THE INFLUENCE OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TO
INCREASE THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT WITH
COOPERATION AND CURIOSITY OF STUDENTS
IN TEACHING OF BUFFER SOLUTION
By:
Andre Anusta Barus Reg. Number: 4103332001
Bilingual Chemistry Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fullfill Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
THE INFLUENCE OF DISCOVERY LEARNING MODEL TO
INCREASE THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT WITH
COOPERATION AND CURIOSITY OF STUDENTS
IN TEACHING OF BUFFER SOLUTION
ANDRE ANUSTA BARUS (4103332001)
ABSTRACT
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
Ratification Sheet i
Biography ii
Absract iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Content vi
List of Figure x
List of Table xi
List of Appendix xiii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of Research 1
1.2. Problem Identification 4
1.3. Problem Limitation 5
1.4. Problem Statement 5
1.5. Research Objective 5
1.6. Research Benefit 6
1.7. Operational Definition 6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY 7
2.1. Discovery Learning Model 7
2.1.1. The Definition 7
2.1.2. The Principle of Discovery Learning Model 9
2.1.3. Syntax of the Discovery Learning Model 11
2.2. Direct Instruction Method 13
2.2.1. Syntax for Direct Instruction Method 13
2.2.2. The Different between Discovery Learning Model and
vii
2.3. The Character Education 16
2.3.1. The Cooperation Character 17
2.3.2. The Curiosity Character 19
2.4. Buffer Solution 20
2.4.1. Definition of Buffer Solution 20
2.4.2. How does Buffer Solution Maintain PH Value? 20
2.4.3. How does Buffer Solution Work in Human Body? 21
2.4.4. How to Calculate the PH Value of Buffer? 22
2.4.5. How to Determine the PH of Buffer Solution? 23
2.5. Conceptual Framework 24
2.6. Hypothesis 24
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25
3.1. Location and Time of Research 25
3.2. Population and Sample 25
3.3. Research Variable and Instrument 26
3.3.1. The Research Variable 26
3.3.2. Research Instruments 26
3.3.3. The Instrument’s Trial 32
3.4. Type and Design of Research 34
3.4.1. Types of Research 34
3.4.2. Research Procedure 35
3.4.3. Research Design 37
3.5.Technique Data Collection 38
3.6. Data Analysis 38
3.6.1. The Normality Test 38
3.6.2. The Homogeneity of Test 38
3.6.3. Normalized Gain 39
viii
3.8. Hypothesis Testing 39
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 40
4.1. The Description of School Sample 40
4.2. The Instrument’s Analysis 40
4.2.1. The Observation Sheet of Student’s Character 40
4.2.2. The Questionnaire of Student’s Character 41
4.2.3. The Validity of Evaluation Test 41
4.2.4. Reliability of Evaluation Test 43
4.2.5. Difficulty Index of Evaluation Test 43
4.2.6. Discriminating Power of Evaluation Test 44
4.3. The Data of Research’s Result 46
4.3.1. The Result of Pretest and Posttest 46
4.3.2. The Result of Development of Student’s Cooperation and Curiosity
Character by Observation Sheet 47
4.3.3. The Result of Development of Student’s Cooperation and Curiosity
Character by Questionnaire 47
4.4. The Analysis Test of Data 48
4.4.1. Normality Test 48
4.4.2. Homogeneity Test 49
4.5. Student’s Achievement 50
4.5.1. Student’s Achievement before Teaching Treatment 50
4.5.2. Student’s Achievement after Teaching Treatment 51
4.5.3. The Analysis of Questions Based on Posttest Result 55
4.5.4. Gain (Increasing of Student’s Achievement) 56
4.6. Student’s Character 56
4.6.1. The Development of Student’s Cooperation Character 56
4.6.2. The Development of Student’s Curiosity Character 57
ix
4.8. The Relationship of Student’s Achievement with Student’s Character
Development 59
4.9. Discussion 61
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 66
5.1. Conclusion 66
5.2. Suggestion 66
xi
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 2.1 The characteristics of discovery learning model 10
Table 2.2 Syntax of discovery learning model 12
Table 2.3 Syntax of direct instruction method 14
Table 3.1 The distribution of sample 25
Table 3.2 The grille of test instrument 27
Table 3.3 The grille of observation sheet of cooperation character 28
Table 3.4 The grille of observation sheet of curiosity character 30
Table 3.5 The questionnaire of student’s cooperation character 31
Table 3.6 The questionnaire of student’s curiosity character 32
Table 3.7 Research design 36
Table 4.1 Description of class that used as sample 40
Table 4.2 Validity of the test 42
Table 4.3 Difficulty index 44
Table 4.4 Discriminating power 45
Table 4.5 Summary of the instrument test 45
Table 4.6 Data of pretest and posttest 47
Table 4.7 Normality test of student’s achievement 48
Table 4.8 Normality test of student’s character 49
xii
Table 4.10 Data of student’s achievement in pretest 50
Table 4.11 Data of student’s achievement in posttest 51
Table 4.12 Average value of normalized gain 54
Table 4.13 The Analysis of questions based on posttest result 55
Table 4.14 The summary of student’s cooperation character 57
Table 4.15 The summary of student’s curiosity character 58
Table 4.16 Hypothesis testing 59
Table 4.17 The relationship of student’s achievements with student’s
character development 60
Table 4.18 The percentage of the relationship between student’s
x
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 3.1. The flowchart of the research 37
Figure 4.1. The student’s achievement in experimental class 52
Figure 4.2. The increasing of student’s achievement in experimental class 52
Figure 4.3. The student’s achievement in control class 53
xiii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1 Syllabus of chemistry subject 70
Appendix 2 Lesson plan of experiment class 75
Appendix 3 Lesson plan of control class 96
Appendix 4 The observation sheet of student’s cooperation character 115
Appendix 5 The observation sheet of student’s curiosity character 117
Appendix 6 The questionnaire of student’s cooperation character 118
Appendix 7 The questionnaire of student’s curiosity character 119
Appendix 8 The instrument test before validation 120
Appendix 9 Lattice of Instrument test on buffer solution topic 127
Appendix 10 Table of validity item test 136
Appendix 11 Reliability of instrument test 152
Appendix 12 Difficulty index 154
Appendix 13 Discriminating power 158
Appendix 14 The instrument test after validation 162
Appendix 15 Worksheet of experiment 169
Appendix 16 The result of experiment 174
Appendix 17 The observation data of student’s cooperation character 177
Appendix 18 The observation data of student’s curiosity character 180
Appendix 19 The development of student’s cooperation character 183
Appendix 20 The development of student’s curiosity character 184
xiv
Appendix 22 The questionnaire data of student’s curiosity 186
Appendix 23 Gain of pretest-posttest in experimental class 187
Appendix 24 Gain of pretest-posttest in control class 189
Appendix 25 Normality test 191
Appendix 26 Homogeinity test 199
Appendix 27 Hypothesis testing 201
Appendix 28 The calculation of increasing student’s achievement 203
66
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some conclusions
that gotten, they are:
1. The student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model is
significant higher than the student’s achievement that taught by using direct
instruction method (sig < ; 0.000 < 0.05).
2. The student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery learning model
is better (100% could pass KKM) than taught by direct instruction method
(51% could pass KKM).
3. The development of student’s cooperation character that taught by discovery
learning model is 64.54 % (medium criteria).
4. The development of student’s curiosity character that taught by discovery
learning model is 59.41 % (medium criteria).
5.2. Suggestion
From the result of the research, there are some suggestion must be raised:
1. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s cooperation character
in learning process.
2. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s curiosity character in
learning process.
3. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use Discovery Learning model in
learning Buffer Solution topic to increase the student’s achievement in
1
Indonesia the quality of education is still low. It can be seen from one of indicator
that has been done by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), for the education quality of development country in
Asia Pacific, Indonesia is place in 10 level of the 14 country, whereas quality of
teacher exist in level 14 of the 14 (UNESCO, 2010).
The quality of education can be achieved with a suitable learning process in
the classroom. However, there are still many facts on the ground that student
management system only done by direct instruction method that can not make
students enough understand and lead to passive students which can not foster the
student’s achievement. This is obvious with the discovery of facts in SMAN 5
Medan that the students are still low in chemistry learning outcomes. It can be
seen from the results of daily exams with the KKM value of chemistry is 75,
while the students that are able to achieve only 30%.
In the other side, the problem of chemistry subject in senior high school is
the weakness of teachers in channeling the child’s potency. Educators often
impose their own desire without observing their requisites, interest and talent that
exist in each student. The other problem is that the learning model that used by
teacher is still monotonous, while the teachers always use direct instruction
method, so the teacher dominates teaching and learning process in classroom that
makes the student is less motivated to study. Direct instruction method also makes
student confuse to learn a topic that is abstract or infrequently meet by student,
2
the abstract object in class during the learning process. Using direct instruction
method, student doesn’t demand to be more creative and has not critical thinking
about the topic that is learned, but the student only has role as an audience that is
explained by teacher without conceiving for well.
Especially for chemistry subject, the teacher must be creative because there
are some characteristics of chemistry itself. It can be seen from Situmorang (2009)
that told us about the characteristics of chemistry subject, they are: 1) a number of
chemistry is abstract, 2) chemistry was implication from the fact, 3) chemistry are
successive and develop quickly, 4) chemistry are not only about the explanation of
facts, laws, term and etc, but also the numeric problem that has important part in
learning chemistry, and 5) there are so many topics in chemistry that must be
studied. Furthermore, the topics in chemistry is belongs to 3 characteristics, they
are the decomposition of concepts, mathematical calculations, and execution of
experiments. According to this characteristic of chemistry and its topics, we need
a creative teacher that has proper model of teaching for chemistry’s topics.
The efforts that have been taken by the government in improving the quality
of education in Indonesia is improving the quality of curriculum, that publics in
2013 where it’s curriculum demand to improve the learning outcomes, cognitive, and psychomotor of students. The model that suggested to be used for teaching
based on curriculum 2013, are Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery
Learning, and Project Learning. By using that three model, it is assumed that the
cognitive aspect and psychomotor of student will increase.
Based on the data above, writer wants to use a way to overcome the
education problem in Indonesia, by replacing the model of learning that used by
teacher in classroom, from direct instruction method to discovery learning model.
It is because the Discovery Learning is a learning model that encourages students
to ask questions and formulate their own tentative answers, and to deduce general
principles from practical examples or experiences. Bicknell-Holmes and Hoffman
(2000) describe the three main attributes of discovery learning as 1) exploring and
problem solving to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge, 2) student driven,
3
frequency, and 3) activities to encourage integration of new knowledge into the
learner’s existing knowledge base. The first attribute of discovery learning is a
very important one. Through exploring and problem solving, students take on an
active role to create, integrate, and generalize knowledge. Instead of engaging in
passively accepting information through lecture or drill and practice, students
establish broader applications for skills through activities that encourage
risk-taking, problem solving, and an examination of unique experiences
(Bicknell-Holmes & Hoffman, 2000). In this attribute, students rather than the teacher drive
the learning. Expression of this attribute of discovery learning essentially changes
the roles of students and teachers and is a radical change difficult for many
teachers to accept (Hooks, 1994). A second attribute of discovery learning is that
it encourages students to learn at their own pace. Through discovery learning,
some degree of flexibility in sequencing and frequency with learning activities can
be achieved. Learning is not a static progression of lessons and activities. This
attribute contributes greatly to student motivation and ownership of their learning.
A third major attribute of discovery learning is that it is based on the principle of
using existing knowledge as a basis to build new knowledge (Bicknell-Holmes &
Hoffman, 2000). Scenarios with which the students are familiar allow the students
to build on their existing knowledge by extending what they already know to
invent new ideas.
There are also some researchs that has been done by using Discovery
learning model. The result’s research of Balim (2008), show that the learning
outcomes, the perception, the memorizing in cognitive and affective of students in
experimental class that used Discovery Learning get better result than the students
in control class, this model also makes students more active in learning process.
While Nastiti (2012) concluded in her research that Discovery Learning model
increase the student’s achievements in solving chemistry problem of SMA
students in Purworejo as much as 81%. The research of Suprini in Neneng (2013)
also concluded that the using of Discovery learning model on Colloid properties
can develop some skill of students, such as the skill in interpreting observation,
4
researchs before, it can be seen that the Discovery learning model can make
students more active in learning process.
According to the Laws of Number 20 Year 2003 about The National
Education System in paragraph 3, the national education has function to develop
the ability and form the character and the culture of nation that has value in
educating nation’s life. The national education has objective to develop the potential of students to be the faithful human to the God, have a certain character,
healthy, bookish, capable, creative, autonomous, and being the democratic and
responsibility citizen (Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang
Perundangundangan, 2003). It shows that the quality of student’s character
education is very important to be improved. Especially in this research, by using
the Discovery learning model, there are also some characters that will be
developed by writer, they are the cooperation and curiosity of students. The
cooperation and curiosity are belongs to 18 characters that must be developed in
education life. They are some characters that very important to make students be
able to share their knowledge and make their knowledge deeper than before.
Based on the background mentioned above, the writer has done the research
which the title is: “The Influence of Discovery Learning Model to Increase the
Learning Achievement, Cooperation and Curiosity of Students in Teaching
of Buffer Solution”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background above, some problems can be identified as below:
1. The quality of education in Indonesia still low.
2. Lack of variation in model of teaching by teacher.
3. Teachers are too dominant in the classroom learning process that causes
students to be passive.
4. Students tend to dislike chemistry subjects that often have difficulty in
understanding the learning concepts. It makes them less motivation in
learning chemistry subject.
5
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the background above, the limitation of problems can be
identified as below:
1. The model that was used in this research is Discovery Learning.
2. The topic that taught in this research only on Buffer Solution topic on XI
grade semester II.
3. This research was conducted in SMAN 5 Medan.
4. Student’s achievement that measured only the cognitive skill from the level
C1-C4.
5. There were two characters that measured; the cooperation and curiosity of
student.
1.4. Problem Statement
To give the direction of this research, the problem statements in this
research are as follows:
1. Is the student’s achievement that taught by discovery learning model
significant higher than taught by direct instruction method?
2. How is the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery
learning model and direct instruction method?
3. How many percents of the cooperation character can be developed by
using discovery learning model?
4. How many percents of the curiosity character can be developed by using
discovery learning model?
1.5. Research Objective
The objectives of this research were:
1. To determine whether student’s achievement that taught by discovery
6
2. To know the student’s chemistry achievement that taught by discovery
learning model and direct instruction method
3. To know the percentage of the cooperation character that can be developed
by using discovery learning model.
4. To know the percentage of the curiosity character that can be developed by
using discovery learning model.
1.6. Research Benefit
The benefits that hoped from this research are:
1. Getting learning model that suitable and effective on teaching of chemistry
subject to increase the student’s achievement and student’s character
especially cooperation and curiosity.
2. As consideration for teachers to use discovery learning model type in the
classroom teaching and learning process in order to increase student’s
learning achievements and student’s character.
3. As a matter of information for researchers in order to improve the quality of
learning in a creative and innovative chemistry.
1.7. Operational Definition
Discovery learning is encompasses an instructional model and strategies that focus on active, hands-on learning opportunities for students (Dewey, 1997).
Cooperation is an effort in people or a group of human to reach one or some purposes (Baron, 2000).
Curiosity is an important motivational component that links cues reflecting novelty and challenge (internal or external) with growth opportunities
(Depue, 1996).
Buffer solution is an aqueous solution that can maintain the PH of a system within a specified range when a small amount of acid or base is added, or
67
REFERENCE
Arikunto,S., (2010), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Rineka
Cipta, Jakarta.
Anisah, N., (2013), Profil Keterampilan Proses Sains Siswa Pada Pembelajaran
Pembuatan Sistem Koloid Menggunakan Metode Discovery-Inquiry,
Skripsi, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jakarta.
Baron, R. and Byane D., (2000), Social psychology 9th edition. Plenum, USA
Bicknell, T. and Hoffman, P. S., (2000), Elicit, engage, experience, explore:
Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review
28(4): 313-322.
Bonwell, C. C., (1998), Active Learning: Energizing the Classroom. Active
Learning Workshop, Green Mountain Falls
Borthick, A. F. and Donald R. J., (2000). The Motivation for Collaborative
Discovery Learning Online and Its Application in an Information Systems
Assurance Course, Issues in Accounting Education 15(2), 25-27
Bruner, J.S., (1967), On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Deci, E. L., (1975), Intrinsic motivation, Plenum, New York.
Depue, R. A., (1996), A neurobiological framework for the structure of
personality and emotion: Implications for personality disorders. Guilford,
New York
Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang Perundang-undangan, (2005),
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan
Nasional, Lembaga Negara Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
68
Hooks, B., (1994), Teaching to transgress, Routledge, New York.
Izard, C. E., (1977), Human emotions, Plenum, New York.
Joolingen, W. V., (1999), Cognitive tools for discovery learning, International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18: 234-236.
Love, S., (1996), Thomas Alva Edison,
http://www.minot.k12.nd.us/mps/edison/edison/edison.html (accessed on
January 20 2014)
Majid, A. and Dian, A., (2011), Pendidikan Karakter Perspektif, Rosda, Bandung.
Mosca, J. and Howard, L., (1997), Grounded learning: Breathing live into
business education, Journal of Education for Business 8: 212-215
Papert, S., (2000), What’s the big idea?: Toward a pedagogy of idea power, IBM
Systems Journal 22: 17-24
Papert, S., (2001), Jean Piaget.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/piaget.html (accesssed
on January 20, 2014)
Percy, W., (1954), The loss of the creature,
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1997/ling001/percy.html.
(accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Schank, R. and Cleary, C., (1994), Engines for education.
http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~e_for_e/nodes/I-M-INTRO-ZOOMER-pg.html
(accesssed on January 20, 2014)
Situmorang, M., (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) Untuk Mata Pelajaran
Kimia, Unimed, Medan.
Soekanto, S., (2002), Sosiologi suatu pengantar Edisi 4, PT. Raja Grafindo
69
Sudrajat, A., (2010), Pendidikan Karakter Di Sekolah:
http://akhmadsudrajat.wordpress.com (accessed on January 20, 2014)
Sulistyowati, N., Widodo, A.T., and Sumarni, W., (2012), Efektivitas Model
Pembelajaran Guided Discovery Learning Terhadap Kemampuan
Pemecahan Masalah Kimia, Jurusan Kimia FMIPA UNNES. Journal of
Chemistry in Education 2(1): 25-29
Syafriani, D, (2012), Pengembangan model pembelajaran dalam upaya
membentuk kepribadian yang berkarakter mulia dan hasil belajar yang
tinggi pada materi bentuk geometri molekul, Skripsi, Pasca Sarjana,
Unimed, Medan.
Syahrul, I., (2013), Permasalahan Pendidikan di Indonesia,
http://van88.wordpress.com/makalah-permasalahan-pendidikan-di
