the
famous Swiss psychologist, Jean Peaget, which stated that children are more or
less at that age can perform operations that involve the objects and they can also
be a logical reason as far as it was applied in the specific or concrete example
(Santrock, 2007).
After the initial observations with the mathematics teacher and some
students at SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, facts on the field indicate that till nowadays
there are still many difficulties that experienced by students in learning
mathematics material. One difficulty is to understand the concept of the subject
matter sub surface area and volume of cylinders. They always memorize the
formula of that matter. Beside it, they are less to develop the concept surface area
and volume of cylinders. As the result, they get a lot of trouble when they answer
the questions daily, general, and UN tests which related to the surface area and
volume of cylinders. And finally students get low achievements.
As Usman (2007:36) said that one of cautions of the low student’s learning
achievement beside low concept comprehension is caused by less variety teaching
method, in which in several this time the teachers oriented to the traditional
approach that placed learner only as a listener. With a variety learning models
expect that students not only as a listener, but can become actors in the learning
that can enhance mathematic learning achievement.
Beside choosing the exact teaching methods, it’s important to pay attention for the student’s initial ability. Because it’s very influencing the learning - teaching process. If it has been known the student’s initial ability, the teacher
wouldn’t be wrong to choose the appropriate teaching model to be implemented in
To solve the problems then all parties involved either directly or indirectly,
should take active part in efforts to improve the quality of teaching in the units of
education, including the government. One of the government's efforts have been
made to improve the quality of teaching is through education programs and
teacher certification training. The purpose of this training is to enhance teachers
competence and knowledge, especially about the methods, approaches, strategies,
and skills in teaching. Although as stated by Prof. Dr. Baedhowi, M.Si., in the
results of his research in 2008 which stated that the main motivation of the
teachers involved certification related to the financial namely for an allowance.
That become issue, after taking part the certification it did not increase the
teachers competence automatically.
Recognizing this fact, the certification program alone is not sufficient as
an effort to improve the competence of teachers (Dirjen PMPTK: 2010). So go
back to the personality of the teachers in trying to improve the quality of
instruction. Stock of knowledge about learning strategies derived from the training
very effective when applied in the process of learning - teaching. One method that
is appropriate and has piloted namely the usage of teaching aids in teaching
mathematics.
Teaching aids which intended as manipulative model can affect student
success in learning mathematics because the uses of teaching aids can help
students in studying abstract mathematical objects. As advocated by Gravemeijer
(1994) that a broad attention has to be given to visual models, model situations,
and schemata that arises from problem solving activities because it will help
students to move through from informal to formal knowledge and from intuitive
level to level of subject matter systematic.
But the reality is that the learning - teaching is not fully utilizing teaching
aids. This is due to lack of understanding about the importance of teaching aids,
lack of cost, time, and effort. As the results, students can’t enhance their low outcomes when they have test about matter surface area and volume cylinders
since their comprehension about that matter is less deep. Besides the use of
Usman (2007:9) that: "A competent teacher will be more able to create an
effective learning environment so that student’s learning achievements are at an optimal level.”
In order students can learn well, the methods of teaching should be kept as
precise, efficient, and effective as possible. Said to be effective if the learning
method can produce something as expected. Said to be efficient if the applied
learning method relatively use little energy, effort, cost and time as possible.
One alternative model of learning in KTSP is a cooperative learning
model type STAD. Cooperative learning model is usually called a model of
mutual cooperation. Studying characteristics of cooperative learning is not the
same as the regularly studying group. STAD (Student Teams Achievement
Divisions) as one type of model of cooperative learning is a cooperative learning
model for mixed grouping that involves the team’s recognition and responsibility
for the learning of individual group members.
Learning with cooperative model type STAD expect that students often
benefit from working in pairs or groups to construct understanding or help one
another master skills (Aggarwal, J.C., 2001:400). Actually STAD is not enough to
facilitate students group for understanding concept of surface area and volume of
cylinders. However, by combining it with the use of teaching aid it’s expected that
it can more widely facilitate students group for understanding concept of surface
area and volume of cylinders. By this teaching method, researcher hope that there
is an improvement of student’s learning achievement.
To know how far the effect of teaching methods and student’s initial
ability to the student’s learning achievement at IX grade SMP Negeri 1
Sidikalang, the researcher interested in doing this research. Based on the rationale
1.2.Problem Identifications
Problems are identified in learning process as follow:
1) Students have difficulty in understanding concept of surface area and
volume of cylinders and they often memorize the formula.
2) Low interest of students to mathematic subject especially subject matter
sub surface area and volume of cylinders.
3) Low learning achievement especially in subject matter sub surface area
and volume of cylinders.
4) Teaching methods are less vary and tend to be monotonous.
5) The learning of mathematic is tend to pure mathematic, practical,
abstract and less attention to students ability.
6) Lack of use teaching aids/exemplary material such as cylinders teaching
aid in learning activities.
1.3.Problems Restrictions
The main problem which can be determined from the problem
identification above and also from the scope of this research is the significant
difference of student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of
cylinders taught by STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction at IX grade
SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang academic year 2012/2013.
1.4.Problems Formulation
The formulation of the problems in this research are:
1) Is there a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of
surface area and volume of cylinders taught by STAD with teaching aids
and Direct Instruction?
2) Is there a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of
surface area and volume of cylinders between students with high and low
abilities?
3) Is there an interaction between model of teaching and the student’s
4) What is the difference level of student activity in learning surface area and
volume of cylinders to students taught by STAD using teaching aids and
Direct Instruction?
5) What is the difference of student’s response in solving the test of surface
area and volume of cylinders to student taught by STAD using teaching
aids and Direct Instruction?
1.5.Research Objective
This research has the main objective as follow:
1) To find out whether there is a significant difference of the student’s
learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinder taught by
STAD using teaching aids and Direct Instruction.
2) To find out whether there is a significant difference student’s learning
achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders between students
with high and low abilities.
3) To find out whether there is an interaction between model of teaching and
the student’s abilities to student’s learning achievement.
4) To find out the difference level of student activity in learning surface area
and volume of cylinders to students taught by STAD using teaching aids
and Direct Instruction.
5) To find out the difference of student’s response in solving the test of
surface area and volume of cylinders to student taught by STAD using
teaching aids and Direct Instruction.
1.6.Benefits of Research
The benefits which expected from this research are:
1)For teachers
a. Provide an alternative for teachers to determine the learning
b. Provide information to teachers that the use of teaching aids can
facilitate the teacher in presenting a subject matter related to the
understanding the concept.
2)For students
The creation of a pleasant learning situation such that can increase the
activity, creativity, and learning achievement.
3)For school
The result of this research gives the good contribution for the school in
improving the teaching of mathematics at SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang in
optimizing school facilities and infrastructure that can support the learning
process.
4)For researcher
Researchers can obtain experienced directly how to choose learning
strategies and media appropriately so that when later jumped into the field,
researchers already have insight and knowledge. In addition, researchers
will have a basically teaching skills and develop learning by using
teaching aids.
5)For the other researchers
Can be the source for the other researchers that are interested in
undertaking similar research further.
1.7. Operational Definition
1) STAD Cooperative Learning Model
Cooperative learning model is learning approach that focuses on
the use of small groups of students to work together in maximizing the
learning conditions for achieving learning objectives. One example is
model for mixed groupings involving team recognition and
responsibility for the learning of individual group members.
2) Teaching aids
Teaching aids is a tool to educate or teach what is taught so easily
understood by students. Teaching aids can also be defined concrete
objects which are models of mathematical ideas.
3) Direct instruction
Direct instruction is an approach to teaching within a
teacher-directed classroom environment. The process emphasizes systematic
sequencing of lessons, a presentation of new content and skills, guided
student practice, the use of feedback and independent practice by
students.
4) Interaction
Interaction is an action happening when two or more objects
(factors) influence or have effect one another. The idea of this two way
relation is very important for interaction concept, as contradiction with
one way relation. It’s said that by there exist of interaction can cover the
effect of one factors and reverse (R.K. Sembiring, 1986: 445)
5) Learning achievement
The achievement is the result from an interaction of action learning
and teaching. From the students, learning achievement is the top end of
the experience and learning process (Dimyati and Mudjiono, 2009:33).
The learning achievement is the picture of the student outcomes in
following the learning process at a level that followed.
6) Surface area and volume of cylinders
The surface of the cylinders consists of cylinder lateral, upper
side (cap) and under side (base). The cylinder lateral side is
formed by a rectangle with length and width t. The
following formulas of areas are usually used in the cylinders:
Volume of cylinders
If r is radius of base cylinders ( a circle ) and t is height of
cylinders, then:
The area of the base = the area of the cap =
The area of cylinder lateral =
The area of cylinder surface =
The area of un-caped cylinder surface = ,
in which , r = the radius of cylinder and t
= the height of cylinder.
Volume of cylinder = the area base x the height of cylinder = the area of circle x the height of cylinder = r2 x t
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) There’s no significant difference of student’s learning achievement of
surface area and volume of cylinders between taught by STAD with
teaching aids and Direct Instruction. It means that cooperative learning model type STAD using teaching aids doesn’t give significant contribution to the student’s learning achievement of surface area and volume of cylinders yet.
2) There’s a significant difference of student’s learning achievement of
surface area and volume of cylinders between students with high and low
abilities. In which student with high ability taught by STAD using
teaching aids have learning achievement is higher than taught by Direct
Instruction. Meanwhile student with low ability taught by STAD using
teaching aids have learning achievement is lower than taught by Direct Instruction. In overall it can be concluded that student’s learning achievement with high ability is higher than student with low ability.
3) There’s a significant interaction between model of teaching and student’s abilities to the student’s learning achievement. It means that both factors namely, method of teaching and student’s ability influence student’s
learning achievement. Since some student’s with low initial ability when given the treatment can achieve the same score with student’s with high initial ability and reverse.
Learning with STAD using teaching aids make students are more active in discussion than Direct Instruction. It can be showed by the percentage of student’s activity each meeting, in which the percentage of student’s activity in class with learning model STAD is higher than in class with learning model Direct
Student’s response in solving the test show that students taught by STAD with
teaching aids is better than taught by Direct Instruction. There are some mistake that found from the analysis result of student’s answer sheet. They are :
1) Mistake in accepting information.
a. Mistake in writing what is known
b. Mistake in writing what is asked
2) Mistake which referring to the concept of surface area and volume of
cylinders namely mistake in using and applying formula.
3) Mistake in calculating
5.2. Suggestion
From the research result, discussion and conclusion that have been
described above, then given suggestion :
1) For the students with low ability, it’s better to use Direct Instruction as the
method of teaching to deliver the material so that students can enhance
their learning achievements.
2) For the students with high ability, it’s better to use STAD with teaching
aids as the method of teaching to deliver the material since they can learn
by themselves and teacher just facilitate them.
3) For the mathematic teacher suggested if using learning model with teaching aids as one of efforts to improve the student’s learning achievement must be supported by increasing the student’s understanding about concept of requirement material which related to the concept of
cylinders. Beside it, applying it with enough time such that can give the
time to review the matter without let students understand the concept by
themselves.
4) To obtain the research result which more believe, this research is needed
to use more bigger samples maybe doing it in other school such that
1
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman, Mulyono. 1999. Pendidikan bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta
Aggarwal, J.C. 2001. Principles Methods & Techniques of Teaching Second Revised Edition. New Delhi: VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT Ltd
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002. Dasar – Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara
Best, John W. and Khan, James V. 2007. Research In Education. New Delhi: Prentice – Hall of India
Borich, Gary D. 1996. Effective Teaching Methods Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach To Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
Dembo, Myron.H. 1994. Applying educational psychology fifth edition. Los Angeles: University of Southern California
Depdiknas. 2002. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka
Dimyati, Mudjiono. 2006. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT RINEKA CIPTA
Dirjen PMPTK.2010. Media Informasi Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan. Jakarta: Dirjen PMPTK Kemdiknas
Ferdi. Belajar dan Pembelajaran Journal.
http://www.bloggermajalengka.com/2011/09/pengertian-belajar-dan-pembelajaran.html accessed in February, 23rd 2012
Gravemeijer, K.P.E. 1994. Developing Realistic Mathematics Education. The Nederlands, Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
Hadjar, Ibnu. 1999. Dasar – Dasar Metodologi Penelitian Kwantitatif dalam Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Hidayat.2004. Teori Pembelajaran Matematika. Semarang: FMIPA UNNES
2
Joyce, Bruce.et.al.2009. Models of Teaching Model – Model Pengajaran Edisi Kedelapan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
M.A, Marsigit. 2008. Mathematics for Junior High School IX Year. Jakarta:
Yudhistira
Mulyani A., Yunia. 2004. Upaya Mengatasi Kesulitan Siswa Belajar Geometri dalam Pengajaran Remedial Kelompok dan Remidial Bersama di Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama http://digilib.upi.edu./pasca/available/etd-1011106-131035 acessed in July, 25th 2012
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mathematics Ability http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/abilities.asp acessed in September, 6th 2012
Nur, Muhammad dan Prima Retno, W. 2003. Pengajaran Berpusat Kepada Siswa dan Pendekatan Konstruktivis dalam Pengajaran. Surabaya: UNESA UNIVERSITY PRESS
Para Ahli. Definisi Belajar.
http://carapedia.com/pengertian_definisi_belajar_menurut_para_ahli_info 499.html accessed in February, 23rd 2012
Santrock, John.W. 2007. Adolescence, 11th Edition. New York: Mc Graw – Hill Companies,Inc
Sembiring, R.K. 1986. Ilmu Peluang dan Statistika untuk Insinyur dan Ilmuwan. Bandung: Penerbit ITB
Slameto. 2003. Belajar dan Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta
Slavin, R.E. 2008. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset & Praktik. Jakarta: Nusa Media
Sriati, Arti. 1994. Kesulitan Belajar Matematika pada Siswa SMA. Jurnal Kependidikan Jogjakarta
Starr, Cheryl. Direct Instruction Methods in the Classroom | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/info_7973507_direct-instruction-methods-classroom.html#ixzz22YYtOYmH accessed in July, 27th 2012
Sudjana, Nana.1989. Media Pengajaran. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo
3
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya
Sudrajat. Akhmad. Pembelajaran Langsung.
http://akhmadsudjat.wordpress.com/2012/07/27model-pembelajaran-langsung/ accessed in July, 27th 2012
Suryabarata, Sumadi. 2004. Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Suryosubroto. 2002. Proses Belajar Mengajar Di Sekolah. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.
Syahputra, Edy.et.al.2002. Efektifitas Metode Terbimbing dalam Pembelajaran Kooperatif Topik Luas Bangun Datar di Kelas 1 SLTP Kodya Medan. Medan: IKIP Medan
Treffers, A. (1991). Realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands 1980 - 1990. In Leen Streefland (Ed.), Realistic Mathematics Education in Primary Schools. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University.
Undang – Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 ”Guru dan Dosen“
Usman. 2007. Menjadi Guru yang Profesional. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya
Walpole, Ronald.E.et.al. 1978. Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc
CURRICULUM VITAE
Karlina M. Bakara was born in Sidikalang on November 15th, 1988. Her
father’s name is Tumbur Bakara and her mother’s name is Frosma Manik. She is
first child of her family, and then she has eight sisters and two brother. She was
jointed to SD Inpres 030306 Barisan Nauli on 1995, and then graduated in 2001.
She was graduated from SMP Negeri 2 Sidikalang on 2004. And then she was
graduated from SMA Negeri 1 Sidikalang on 2007. After graduated from Senior
High School, she continued her study in UNIMED as Students College in
bilingual class for Mathematics Education of 2008. She has been finished her
thesis at 4th September 2012 as the requirement for getting the Degree of Sarjana
