THE DIFFERENCE DF STUDENT LEARNING DUTCDME AND ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED
HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN
ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By: Novita Sari 4103342021
Biology Bilingual Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill The Requirement for The Degree of SarjanaPendidikan
BIDLDGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY DF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY DF MEDAN
x
THE DIFFERENCE DF STUDENT LEARNING DUTCDME AND ACTIVITY BETCEEN THINK PAIR SHARE AND NUMBERED HEAD TDGETHER MDDEL DN HUMAN REPRDDUCTIVE
SYSTEM IN CLASS XI SMA NEGERI 11 MEDAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
Novita Sari 4103342021
ABSTRACT
This quasy expeqiment qeseaqch aims to investigate the diffeqence of student leaqning outcome and activity between Think Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed Head Togetheq model on human qepqoductive system in SMA Negeqi 11 Medan Academic Yeaq 2013/2014. The population of this qeseaqch was all students in SMA Negeqi 11 Medan totaling 223 students. The sample was taken by using qandom sampling and was obtained the sample foq 38 students of Think Paiq Shaqe (XI IPA 5) and 38 students of Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (XI IPA 6). The instqument of qeseaqch was student’s leaqning outcome test in multiple choice foqm with 30 questions which had been validated by expeqt. The qesult of data analysis showed that pqe-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (43.73±10.98 ) and pqe-test in Numbeqed Head Togetheq class (41.97±9.28). Afteq t test was caqqied out by using significance degqee α = 0,05, it was obtained that tcalculate = 0.75 < ttable = 1.99, so it can be known both classes had no diffeqence of student leaqning outcome befoqe implementation. Post-test in Think Paiq Shaqe class (77.65±6.73) has diffeqence compaqed with pos-test in Numbeqed Head Togetheq (74.47±5.63). It was obtained that tcalculate = 2.24 > ttable = 1.99, define student leaqning outcome of biology in Think Paiq Shaqe is higheq than student leaqning outcome in Numbeqed Head Togetheq. Then, the aveqage qesult of student activity in Think Paiq Shaqe and Numbeqed Head Togetheq was 73.80 : 71.32. It means that student activities in Think Paiq Shaqe is moqe active than student activity in Numbeqed Head Togetheq.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to praise Allah swt that give health and wisdom to the author so this thesis can be completed properly in accordance with planned time. This thesis is aimed at fulfilling a requirement to get the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at Biology department, Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, State University of Medan.
During the process of writing the thesis, the writer realized that se had many problems. Meanwhile, she has been given some suggestions, comments, academic guidance and moral support from her consultant and others that she would like to express her sincere thanks.
Firstly, the writer would like to express her great gratitude to Drs. H. Tri Harsono, M.Si as her consultant for his generous assistance, guidance, advices and valuable time to read and discuss the thesis until it is completed. The author also would like thank profusely to Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D., as dean of the Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, State University of Medan. Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si, Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D, and Dr. Syahmi Edi, M.Si as the lecturer team of examiners for their suggestion and contructive criticisms for the thesis revision and Dra. Rosita Tarigan, M.Pdas her academic supervisor who has guided the author during academic program.
My never ending thankfulness is fully to my beloved father Mugimin Syatriadi and my mother Fauziah Siregar for their everlasting love, hopeful prayersin her life, the entire moral and the financial support that have enabled her to finish her study. Her special thanks and admiration are also due to her beloved sisters and brother, Deviana, Dodi Arisandi, Edi Handoyo, Ramadhan Abdiansyah and Mawar Afriza.
ix
Biology Bilingual Education 2010 who helped me during this research can be completed on time.
The writer had tried as much as possible in the completion of this thesis, but thw writer is aware there are still many weakness in terms of content and grammar, therefore the writer is pleased to receive some suggestions and constructive criticism from readers for thesis perfectly. Presumably the contents of this thesis are useful in enriching science and education.
Medan, July 2014 Author
ii
iii
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion 50
5.2. Suggestion 50
REFERENCES 51
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. The Steps of Cooperative Learning Model 10
Tabel 2.2. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of TPS 12 Tabel 2.3. The Procedures of Learning Models Implementation of NHT 14
Table 3.1. Design of Experimental Research 30
Table 3.2. The Gratings of Test 32
Table 3.3. Assessment Guidelines of Student Activities 34
Table 3.4. Index Classification of Test Validity 36
Table 3.5. The Classification of Difficulty Index of Test 37
Table 3.6. The Classification of Discrimination Index 38
Table 4.1. Normality Test Data 45
Table 4.2. Homogeneity Test Data 45
Table 4.3. Summary of Hypothesis Test 46
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Model of the LEPO Framework 6
Figure 2.2. Structure of Male Reproductive Organs 17
Figure 2.3. Structure of Female Reproductive Organs 18
Figure 2.4. Spermatogenesis 19
Figure 2.5. Oogenesis 20
Figure 2.6. Menstrual Cycle 22
Figure 3.1. Scheme of Research Procedures 35
Figure 4.1. Diagram of Pre-test TPS class and NHT class 42 Figure.4.2. Diagram of Post-test TPS class and NHT class 43
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1. Syllabus of Learning Activities 53
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan 55
Appendix 3. Question Sheet 84
Appendix 4. Student Answer Sheet 94
Appendix 5. Answer Key 95
Appendix 6. Worksheet 96
Appendix 7. Student Activity Sheet 103
Appendix 8. Assesment Guide of Student Activity 104
Appendix 9. The Calculation of Validity Test 105
Appendix 10. Table of Validity 108
Appendix 11. The Calculation of Realibility Test 109
Appendix 12. Table of Reability 110
Appendix 13. The Calculation of Difficulty Index 111
Appendix 14. Table of Difficulty Index 114
Appendix 15. The Calculation of Discrimination Index 115
Appendix 16. Table Calculation Discrimination Index 118
Appendix 17. Research Data 119
Appendix 18. The Calculation of Mean and Standart Deviation 123
Appendix 19. The Normality Test of Research Data 126
Appendix 20. The Calculation of Homogeneity Test 130
Appendix 21. Hypothesis Test 133
Appendix 22. Student Activity in TPS and NHT 137
1 students who have positive approaches to learning, in terms of both attitudes and behaviours, tend to enjoy good learning outcomes. Beyond school, children and adults who have developed the ability and motivation to learn on their own initiative are well-placed to become lifelong learners. Thus, an overall assessment of the outcomes of schooling needs to consider not only students’ knowledge and understanding but also their approaches to learning (Artelt, 2003).
One of the problems that faced in education is lack of learning process. In learning process, students are less encouraged to develop critical thinking. This learning process in class is directed to student’s ability to memorize information, the brain is forced to remember and store many information without required to understand information that they remembered to relate in daily life. As consequently, when students have graduated from school, they are smart theoretically but less of application (Sanjaya, 2006).
Based on the interview result with Mrs. Daryanti, the Biology teacher of class XI IPA SMA Negeri 11 Medan, known that value of Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimal (KKM) Biology subject in School is 72, while the learning outcomes of students was average of 65 – 70. It was caused the teaching way of teacher still monotonous although sometimes used learning media such as power point that presented in front of the class, teachers still dominate teaching learning process so that students tend to be passive when teaching learning process in the class. In this situation, teachers serve as the main source of information so that the learning activities happen in one direction and make students become bored in learning.
2
type never used in Biology subject yet. Thus, researcher introduced the cooperative learning model to solve the problems.
Cooperative Learning refers to variety of teaching methods in which students work in small group to help one another learn academic content. In cooperative classrooms, students are expected to help each other to discuss and argue with each other, to assess each other’s current knowledge and fill in gaps in each other’s understanding, so that the interest and active students in the learning process can be improved individually and groups (Siburian, 2013).
The reason of researcher choose Think-Pair-Share type is this cooperative learning model designed to influence the interaction patterns of students. Think-Pair-Share is a classroom-based active learning strategy, in which students work on a problem posed by the instructor, first individually, then in pairs, and finally as a class-wide discussion. TPS has been recommended for its benefits of allowing students to express their reasoning, reflect on their thinking, and obtain immediate feedback on their understanding (Kothiyal, 2013)
Numbered Head Together learning model is one of cooperative learning models that developed based on contructivism principle. According to Lie ( 2004 ) NHT can provide benefits for students who are underachieving and high achieving students that work together to complete the task. The students in a group depend on each other for information and for doing the task assigned on them This model can promote mutual respect among the members and the prevent the domination of particular student in a group.
Reproductive System Topic was the learning topic that teach in second semester. This topic was also accordance with research time that carried out. Researcher used learning model Think-Pair-Share and Numbered Head Together type on Reproductive System, with the hope through this cooperative learning students can work together to resolve the matter.
3
1.2. Identification of Problem
Based on the background above, the problem identification in this study : 1. The variation in learning still low in applying learning models
2. Lack of interaction between students with teacher or one student with anothers.
3. The students cooperation in teaching learning process still low. 4. Learning outcomes still low level
1.3. Scope of Problem
The problem scope in this research :
1. This research is limited in using cooperative learning Think-Pair-Share with Numbered Head Together.
2. The research is applied in Topic Reproductive System in Class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
3. The Learning Outcomes that observed is limited in cognitive and affective aspects.
1.4. Research Question
The research question in this research :
1. Is there any difference between student learning outcome that taught by using Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014?
2. Is there any difference between student learning activity that taught by using Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014?
1.5. Objectives of Study
The study objectives are to know :
4
2. The difference of student learning activity that taught by using Think Pair Share and Numbered Head Together Type on Topic Human Reproductive System in class XI SMA Negeri 11 Medan Academic Year 2013/2014.
1.6. Significance of Study
The significance that hoped in this study :
1. Consideration for biology teacher to determine learning models that will used in delivering learning topic accordance with subject matter.
2. As input for researcher to self-prepare become teacher who able to improve learning quality.
3. Provide knowledge and experience for student about discussion way with using learning model Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) type so that can used by student to explore and develop knowledge and learning skill for other topic through information sharing with peers or another.
50
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
The conclusion of this research :
1. There is significant difference of student learning outcome in biology that taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) model on Human Reproductive System topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11 Medan.
2. Students activities that taught by using Think Pair Share (TPS) is more active than Numbered Head Together (NHT) model on Human Reproductive System topic for class 11 in SMA Negeri 11 Medan.
5.2. Suggestion
There were some suggestions can be proposed, namely :
1. Students of SMA Negeri 11 Medan were encouraged to improve their interest and curiosity by implementing cooperative learning model.
2. For biology teachers can make Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) as alternative in choosing the learning model that was expected to increase students learning outcome and students activities.
3. To the next researcher was hoped to be better to do research because of researcher was not capable to master the class in whole and influenced the result, so next researcher will get more maximum result.
51
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, J. C., (2001), Principles, Methods e Techniques of Teaching (Second Revised Edition), Vikas Publishing House PVT LTD , New Delhi.
Arends, R. I., (2007), Learning to Teach (Seventh Edition), The
Mc Graw-Hill Companies, New York.
Arikunto, S., (2010), Masar-Masar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi Revisi. Penerbit
Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius, N., and Peschar, J., (2003), Learners For Life Student Approaches To Learning, PISA Results Report, OECD
Aryulina, D., Muslim, C., dan Winarni, E., (2007), Biologi 2 SMA dan MA untuk Kelas XI, Esis, Jakarta.
Baker, D. P., (2013), The Effects Of Implementing The Cooperative Learning
Structure, Numbered Heads Together, In Chemistry Classes At A Rural, Low Performing High School, Thesis, Louisiana State University.
Febria, H., (2012), Perbandingan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe
Numbered Head Together dan Think Pair Share terhadap Hasil Belajar Biologi di SMPN 43 Medan., Skripsi, State University of Medan, Medan.
Istarani, (2012), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Penerbit Media Persada,
Medan.
Junaidi, (2010), http://junaidichaniago.wordpress.com (Accesed Juli 2014). Kailani, F., (2010), Penerapan Metode Kooperatif NHT (Numbered Head
Together) untuk Meningkatkan Minat Belajar Al-Qur’an Hadits Siswa-Siswi Kelas IV A SD Darul Ulum Bungurasih, Jurnal Penelitian
Tindakan Kelas Pendidikan Agama Islam 1 (1) : 25-36.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Murthy, S., and Iyer, S., (2013), Effect of Think-Pair-Share in a Large CS1 Class: 83% Sustained Engagement, ACM, USA.
Krohmer, R. W., (2004), The Reproductive System, Infobase Publishing, USA.
Li, M. P., and Lam, B. H., (2013), The Active Classroom : Cooperative Learning, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hongkong.
Lie, A., (2004), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit P.T.Grasindo, Jakarta.
Mandal, R. R., (2009), Cooperative Learning Strategies to Enhance Writing Skill.
The Modern Journal of Applied Linguistic 1: 0974-8741
52
Ong, E. T., (2010), Keberkesanan Kaedah “Numbered Heads Together” Terhadap Pencapaian Biologi Dalam Kalangan Pelajar Di Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris, Jurnal Teknologi 53: 35–46.
Phillips, R. A., McNaught, C., and Kennedy, G., (2010), Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the Learning Environment,
Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes (LEPO) framework,
EM-MEMIA 2010 : 2495–2504.
Prawirohartono, S., dan Hidayati, S., (2007), Sains Biologi 2 SMA/MA, Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Sabri, A., (2010), Strategi Belajar Mengajar Micro Teaching, Penerbit Quantum Teaching, Padang.
Sanjaya, W., (2006), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Penerbit Media Kencana, Jakarta.
Sardiman, (2006), Interaksi dan Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Siburian, T. A., (2013), Improving Students’ Achievement on Writing Mescriptive Text Through Think Pair Share, State University of Medan, Medan. Solomon, E. P., Berg, L. R., and Martin, D.W., (2008) Biology ( Eighth Edition ),
Thomson Brooks/Cole, USA.
Sudijono, A., (2011), Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit PT Raja
Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistika, Penerbit Tarsito, Bandung.
Sudjana, N., (2009), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit PT
Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Suyanto and Djihad, A., (2013), Bagaimana Menjadi Calon Guru dan Guru
Profesional, Multi Pressindo, Yogyakarta.
Syah, M., (2009), Psikologi Belajar, Penerbit PT Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta. Syamsuri, D., (2007), Biologi SMA Untuk Kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Trianto, (2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Kencana
