COMPARISON OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOME AND
ACTIVITY IN EXCRETORY SYSTEM TOPIC USING MAKE A MATCH AND WORD SQUARE MODEL FOR GRADE XI
SMA SWASTA AL-ULUM ACADEMIC YEAR 2013/2014
By:
Chairany Rizka 4103342012
Biology Bilingual Education
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfil The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
MEDAN 2014
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, the writer would like to thank and express the praise to the
Almighty God, Allah SWT for blessing hence writer is able to finish this thesis
entitled “Comparison of Students’ Learning Outcome and Activity in Excretory
SystemTopic Using Make a Match and Word Square Model for Grade XISMA
Swasta AL-ULUM Medan AcademicYear 2013/2014” to fulfill one of the
requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in Biology Department, FMIPA
UNIMED.
The writer gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to Prof.
Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si as writer thesis supervisor who has generously
spent precious time in giving the guidance, encouragement, comments,
suggestions and constructive advice until this thesis comes to its present form.
The enormous appreciation is addressed toProf. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc, Dr.
Hj. Fauziyah Harahap, M.Si, and Dra. Meida Nugrahalia, M.Sc as the examiners
for their criticisms and valuable advices. The writer would also like to thank
Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Sias the academic adviser. Thanks also extended
to Drs. H.Tri Harsono, M.Si as the chairman of Biology Department, Mrs. Riche
for her administrative assistance, and all lecturers of Biology Bilingual Education
Program. Special thanks are extended to the headmaster of SMA SwastaAl-Ulum
and Biology teachers who helping the writer during the research.
My never ending thankfulness addressed to beloved parents, Herman and
Nilawati, for the genes, endless love, unfailing support, encouragement
throughout the entire life, and also my lovely brothers Chairul Rizky and Chairil
Fahrurozy for their support and kindness. Lucky to have amazing and friends in
Biology Bilingual’10 for togetherness during my study, and especially: Melanie,
Frendy, Nanda Eska,Ade Pratiwi, Ditha Hastri and also ABM Perbaungan ( Eliza,
Rikcy, Rabiah, Fery, Jovan, Cici, Sheila, Anggi and Wulida)who made my time
more colorful and for being great best friends. Thanks for unforgettable moment.
A very special thanks goes out to Dian Arisandy, without whose
motivation and encouragement, I would not have finished this thesis. Thanks to
v
whose have given me a cheerful and joyful togetherness. I’ll would never forget
our happiness and sadness.
May Allah reward all those who have contributed in the completion of this
thesis. Hopefully, this thesis will be beneficial to contribute ideas in education.
Medan, July 2014 Writer,
iii grade XI IPA students of SMA Swata AL-ULUM. The sample was taken by using cluster random sampling technique and was obtained the sample for 30 students of word square class(XI IPA 1) and 30 students of make a match class (XI IPA 2). The instruments used to obtain the data were observation sheet as non-test instrument and cognitive test in form of multiple choices as test instrument. The result of data analysis showed that pretest in word square class (48.06±16.32) and pretest in crossword puzzle class (47.95±16.67)The result of hypothesis test for posttest showed that tcount = 5.31125>ttable = 2.664 at the level significance of 0.01, means that Hawas accepted and H0 was rejected. It can be concluded that there is a big significant difference of student learning outcomebetween is taught by using Make a match and Word square model. Then, t-test of observation results showed that students’ activity in both research classes is not significantly different. The students in word square class have the average percentage of 66% and in make a match 65% . The result of hypothesis test for student activity showed that tcount = 0.320<ttable = 2.664 It means that there is no difference of student learning activity in both of classes. On the whole, outcome in learning human excretory system (kidney) subtopic that taught by word square model is higher than student learning outcome that taught by make a match in SMA Swasta AL-ULUM Medan academic year 2013/2014.
vi
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1. Theoritical Framework 8
2.1.1. Essential of Learning 8 2.1.7. Cooperative Learning Type Word Square 14
2.1.8. Relevant Research 15
2.2. Learning Material 16
vii
2.4. Hypothesisof Research 24
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 26
3.1 Location and Time of Research 26
3.2 Population and Sample 26
3.3 Kind of Research 26
3.4 Variable of Research 26
3.5 Design of Research 27
3.6 Procedure of Research 27
3.6.1 Class which taught by Make a Match Model 27 3.6.2 Class which taught by Word Square Model 28
3.7. Instrument of Research 30
3.8 Istrument Test 31
3.9 Data Analysis Technique 33
3.9.1 Students Activity Data 33
3.9.2 Students Cognitive Data 34
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 37
4.1 Research Result 37
4.1.1 Instrument Testt Data Analysis 37
4.1.2 Description of Research Data 37
4.1.3 Analysis of Research Data 41
4.2 Discussion 42
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 47
5.1 Conclusion 47
5.2 Recommendation 47
viii
TABLE LIST
Pages
Table 2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy 10
Table 3.1. Design of Research 27
Table 3.2. Distribution of the instrument test cognitive levels 30
Table 3.3. Criteria of determination index 33
Table 3.4 Student Activity Category 34
x
FIGURELIST
Pages
Figure 2.1. Gross anatomy of the kidney 18
Figure 2.2. Nephron anatomy 19
Figure 2.3. Process of urine formation 20
Figure 3.1. Diagram of research procedure 29
Figure 4.1 The result of student pre test data 38
Figure 4.2 Comparison of students learning outcome 39
ix
APPENDIX LIST
Pages
Appendix 1 Syllabus 52
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 54
Appendix 3 Test Instrument 106
Appendix 4 Key 118
Appendix 5 Observation Sheet Instrument of Student Activity 119 Appendix 6 Distribution of the instrument test cognitive levels 122 Appendix 7 Table of Validity Instrument 123
Appendix 8 Calculation of Validity 124
Appendix 9 Calculation of Reliability 127 Appendix 10 Calculation of Difficulty Level 128 Appendix 11 Calculation of Discrimination Index 130 Appendix 12 Recapitulation of All Instrument Test 131 Appendix 13 Data of Student Pretest & Posttest 133 Appendix 14 Calculation of Average of Pretest Data 135 Appendix 15 Calculation of Average of Posttest Data 137 Appendix 16 Normality of Achievement Data 139 Appendix 17 Homogeneity of Achievement Data 143
Appendix 18 Hypothesis I Testing 148
Appendix 19 Recapitulation ofStudent Learning Activity 151 Appendix 20 Calculation of Average of Student Activity Data 155 Appendix 21 Normality Test of Student Activity 157 Appendix 22 Homogeneity Test of Student Activity 157
Appendix 23 Hypothesis II Testing 159
Appendix 24 Table r Product Moment 161
Appendix 25 Table Lilliefors 162
Appendix 26 Table of t Distribution Value 163
Appendix 27 Table F Distribution 164
Appendix 28 Research Documentation 167
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background
The quality of education in Indonesia is still low. This is evident from the
result of an international study which stated that the ability of Indonesian students
below international average score of 500. Among these, TIMSS (Trends in
Mathematics and Science Study) is the largest and the most comprehensive
comprative international study of education ever undertaken. Indonesia has
participated in TIMSS since 1999, 2003, 2007 and 2011. Achievement of students
in Indonesia during the TIMSS is below average. Last, in 2011 ranked 40 of 42
countries with an average value of 406 (Martin, 2012).
The low ability of Indonesian students in science is also reflected in the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA is the study of
international student assessment program organized conducted one over 3 years
and ongoing since 2000, aims to assess the extent to which the student is sitting at
the end of primary education or students aged 15 years and has mastered the
essential knowledge. Achievement of Indonesia in 2012 was ranked 64 0f 65
countries. In this case, Indonesian student learning outcome is low (OECD, 2012).
From data above clearly defined that student learning outcome on science
still dissappointed. Efforts of teachers in teaching process is a very important part
in achieving the success of the learning objectives that have been designed.
Generally, the purpose of teaching is the learning materials are delivered fully
mastered by all students. This mastery can be addressed as a result of learning or
student outcome. Whether or not a goal of learning is strongly influenced by the
strategies, methods and models applied learning by teachers.
Based on interview of Biology teacher in SMA Swasta AL-ULUM,
Biology teaching methods employed are often the lecture method, this method
makes the teacher dominates the classroom teaching and learning activities so that
students become passive. Some students are listening and taking notes. The
learning model that used less attractive and make students become saturated.
2
teacher explanation. Teachers serve as the only one source of information so that
learning activities take place in one direction only, and impact on student learning
outcomes, which is still about 45 % of the students who achieved the KKM while
55 % below the minimum completeness criteria (KKM) which is 75.
Additionally, the excretory system include in difficult material with
percentage 22,6 %. The difficulties about filtration through kidney because to
understanding this concept they must have prerequisites about osmosis and
diffusion. In such materials include concrete and abstract concepts (Tekkaya,
2001). Students perceive systems as the most difficult topic. These topics were
also mentioned by the teachers that students perceive as most difficult. They
tought that inclusion of much information made systems difficult to understand
(Ozcan, 2003). From the results of the study (Koksal, 2008), showed that kidney
among the organs prospective biology teachers indicated were determined as the
most important and difficult. They are main functional organs of important
systems to maintain homeostasis by regulating blod content, speed and water,
mineral level in tissues.
Based on the above issues teacher needs to choose learning model that can
improve student achievement and activity. Make a match model is one of the
cooperative learning model that introduced by Curran in Eliya (2009). Make a
match is an learning model to find pairs of cards that is the answer to question
before the time is out. Students are able to match the card will be given points and
who do not succesfully match the card will be punished in accordance with the
agreement. Teachers act more as facilitators and classroom also needs to be
organized to support cooperative learning. By using Make a match model,
students develop their thinking ability actively and also provides the opportunity
for students to ask questions, give opinions and interact with other students which
creates active learning and enjoyable in the classroom as model for facilitate the
students understand the excretory system material. If learning process can be
enjoyed and accepted, then the student can achieve success in the learning
objectives and indicators that have been targeted.
According to Lie (2010) syntax of Make a match model is as follow: (1)
3
suitable for review sessions, one part about the card and other parts of the answer
card. (2) Each student gets a card about question/answers. (3) Each student
thought of answers/questions from cards held. (4) Each student seeking matching
pairs of cards with the card. (5) Any student who can match his cards before the
deadline given points. (6) If students are not able to match the card with his card
(can not find the card or cards answer questions) will get a penalty, which has
been agreed. (7) After one round, the cards shuffled again so that each student
gets a different card than before, and so on. (8) Students can also join with 2 or 3
other students who hold a suitable card. (9) Teachers together with the students to
make conclusions on the subject matter.
Word Square learning model is a development of enriched lecture method.
It can be identified through the clustering method enriched lecture-oriented to
student activity in learning as mentioned by Mujiman (2007). Word Square is a
model of learning model that combines the ability to answer questions with
matching answers foresight in the answer boxes. Teachers can program a number
of selected questions that can stimulate students to think effectively. This model
also as reinforcement to the material presented. The teacher is facilitator of
learning. Through this learning model, students not only invited to learn, but
slipped the play that makes the students do not easy to get bored in studies. The
meaning of this play is to provide distraction to students when learning takes
place, but not out of subjects content covered to the satisfactory and enjoyment of
the students to not quickly get bored and tired (Kompasiana, 2010).
According to Mohammad (2011) syntax learning model word square is as
follows. 1) prepare teachers material according to competence, 2) the teacher
provide motivation to students, 3) teacher distribute appropriate activity sheets, 4)
Students were told to answer the questions then shading the letters in the box
appropriate answer, 4) give points on each answer in the box.
The results of research conducted by Rahayu (2011) stated that there is
signifficant difference between make a match and snowball throwing class in
class XI SMA Negeri 8 Medan.The average of post test in Make a match class is
4
by Humairoh (2012) showed that implementation of Make a match can increase
student learning outcome and activity.
Other research carried out by Yenni (2010) about word square model
showed that there are significant differences between the learning outcomes of
students taught using Resiprocal Teaching with Word Square model, the average
student learning outcomes are taught by Teaching Resiprocal models of 79.15
with SD 7.40 while the average student learning outcomes that are taught by the
model Word Square of 87.05 with SD 5.55. The learning outcome that be taught
by word square model is better than teaching reciprocal model. More research is
also conducted by Nainggolan (2010), with the implementation of word square
model to improve student learning activities in class X-2 SMA Negeri 1 Sei
Rampah can improve activities students much as 87.5%.
It is important to find out the comparison of student learning outcome and
activity between the model of Make a match and the model of Word Square. By
applying these model is expected to help students achieve goals and can create
student interaction.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the above background of the study, the problems in this study are:
1. Learning process still dominated by teacher so the students become passive.
2. Mainly teaching method is lecturing.
3. Activities of student in learning process is still low.
4. Learning model that uses less attractive and make students become saturated
5. Excretory sytem is difficult material.
6. The score on Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in academic year
2012/2013 is still low , that is more than 50% student get a score under the
5
1. Is there any difference of learning outcome between students who taught by
using Make a match and those who taught by using word square model on
Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM Academic
year 2013/2014?
2. Is there any difference of learning activity between student who taught by
using Make a match and those who taught by using word square model on
Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM Academic
year 2013/2014?
3. Which one do better are used between Make a match model and word square
model to know student learning outcome and student learning activity on
Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM Academic
year 2013/2014?
1.5 Research Objective
Based on the research question above, the research objectives are :
1. To know the difference of students learning outcome between is taught by
using Make a match and those who is taught by using Word square model on
Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM Academic
year 2013/2014.
2. To know the difference of student learning activity between is taught by using
Make a match and those who is taught by using Word square model on
Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM Academic
6
3. To know which one do better are used between Make a match and word
square model to know student learning outcome and student learning activity
on Human Excretory System (Kidney) sub topic in SMA AL-ULUM
Academic year 2013/2014.
1.6 Research Significances
This research is expected to provide benefits as follows:
1. For educational institution, as suggestion to develop the appropriate learning
model in order to improve the quality of processes, quality of studend
learning chievement.
2. For teacher, as an alternative learning model.
3. For students, as an innovative learning model who can overcome saturated for
students, improve learning outcomes better and help student can remember
biology terms easily.
4. For other researcher, as the scientific references and input for the next
research to improve the teaching and learning process.
1.7 Operational Definition
1. Make a match is learning model where students try to find pairs of cards that
is answer to the question. This learning model begins with the teacher divided
the students into two groups, then the teacher prepares cards. First group
given cards containing questions while the second groups given card contains
the answer to that question. Students are asked to find pairs of cards between
questions with the right answers. Students who can match the card will get
point and could not match the card will be punished in accordance with the
agreement.
2. Word Square is learning model where students find and arranges letters in
boxes until forming a word, that is answer of question. The answer has been
already in that boxes but disguised by adding an additional box with random
letters.
3. Learning outcome is cognitive result obtained by students after learning
7
4. Learning activity is a series of activities or the involvement of students in
learning process that include participating, asking, noting, hearing, thinking
and reading undertaken to support the achievement of learning.
5. Human Excretory System (Kidney) is sub topicin biology in class XI
semester II that will reviewed using Make a match and word square model to
48
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Z., Mahmood, N., (2010), Effects of Cooperative Learning vs. Traditional Instruction on Perspectives Teachers’ Learning Experience and
Achievement, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1), 151-164
Anggraini, R., (2012), Pengaruh Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif tipe Mencari Pasangan Terhadap Aktivitas dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Siswa
SMA negeri 1 Ranau Tengah ., Skripsi, FMIPA ,Unsri , Indralaya.
Arends, R.I. (1998),Learning to Teach. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Arikunto, S., (2007), Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta
Bancin, Enji, (2011), “Perbandingan Metode Teba Kata dan Kotak KataTerhadap Kemampuan Menulis Surat Niaga Siswa Kelas XI SMASwasta
Colbourne, H., Constantin, Dobell, Fehres, Thomson, Venter, A., (2007), Inquiry
into Biology, McGraw-Hill, Canada.
Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Physchology of Learning for Instruction (2nd edition).
Allyn and Bacon, Boston
Dewi, M.S (2012), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Word Square Untuk Meningkatkan Prestasi Belajar Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Kimia Pokok
BahasanKoloid Di Kelas XI SMAN 4 Pekanbaru.Jurnal Pendidikan
Universitas Riau.
Eliya, (2009), Pengaruh Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Mencari Pasangan (Make a Match) Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa pada Materi Pokok Sistem Reproduksi di Kelas XI IPA Semester 1 SMA Negeri 5
Medan. Tahun Pembelajaran 2009/ 2010, Skripsi, FMIPA, Unimed,
Medan.
Foster, B., (2002), 1001 Soal Biologi, Gelora Aksara Pratama, Bandung
Husna, S., (2011), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Dengan Menggunakan Model Kooperative Learning Tipe Make a Match Dan Picture and Picture Pada Materi Pokok Sistem Ekskresi Manusia Di Kelas XI SMA Negeri 1
Batang Kuis, Skripsi, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan
Hamalik, O., (2008), Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran, Penerbit Bumi Aksara,
Jakarta.
49
Ibrahim, M.,(2000). Pembelajaran Kooperatif.Surabaya : Universitas Negeri
Surabaya University Press.
Isjoni, (2009), Cooperative Learning: Efektivitas Pembelajaran Kelompok,
Penerbit Alfabeta, Bandung.
Koksal, S., Cimen, O., (2008) Perceptions of Prospective Biology Teachers on
Importance and Difficulty of Organs as a School Subject, Journal of World
Applied Sciences, 5 (4): 397-405
Kompasiana (2010). Aktivitas Pembelajaran, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Kurnia, I., (2011) Peningkatan Aktivitas dan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas IV Materi Kenampakan Alam di Lingkungan Setempat Melalui Penerapan Model
Pembelajaran Word Square Tahun Pelajaran 2011/2012 ., Skripsi , FKIP,
Universitas Jember , Jember.
Lie, A., (2010), Cooperative Learning Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning Di
ruang-ruang Kelas, Grasindo, Jakarta
Mader, S.,(2004), Human Anatomy and Physiology (Eight Edition), McGraw-Hill,
New York
Maher, A., (2004), Learning Outcomes in Higher Education ; Implication for
Curriculum Design and Student Learning, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure,
Sport, and Tourism Education, 3(2), 46-54.
Mandala, R, (2013), Pengaruh ModelWord Square Terhadap Kemampuan
menyimak Dongeng Siswa Kelas VII Smp Negeri 3 Prabumulih., Skripsi,
FBS., UNSRI, Indralaya.
Martin, O., Mullis, I., Foy, P., Stanco, M., (2012), TIMMS 2011 International
Results in Science, International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA), TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston.
Mohamad, Nurdin,.(2011). Belajar dengan Pendekatan PAILKEM. Penerbit Bumi
50
Ninik and Hafiz, (2012), 29 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Elhalf Publisihing,
Jombang.
Novalia, D., (2012), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) dan Word Square Untuk Meningkatkan
Hasil Belajar Biologi., Skripsi, FKIP ,Universitas Pakuan Bogor, BOGOR.
Nurhayati, N., (2009), 1700 Bank Soal Biologi untuk SMA/MA, Yrama
Widya,Bandung
Phillip, E.,(2007), CliffsAP® Biology, 3rd Edition, Wiley Publishing, Canada
Pratiwi, D.A., (2007), Biologi SMA jilid 2 untuk kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Purba, Y.,(2010)Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Siswa Menggunakan Model Resiprocal Teaching (Pengajaran Terbalik) Dengan Model Word Square Pada Materi Pokok Sistem Pencernaan Makanan Manusia Di Kelas Xi Ipa Sma Cr Van
Dyunhoven Saribudolok ., Skripsi, FMIPA,UNIMED, MEDAN
Putri, K., (2011) Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Mencari Pasangan (Make a Match) Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Reproduksi Di Kelas XI SMA Negeri 1 Stabat Tahun
Pelajaran 2011/2012., Skripsi, FMIPA,UNIMED, MEDAN
OECD, (2012), Pisa 2012 result in focus, [pdf],(www.oecd.org/pisa accesed on
February 11 st 2014)
Oetari, R.,(2011) Perbandingan Hasil Belajar Siswa Yang Diajar menggunakan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif make a Match dengan Snowball throwing pada sub materi pokok sistem ekskresi di kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri 8
Medan., Skripsi, FMIPA,UNIMED, MEDAN
Ozcan, N., (2003), A Group Of Students’ And Teachers’ Perceptions With
Respect To Biology Education At High School Level., Thesis, Nature and
Applied Science, THE MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, TURKEY.
Prince, M.,(2004) Does Active Learning Work? A Review of The Research,
Journal Engineering Education, 93(3),223-231.
Rahman., (2010), Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.
Rukamana, (2010), Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Make a Match Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas X Program Keahlian Pemasaran Pada Mata Pelajaran Menemukan peluang Baru dari Pelanggan di SMK
51
Slameto, (2003), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Penerbit
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Sudjana, (2005), Metoda Statistika, PT Tarsito Bandung, Bandung
Suprijono, A., (2011), Cooperative Learning, Penerbit Pustaka Pelajar,
Yogyakarta
Sunfriska, W., (2012), The Comparison Of Student Learning Outcomes And Retention Through Implementing Word Square And Crossword Puzzle Model On Plant Movements In Class Viii Smp Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
(Academic Year 2011/2012)., Skripsi, FMIPA,UNIMED, MEDAN
Suryosubroto, B., (1997) Proses Belajar Mengajar Di Sekolah, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Susilawarno, R.G., (2007), Biologi SMA/MA Kelas XI, PT. Grasindo, Jakarta.
Syamsuri, I., (2007), Biologi untuk SMA Kelas XI, Erlangga, Jakarta
Tekkaya, C., Ozkan, Sungur, S., (2001), Biology concepts perceived as difficult
by turkish high school students, Journal of Biological Education, (21)
145-150
Trianto, (2011), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Penerbit
Kencana, Jakarta
Watson, P. (2002) The role and integration of learning outcomes into the
educational process. Active Learning in Higher Education 3(3), 205-219.
Wahyuningsih, S., (2011), Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Dan Keaktifan Melalui Pembelajaran Make A Match Pada Siswa Kelas Ix F Smp Negeri 2
Kartasura, Skripsi., FKIP, UMS.
Wirianingrum, T., (2007), Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Siswa Melalui Metode Observasi yang divariasikan dengan LKS Word Square pada Materi
Klasifikasi Hewan Di SMP Negeri 8 Purworejo, Skripsi, FMIPA
