THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY USING CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING (CTL)
AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) IN IX GRADE AT SMP NEGERI 1 MEDAN
By:
Siti Rafiah Rangkuti ID. Number 408 611 008
Mathematics Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah SWT, most gracious, most merciful and master of the
judgment. Thanks to Allah who gave the strength and ability to the writer, so that
this thesis can be finished. An innovation and greeting to Rasulullah SAW, who
brought people from the darkness into lightness. The tittle of this research was “The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability Using Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) in IX grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan.” is aimed to fulfill of the requirements for the degree Sarjana Pendidikan of the Mathematics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and
Natural Science State University of Medan
The writer comes upon many difficulties during the writing of this study,
due to his limited knowledge and experiences. However, many people have
contributed and helped him directly during completing of this thesis. For this
chance the writer would like to express his gratitude and special thanks to: Prof.
Dian Armanto, M.Pd.,M.A,M.Sc,.Ph.D as his thesis supervisor, for his valuable
guidance, advices, corrections, comment, suggestion, and his precious time that he
spent on supervising the draft of writing this thesis. Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd., Dr
Edi Syahputra,M.Pd., Dr.W.Rajagukguk,M.Pd., as his advisory lectures, for their
advices, corrections, comments and suggestion for this thesis and Drs.
Syafari,M.Pd as his academic supervisor, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as his
coordinator of bilingual program, and also Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, M.Si as his
Rector in State University of Medan, Prof. Drs. Motlan,M.Sc.,Ph.D as the Dean of
faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan, Prof. Dr.
Mukhtar, M.Pd as the head of Mathematics Department, Drs. Yasifati Hia,M.Si as
secretary of the Mathematics Department, Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as the head of
Mathematics Education study program and all lecturer and employees of
Mathematics Department who have taught, advised, and guided his throughout his
academic years at the university.
Drs. H. Ahmad Siregar, M.M, the headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Medan,
Locke, for their support, suggestion, and administrative assistance to the writer
during this research.
The writer also would like to express her deepest love gratitude to her
father Mahmud Rangkuti,S.Pd,MM and mother named Dermina Sitompul,S.Pd,
and her sister Nurul Jamiah Rangkuti and also finishing her thesis and
affectionately which gave birth and enlarge to writer, gave morale support,
material and pray and so all her family. To her lovely friends Misna Fitryani, Hot
Tiarma, Farah Diba, Eva, Emil, Yanti, Efrida, Siti Rahmadani, Fatimah, Togu and
all friends in mathematics bilingual program 2008 thank you very much for your
support, helping to finish this thesis.
The writer has effort as maximal as she can in doing this thesis. But with
her humble heart, the writer hopes construct suggestion and critics from the reader
for perfection this thesis. The writer hopes this thesis can be useful and give many
function to the reader specifically about subject matter which was researched in
iii
PERBEDAAN KEMAMPUAN PEMECAHAN MASALAH SISWA MENGGUNAKAN PEMEBELAJARAN KONTEKSTUAL DAN
PEMBELAJARAN LANGSUNG KELAS IX DI SMP NEGERI 1 MEDAN
Siti Rafiah Rangkuti (NIM 408 611 008)
ABSTRAK
Tujuan penilitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbedaan kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa menggunakan pembelajaran kontekstual dan pembelajaran langsung kelas IX di SMP Negeri 1 Medan.
Penilitian ini dilakukan di SMP Negeri 1 Medan merupakan penilitian eksperimen kuasi di semester I kelas IX di SMP Negeri 1 Medan tahun ajaran 2012/2013. Sampel penilitian ini terdiri dari dua kelas eksperimen. Kelas eksperimen pertama yakni IX – Phytagoras diajarkan dengan Pembelajaran Kontekstual, dan kelas eksperimen kedua adalah IX - John Locke dengan pembelajaran langsung. Instrumen penilitian dalam pengambilan data menggunakan tes dan lembar observasi. Tes yang digunakan yakni esai yang terdiri dari 4 butir soal mengenai luas permukaan dan volum tabung. Teknik analisis data menggunakan analisis perbedaan dengan uji – t.
Dari hasil penilitian diperoleh nilai rata – rata post test di kelas eksperimen pertama 81.54 dan kelas eksperimen kedua sebesar 68.09. Standar deviasi di kelas eksperimen pertama 13.84 dan kelas eksperimen kedua sebesar 13.59. Setelah dilakukan uji – t dari data diperoleh t hitung = 3.177 dan diperoleh dengan
taraf significan α = 0.05 maka ttabel = 1.684. Berdasarkan kriteria pengujian dimana thitung > ttabel maka Ha diterima dengan data hasil post tes 3.177 > 1.684. Yang berarti ada perbedaan signifikan kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa menggunakan pembelajaran kontesktual dan pembelajaran langsung.
Berbagai kesalahan siswa yang dilakukan setelah diajarkan mengunakan pembelajaran kontekstual yakni: tidak lengkap menuliskan informasi yang diperoleh dari soal, salah menuliskan rumus luas permukaan dan volume tabung, tidak melengkapi strategi untuk penyelesaian masalah, kesalahan dalam perhitungan dan operasi aljabar.
Jenis kesalahan siswa yang telah melakukan pembelajaran langsung yakni sama dengn pembelajaran kontekstual, dan tambahannya pada kelas ini siswa banyak yang tidak melakukan evaluasi/analisis kembali dengan benar.
Kata – kata kunci: Pembelajaran Kontekstual, Pembelajaran Langsung,
iv
THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENT’S PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY USING CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING (CTL)
AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION (DI) IX GRADE AT SMP NEGERI 1 MEDAN
Siti Rafiah Rangkuti (ID. Number 408 611 008) ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to know whether the difference of students’ problem solving ability using contextual teaching and learning (CTL) and direct instruction (DI) IX Grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan.
The research was conducted in SMP Negeri 1 Medan using a quasi experiment research on the first semester of IX grade SMP Negeri 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013. Sample was taken by using random sampling; it means that each class had the same chance to be sampled. The sample in this study consisted of two the classes. The first experiment class in IX - Phytagoras was taught by applies Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) and the second class experiment in IX - John Locke was taught by applies Direct Instruction (DI). Research instrument in collecting data in this study were a test and an observation sheet. This test was an essay that related to the problem solving essay which was contain of 4 items about surface area and volume of cylinder. Data analysis technique that used was the analysis of difference by using T- test.
Form result of this research gotten the post test average in first experiment class 81.54 and average in second experiment class 68.09. Deviation standard in first experiment class 13.84 and deviation standard in second experiment class is 13.59. After done t-test we get data for tcalculate = 3.177 and t gotten significant
taraf α = 0.05 so ttable = 1.684. According to testing criteria which tcalculate > ttable Ha is accepted means that for post test data 3.177 > 1.684 so Ha is accepted and
also means there is significant difference of problem solving ability of students’
between taught Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI).
The kinds of mistake that student made after being taught using contextual teaching and learning approach are : wrote not complete information from the problem, wrote wrong formula of surface area and volume of cylinder, wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, errors in calculation and algebra operation.
The kinds of mistake that student made after being taught using direct instruction are same with contextual teaching and learning, but they did not make re-evaluation correctly.
vii
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Essence of Learning
2.1.2 Definition of the achievement of learning
2.1.3 Definition problem in mathematics
2.1.4 The ability mathematics problem solving
2.1.5 Approach learning in mathematics
2.1.6 Definition of Contextual Teaching and Learning ( CTL)
viii
2.1.8 The component of contextual approach
2.1.9 Direct instruction
2.1.10 Difference between Of CTL approach and direct instruction
2.2Curved Surfaced Solid
2.2.1 Cylinder 3.1Research Time and Place
3.2Population and Sample
3.6Instrument of Data Collecting
3.6.1Ability Test
3.6.2Instrument Analysis Technique
3.6.2.1 Validation of Instrument
3.6.2.2 Reliability of Instrument
3.6.3 Observation sheet
3.6.3.1Observation sheet for teacher learning activities
3.6.3.2 Observation sheet for students’ learning activities
3.7Data Analysis Technique
3.7.1Determine the average and standard deviation for Post Test
ix
3.8Level of Problem Solving Skill of Student in Mathematic Problem 35
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The Result of Problem Solving ability
4.1.1 Post Test of First and Second Experment Classes
4.1.2 Data Normality Test
4.1.3 Data Homogeniety Test
4.1.4 Hypothesis Testing
4.1.5 Level of Problem Solving Ability of students in Mathematics
36
36
37
37
38
38
4.2 Observation result 39
4.2.1 Student observation sheet 39
4.2.2 Teacher observation sheet 40
4.3 Discussion of research result 41
4.3.1 Discussion of Students Mistake for problem solving
4.3.1.1 For the first Experiment Class Using Contextual Teaching and
Learning (CTL) Approach
4.3.1.2 For the second Experiment Class Using direct instruction
42
42
44
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 46
5.2 Suggestion 47
REFERENCES 48
x
FIGURE LIST
Page Figure 2.1 Interaction between element and contextual learning 19
Figure 2.2 Instructional outcomes for direct instruction 19
Figure 2.3 Example of Cylinder 22
Figure 2.4 Net of Cylinder 22
Figure 4.1 Level of Problem Solving 39
Figure 4.2 Student Mistake for arranging Strategy using CTL Approach 42
Figure 4.3 Student’s Mistake in Implementing the Planning 43
Figure 4.4 Mistakes for reevaluating all steps have done 44
Figure 4.6 Mistakes in Arranging Planing problem solving 44
Figure 4.7 Mistakes in Implementing the Planning 45
xi
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1 Difference between direct instruction and CTL approach
Page
20
Table 3.1 Research Design 26
Table 3.2 Blue print post test of volume and surface area cylinder 28
Table 3.3 Scoring of problem solving 29
Table 3.4 Ideal score for teacher activities 31
Table 3.5 Ideal score for students’ activities 32
Table 3.6 Criteria of Students Mastering Level 35
Table 4.1 Post test result of the first and second experiment classes 36
Table 4.2 Result of Normality Testing 37
Table 4.3 Result of Homogeneity Testing 37
Table 4.4 Result of Hypothesis Testing 38
Table 4.5 Level of problem solving ability of two classes 38 Table 4.6 Summary students’ observation sheet 40
xii
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class I
Page
51
Appendix 2 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class I 60
Appendix 3 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class II 66
Appendix 4 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class II 69
Appendix 5 Student Activity sheet (Surface area of Cylinder) 72
Appendix 6 Student Activity sheet ( Volume of Cylinder) 76
Appendix 7 Hint of scoring problem solving ability 79
Appendix 8 Blue Print of Post-test 80
Appendix 9 Post Test Question 81
Appendix 10 Alternative Solution of Post-test 83
Appendix 11 Validator Evaluation Sheet 87
Appendix 12 Observer Evaluation Sheet 88
Appendix 13 Observation Sheet of Teacher Activities (CTL) 90
Appendix 14 Observation Sheet of Teacher Activities (DI) 92
Appendix 15 Observation Sheet of Students Activities (CTL) 94
Appendix 16 Observation Sheet of Students Activities (DI) 95
Appendix 17 Validator Names 96
Appendix 18 Validation Analysis of Validator Agreement for Post test 97
Appendix 19 Realibity Analysis of Post Test 99
Appendix 20 Post Test For First Experiment Class (CTL) 101
Appendix 21 Post Test For Second Experiment Class (DI) 102
Appendix 22 Post Test Mark for 1st and 2nd experiment classes 103
Appendix 23 Data Experiment Class I (CTL) 104
Appendix 24 Data Experiment Class II (DI) 105
Appendix 25 The Calculation procedure average, Variance and Standard
Deviation of 1st and 2nd experiment classes
106
Appendix 26 Calculation of Normality Testing 108
Appendix 27 Calculation of HomogenietyTesting 111
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Education is one way to realize quality of society, especially preparing
the excellent society for their competence. However, there are a lot of opinions
the quality of education in Indonesia still low. As Irham Nasution (Waspada
newspaper, February, 2nd 2012) from survey show that our education is far from
the expectation, such as Education for All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report 2011,
which had been launched by UNESCO, was in 65. Then, decreases to the 69 of
127 countries surveyed.
Nowdays, Mathematics is means the unity of knowledge, understanding,
and human skill that are needed effectivelly in modren life. The expectation of
graduate school that was critical, sistematical, reasonable, creative and
cooperative.
There are some reasons concerning learning importance and mathematics
mastery that is important for students. Mathematics belongs to development of
other sciences. It also is relates to the problem solving in daily life. The
mathematics usefulness in daily life such as counting of contents and weight,
collecting, processing, presenting and interpreting data use calculators and
computers. In addition, in order to be able to follow further mathematics, to help
the understanding of other subjects such as physics, chemistry, architecture,
pharmacy, geography, economics, and others. And no expectation to the students
to think logical, critical, and practical, positive attitude and creative spirit.
A lot of articels in newspaper, internet and seminars. The opinion
regarding efforts to improve quality of mathematics education today also there is
no improvement. As the one told by Bahrul and Suhendra (2010:42) that :
2
Related with condition above that our mathematics education in primary
till junior/senior level just think about numbers. Next, Bahrul dan Suhendra
(2010:42) that:
“Persepsi bahwa matematika adalah kumpulan bilangan yang harus dioperasikan menyebabkan munculnya ketakwajaran dalam konteks matematika yang dibawa ke dalam kelas. Akibatnya, sering kita dengar soal matematika yang terlalu “dipaksakan”, contohnya soal tentang meminta anak menjumlahkan umur suatu planet dengan umur planet lain. Kemudian, keterampilan berhitung ( mental, yaitu tanpa pensil dan kertas) menjadi segala – segalanya dalam pendidikan matematika kita dahulu. Kecepatan berhitung menjadi indicator utama kepiawaian seorang dalam matematika.”
Teaching and learning are two concepts that cannot be separated from
others. Learning show what should be done as a lesson recipient (students), while
teaching shows what should be done by teacher. So, learning is a process of
interaction between teachers and students during teaching process. The successful
of teaching process will be influenced by the ability of teacher to determine
methods and tools is used teaching and also determined by interest of students.
The problem solving ability is low. It is caused some factors between
students, teacher, learning method, or enviroment as related to another. That thing
is as according to statement of Marjohan (2009:13) that : “ The characteristics
conventional teaching is very evident the interaction teacher - students in the
classroom. One of them is oauthoritatian apporoach. Therefore, the students must
have received what teacher saying.”
In addition, mathematics achievement of students also is influenced by
less participation students in classroom. That makes bloced students to solve this
situation. The difficulties of most problem application in mathematics are not lies
calculation, but rather than knowledge how to make clarify problem and can be
solved.
Nowdays, mathematics expectation is facilities students can rediscover
the formula by guide re-inventon. As mathematician discoverer, to find formula
and theory in learning mathematics is problem solving very important. As stated
Tran Vui (in Depdiknas: 2004: 9) Problem Solving is put forth as a major method
3
Mathematics content standard 2006 for all level education is stated that
aims mathematics (in P4TK 2010:10) that the students should be able to:
a. Understanding mathematics concepts
b. Using reasoning
c. Problem solving
d. Communication of idea
e. Respectful of using mathematics daily life
Furthermore, the importance of problem solving can also be seen in its
role in learning. Stanic & Kilpatrick told McIntosh, R. & Jarret, D. (2000:8), share
the role of problem solving as a context to a few things:
1. To justify the teaching of mathematics.
2. To attract students of the value of mathematics-related contents with real
life issues.
3. To motivate students, arouse students' attention on the topic or procedure
specialized in mathematics by providing contextual usability (inreal life).
4. For recreation, as a fun activity that breaks the atmosphere learning
routine.
5. As an exercise, ability reinforcement concepts that have been taught
directly (perhaps this role most often committed by us during this).
From content standard above, problem solving ability is the important
role in learning mathematics and other subjects. The problem solving ability is
needed everyone formaking decision. Therefore, mathematics teacher expected to
teach prolem solving ability and mastery the concept, and include to reason
critical, sistematical and creative. Indicators of problem solving ability divided
into:
1. Understanding the problem
2. Arrange planning to solve problem
3. Implement the planning
4
Problem solving process is not about calculation, but rather than on the
knowledge to solve it. Another reason about the low of problem solving in
mathematics of students and commonly for applicable for applied in process of
learning is structural.
Thus, to teach mathematically is mediated problem solving, the teacher
as instructional designer will need to arrange a series of problems that require
mathematics modified responding. Then, the students develop fluency in the
component mathematics skill whom he should be introduced to the next and more
complex math mediated responding.
By existence is expected by structural practice approach is problem
solving be better, one of subject at curved surfaced solids. Students less attention
to the material that is explained by the teacher.It is also found in students’ on SMP
Negeri 1 Medan. Then, the students less understand how to solve it. This
statement also supported by researcher direct interview result with mathematics
teacher in SMP Negeri 1 Medan (Mom Elliati Nasution) April, 3rd 2012 in SMP Negeri 1 Medan stated that : “The students just memorizing the formula . By memorize the formula without understanding well and less practice is difficult to
try the problem related in daily life”.Teacher stated that the students have
problems in learning the cylinder on subtopic which are already entered on a
higher level, namely its application in daily life. The material is a continuation of
the material they have learned at primary school level. However, as mentioned
earlier, because the understanding of concepts in elementary school is still lack, so
the students will into this subtopic in their junior high school back in trouble.
Mom Elliati also teach mathematics in SMP Negeri 1 Medan express that about
problem solving ability of students is less , it is caused only the students with high
thinking level can using problem solving and another students cannot be done to
solve it.
An approach can be done the teachers in learning process is contextual
teaching and learning approach. The base philosophy of contextual teaching and
learning as new alternative strategy is contructivism. Learning process in not only
5
contructivism their knowledge. The teacher something to do a assist the students
to get aimed or giving information by teacher.
The contextual is learning approach which learning in the school is related
real situation. Then, the result learning easier is accepted and benefit if the
students leave it the school. By Contextual teaching is related in real situation as
learning source or material application.
According to statement above , a writer as researcher interested to write a
tittle about: “ THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY USING CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING (CTL) AND DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN IX GRADE AT SMP NEGERI 1 MEDAN.
1.2 Problem Identification
Based on brackground of problem, researcher identify various problems as
follows:
1. Problem solving ability in mathematics of students is low. This situation is
caused due to a lack of willingness of teacher to implement it.
2. Learning is not meaningful, means that the students can’t related a
material into daily life
3. Less precisely learning approaches that used by teacher to deliver teaching
materials.
4. The students have difficulty in problem solving mathematical because the
understanding concept of the material is still lack.
5. The students have problems in learning the cylinder on sub topic which are
already entered on a higher level, namely its application in daily life.
1.3 Limitation Problem
Making clearly and have mentioned identifying problem hence in this
research is limited about the difference of students problem solving ability
between Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) and direct instruction (DI) in
6
1.4 Research Question
Based on the background of the issues, problems identification and
limitation problem that has been stated above, then the problem in this study is
formulated as follows:
1. Is there any difference problem solving ability between Contextual Teaching
and Learning (CTL) approach and Direct Instruction(DI) in IX grade in at
SMP Negeri 1 Medan.
2. What is the difference students activity in Contextual Teaching and
Learning (CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) about cylinder on subtopic IX
grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013?
3. What is the difference teacher activity in Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) about cylinder on subtopic IX grade at
SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013?
4. What is students weakness of problem solving in cylinder subtopic after
using contextual teaching and learning (CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) IX
grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013?
1.5 Research Objective
As for this purpose of research :
1. To know improve problem solving ability of students with using
contextual teaching and learning (CTL) is better than Direct Instruction
(DI) in IX grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan.
2. To describe the students activity of mathematics learning by apply
problem solving using Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) and
Direct Instruction (DI) in IX grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic
Year 2012/2013
3. To describe the teacher activity mathematics learning thoroughly
applying problem solving using Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) on cylinder subtopic in IX grade at
7
4. To improve the students weakness of applying problem solving using
contextual teaching and learning (CTL) and Direct Instruction (DI) on
cylinder subtopic in IX grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year
2012/2013
1.6 Research Benefits
After do the research. The benefit which expected from this research is:
1. As component of information or input for teacher/ candidate teacher to be
able to consider usage Contextual Learning is better study approach in
process of study of mathematics
2. Learning became meaningful and fun for students
3. Input and information for the other researcher of the relationship with this
problem of research
1.7 Operational Definition
1. Problem solving ability is ability of student how to solve the problem in
mathematics with observe the process to find the solution based on the
steps of problem solving as follows:
- Understanding the problem
- Arranging planning of problem solving
- Implementing planning of problem solving
- Evaluating problem solving that have done
2. Learning by Contextual teaching and learning (CTL) Approach is learning
concept which helping a teacher make relation of learning material in real
life situation and motivation to make relation between has belonging knowledge in daily life.”
3. Direct instruction is the learning process which teacher – oriented, less
46
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1Conclusion
From the result of research that has been done, it can be conclude that
as follows:
1. The students’ problem solving ability that taught by Contextual Teaching
and Learning (CTL) is better than taught by Direct Instruction (DI) in IX
grade at SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic Year 2012/2013. It can shown
from post test data is the average is CTL class is 81.54 and DI class is 68.09.
And after calculation use t – test we gotten tcalculate 3.177 and t table 1.684.
2. From the observation by the observer, it can be concluded that the learning CTL approach is better than the learning DI when viewed from the students’ activity. Students were taught through learning model of CTL is more
flexible and the student active by discussion. Students are more active in
doing the questions in student sheet activity. Then, by randomly the students
presenting the result discussion in front of class. Contrast to the student who
were taught through learning model of DI was occur more emphasize in
listening activity to the teacher explanation in front of class.
3. Based on the teachers’ observation that observed it can be concluding that
the teacher who implement the learning CTL approach more attractive
rather than who implement the learning model of DI.
4. The kinds of mistake that student made after being taught using contextual
teaching and learning approach and direct instruction are: wrote not
complete information from the problem, wrote wrong formula of surface
area and volume of cylinder, wrote not complete strategy to solve the
problem, errors in calculation and algebra operation.The kinds of mistake
that student made after being taught using direct instruction are same with
47
contextual teaching and learning, but they did not make re-evaluation
correctly.
5.2Suggestion
Based on research result, then the suggestions that can be given by writer are:
1. For mathematic teacher, learning taught Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL) can be used as alternative learning approach because it can be increase
problem solving skills of student.
2. For mathematics teacher given problem related in daily life then students
should be solve using mathematics problem solving steps.
3. For the next researcher, to make deeper analysis about the mistakes that
49
REFERENCES
Arends, Richard I, and Kilcher, Ann, (2010), Teaching for Student Learning, Routledge, New York
Arikunto, S., (2006), Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Bahrul Hayat, Suhendra Yusuf, 2010, Brenchmark Internasional Mutu Pendidikan, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Creswell, John W, (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson, USA.
Cholik,S, 2006, Prosedur penilitian suatu Pendekatan Praktek, Penerbit Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan, 2010,Buku Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skiripasi Mahasiswa Program Studii Pendidikan, FMIPA - Unimed.
Hudojo, Herman, 2003, Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika, Malang: Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam-Universitas Negeri Malang
Joyce, Bruce , 1980, Models of teaching, Englewood Cliffs, New York
Johnson B Elaine. Contextual Teaching and Learning: What it is and Why It’s here to stay ( Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. 2002)
Kunandar, 2007, Guru Profesional Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) dan Sukses dalam Sertifikasi Guru, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta
Muclish, Masnur,2008, KTSP Pembelajaran Berbasis Kompetensi dan Kontekstual, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta
Marjohan, 2009, School Healing: Menyembuhkan Problem Sekolah, PT Pustaka Insan Madani,Yogyakarta
McIntosh, R. & Jarret, D. 2000. Teaching mathematical problem solving: Implementing the vision. New York: NWREL, Mathematics and Science Education Center.
50
Nasution, I,H, Menggugat Profesionalisme Guru, Harian Waspada, Rabu, 2 Februari 2012
Robert G. Berns and Patricia M Erickson. Contextual Teaching and Learning : Preparing students for the New Economy. http://www.nccte.com it was retrieved on September, 4 2012
Sugiyono, 2009, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R & D, Bandung : Penerbit Alfabeta
Trianto, 2009, Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif – Progressif : Konsep, Landasan, dan Implementasinya pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), Jakarta : Kencana
Dit. PLP,Ditjen Didaksmen, Depdiknas, 2002, Pendekatan Kontekstual ( Contextual Teaching and Learning ( CTL ). Jakarta
Wardhani, S. and friends, 2010, Pembelajaran Kemampuan Masalah Matematika di SMP, PPPPTK Matematika, Yogyakarta
