THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS PHYSICS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING COOPERATIVELEARNING MODEL TYPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER WITH DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN GRADE X SMA N 1 BERASTAGI.

(1)

(2)

BIOGRAPHY

Tionar Melissa Malau was born in Medan on March, 25th 1991. Father’s name is Sudung Malau (Alm) and Mother’s name is Maria Magdalena,S.Pd. Author is the first daughter from two siblings. On 1997 author entered SD Katolik

Budi Murni Deli Tua and graduate on 2003. Then, author entered SMP N 1 Deli

Tua and graduate on 2006. Continue study at SMA N 13 Medan, author graduate

on 2009. On the middle of 2009, author has been received as student in State

University of Medan with study program is Physics bilingual education, major

(3)

iv

PREFACE

Praise and thanks to Jesus Christ who has give a flood of merci and

guidance to writer so can finish this thesis.

This thesis which titled is “The Difference Of Student’s Physics Learning Outcomes Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads Together

With Direct Instruction In Grade X SMA N 1 Berastagi” is arranged to acquire

scholar degree of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Nature Science

State University of Medan.

Thank you very much to Prof. Dr. Sahyar, M.S., M.M as thesis supervisor

who has guide and give suggestion to writer from initial research until finished

this research. Thank you so much also to Drs. Eidi Sihombing, MS, Prof. Dr Mara

Bangun Harahap, M.Si, Dr. Derlina, M.Si who have gave critics and suggestions

to writer. Thank you so much to Prof. Dr Mara Bangun Harahap, M.Si as

academic supervisor. Thank you so much to Prof. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc,.Ph.D as

Dean of FMIPA State University of Medan, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.S.,

M.Sc as coordinator of Bilingual Program and to all Mr. and Mrs. Lecturer and

staff employee of Physics FMIPA State University of Medan who have

encouraged writer. Appreciation were also presented to Headmaster of SMA N 1

Berastagi Mr. Alberto Colia, M.Pd and physics teacher Mr. Apen Ginting, S.Pd,

Mr. Dhasa Duha that help me during the research, and thanks for all teacher in

SMA N 1Berastagi.

Special Gratefully to: Dear Mother Maria Magdalena,S.Pd and Beloved

father Sudung Malau (Alm) for grow me up and educate me in this life. Special

thank you for my love sister Nelly Yunita Malau that always support to finish this

thesis. Thanks for my uncle, aunt, grandmother and all my family that pray and

support me.

Thank you so much to my brothers and sisters in IKBKF Unimed

(specially for Agus K Giawa, Syahputra RB Op.S) for all of your support, pray

and help to writer to finish this thesis. Thanks a lot “Grace Small Group”, thanks

for my brother Juara Adi Syahputra Sirait that lead me to know more about Jesus,

(4)

v

support and pray for me. Thanks for UKMKP- UP MIPA that provide place to do

partnership. Thank you so much for my best friend Emy Ria Nainggolan, Eli

Susiani Ginting, Hetty Simbolon, Kristina Sibarani, Jhon Hendrik Tumanggor,

Adi Yakim Surbakti, Benny S Ginting for the spirit, and support for me. And

thanks a lot for my sister Cahya Ramadhani (Berastagi) that always pray and

support me. And also my students in SMA N 1 Berastagi, thanks for the spirit and

pray for me.

To all of my colleagues in Physics Department FMIPA UNIMED,

especially to students of Physics Bilingual 2009, Agnesia M Damanik, Astrid P

Harahap, Avolen B Siahaan, Carolina Nainggolan, Debora B Sitanggang, Dewi S

Situmorang, Evi Valentine Silalahi, Fetriana Simanihuruk, Gita Ravhani Anugrah,

Hanna M Hutabarat, Henriko Hutabarat, Janiar S Gultom, Jefri S Waruwu, Lucius

Marbun, Mas Andri Marbun, Pretty TM Ambarita, Rani S N Damanik, Riris

Rumahorbo, Rika Yulia Fitri, Ribka M Tambunan, and Rita S Situmorang. Thank

you so much for spirit and support you give for me.

I realize this thesis is out of perfect caused by my literature or knowledge.

That’s why, writer hope constructivism’s advice and suggestion in order to make this thesis is useful for all of us.

Medan, June 2013

(5)

vi

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 36

3.1. Location and Time of Research 36

3.2. Research Population and Sample 36

3.3. Research Variables 36

3.4. Research Design 37

3.5. Research Procedures 37

3.6. Instrument and Data Collection 40

3.6.1 Research Instrument 40

3.6.2 Content Validity 42

3.6.3 Non-Tested Instrument 43

3.7. Data Analysis Techniques 44

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION 50

4.1. Research Result 50

4.1.1. Data of Pretest Score 50

4.1.2. Data of Postest Score 50

4.2. Data Analysis 52

4.2.1. Normality Test 52

4.2.2. Homogeneity Test 55

4.2.3. Hypothesis Testing 55

(7)

viii

4.3. Discussion 60

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION 64

5.1. Conclusion 64

5.2. Suggestion 64

(8)

ix

FIGURES LIST

Page

Figure 2.1. Electrical charges flowing in a conductor 25

Figure 2.2 Ammeters fitted series to series 26

Figure 2.3. Ammeter reading 27

Figure 2.4 (a) avometer (b) Voltmeter in parallel to the circuit 28

Figure 2.5 Voltmeter reading 28

Figure 2.6 Resistor fixed 28

Figure 2.7 Composition of barriers in series 29

Figure 2.8 Composition of resistance in parallel 30

Figure 2.9 Kirchhoff I Law 31

Figure 3.1 Research Phase 39

Figure 4.1 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy

in Pretest 51

Figure 4.2 Chart of Cognitive of student based reach Bloom Taxonomy

in Postest 52

Figure 4.3 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class 53

Figure 4.4 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class 53

Figure 4.5 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Control Class 54

Figure 4.6 Chart of Normality of Pretest in Experiment Class 54

Figure 4.7 Chart of affective during three meetings 57

Figure 4.8 Chart of psychomotoric during three meetings 58

Figure 4.9 Chart Relation Between affective, psychomotoric, and

(9)

x

TABLES LIST

Page

Table 2.1 Differences Cooperative learning group with

Direct Instruction Group 13

Table 2.2 Steps of Cooperative Learning Model 15

Table 2.3 Steps of Numbered Heads Together 17

Table 2.4 Steps of Direct Instruction Model 18

Table 3.2 Grille Problem 41

Table 3.3 Categories student’s Learning Outcomes 42 Table 3.4 Criteria of Value Percentage of Content Validity 42

Table 3.5 Guideline of Affective Domain 43

Table 3.6 Guideline of Psychomotor Domain 43

Table 3.7 Criterion of Affective and Psychomotoric domains 44

Table 4.1 Pretest Score in Experiment and Control Class 50

Table 4.2 Postest Score in Experiment and Control Class 51

Table 4.3 Normality Test for Pretest Score 53

Table 4.4 Normality Test for Postest Score 54

Table 4.5 Homogenity Test in Experiment and Control Class 55

(10)

xi

APPENDIX LIST

Page

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan-1 68

Appendix 4 Worksheet-1 109

Appendix 7 Grill of Research Instrument 118

Appendix 8 Research Instrument 129

Appendix 9 Affective and Psychomotoric Assessment Instrument 136

Appendix 10 Affective Assessment 1stMeeting (Experiment Class) 140 Appendix 11 Affective Assessment 2ndMeeting (Experiment Class) 143 Appendix 12 Affective Assessment 3rdMeeting (Experiment Class) 146 Appendix 13 Psychomotoric Assessment 1stMeeting (Experiment Class) 149 Appendix 14 Psychomotoric Assessment 2ndMeeting (Experiment Class) 151 Appendix 15 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Experiment Class) 153 Appendix 16 Affective Assessment 1stMeeting (Control Class) 156 Appendix 17 Affective Assessment 2ndMeeting (Control Class) 160 Appendix 18 Affective Assessment 3rdMeeting (Control Class) 164 Appendix 19 Psychomotoric Assessment 1stMeeting (Control Class) 168 Appendix 20 Psychomotoric Assessment 2ndMeeting (Control Class) 172 Appendix 21 Psychomotoric Assessment 3rd Meeting (Control Class) 176 Appendix 22 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Control Class 180

Appendix 23 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Control Class 181

Appendix 24 Mark Tabulation of Pretest in Experiment Class 182

Appendix 25 Mark Tabulation of Postest in Experiment Class 183

Appendix 26 Learning Outcomes Data in Control Class 184

Appendix 27 Learning Outcomes Data in Experiment Class 185

Appendix 28 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation

(11)

xii

Appendix 29 Calculation of Mean Value and Standard Deviation

in Control Class 188

Appendix 30 Normality Test 190

Appendix 31 Homogenity Test 194

Appendix 32 Hypothesis Test 196

Appendix 33 List of Critical Value for Liliefors 200

Appendix 34 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution 201

Appendix 35 Table of Area in below Normal Curve 0 to z 202

(12)

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background

Physics is the basic of science that learns natural phenomena

systematecally. Physics is subject that give us information and concept of natural

phenomena occur in our daily life. Physics is an interesting subject, because we

can directly observe in our daily lives. But in reality many students stating that

physics is difficult, because many of the formulas should be memorized. This fact

is reinforced by the results of their low physical exam. The low physics learning

outcomes can be caused by various factors, among others, the low interest in

students to learn physics, the way teachers teach less attractive, and less precise

model of learning materials in teaching physics.

Based on interviews with physics teacher in SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi,

physics learning outcomes is still low. This is evident from the mark of

summative examination‘s students with an average 67, whereas the value of Mastery Minimal Criteria of physics is 75. In the learning process, teachers using

conventional methods, learning process was teacher centered. In the learning

process, the teacher explains the material and noting formulas and work on the

problems. So that became synonymous with physics formulas and learning

becomes less attractive.

Table 1.1 Percentage Student Reached KKM

No Year Class KKM value % Student

Graduate 1.

2010

X 75 13 %

2. XI 80 15%

3. XII 80 14%

4.

2011

X 75 15%

5. XI 80 12%

6. XII 80 14%

7.

2012

X 75 12%

8. XI 80 16%

9. XII 80 14%

(13)

2

From the table above we can make conclusion that student’s learning

outcomes of physics subject is still low. And from the questionnaire given by

researcher in observation, student is not interest in physics subject, because their

consider that physics is the difficult lesson, and teacher who teached them less

engange them in learning, teacher just give lecturing and give them exercise about

physics. So from this case, researcher want to use the model of teaching that can

engage the student learning, and make the student as the center of learning. So,

they get the knowledge of physics and feel interest to study physics. So, from that,

teacher have role as facilitator of learning, and motivating student to learn.

Teachers are a crucial component in the implementation of a learning

strategy. Teachers in the process of learning have very important role. The

teacher's role is not only as a model or good example for the students he teaches,

but also as a learning manager. Thus the effectiveness of teachers the rests process

learning. Therefore, the success of a learning process is largely determined by the

quality or the ability of teachers. According to Norman Kirby in Sanjaya, W

(2011:52) states: "One underlying emphasis should be noticeable: that the quality

of the teacher is essential, constant feature in the success of any educational

system."

In line with the problems above, the learning process of physics required

an innovative learning model that can encourage student learning, making

students more active, and learning more fun, so that with increasing student

motivation will also increase learning outcomes. One alternative to student

motivation is to engage students in learning. Teachers must be able to create a

comfortable atmosphere for learning and fun, as well as to actively involve

students in the learning process .Therefore, the learning model used is a model

that attracted students, enhance the spirit of learning, and fun. One alternative

learning model that evokes the spirit of learning and engage students is

(14)

3

According to Bruce,J and Marsha Weil (2003:13), ”Cooperative learning

procedures facilitate learning across all curriculum areas and ages, improving

self-esteem, social skill and solidarity, and academic learning goals ranging from the

acquisition of information and skill through the modes of inquiry of academic

disciplines.”

Based on the issues that have been presented previously, the writter tries to

do research in an effort to improve student learning outcomes by implementing

cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) with some

methods of learning.

According to Slavin (2005:256), “Cooperative learning type NHT is a

better approach to learning allows students to be more active and take full

responsibility for understanding the subject matter both in groups and

individually.”

Therefore NHT learning model can be applied in day-to-day on the subject

at the junior high or high school students. In this study the writter chose the

dynamic electric topic because it is contextual topic explained with the steps of

cooperative learning type NHT. In addition, cooperative learning model type NHT

has not been used for research In SMA N 1 Berastagi. Dynamic Electricity also

allows students to learn to identify concepts through visual aids and group

discussions. Based on the description the writter wanted to do research on NHT

model to improve student learning outcomes in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi

Academic Year 2012/2013 on dynamic electric topic.

Writter fully aware that cooperative learning has been studied by the

students. The results of previous studies reviewed were: Ertha (2012) states that:

"There is a significant improvement in student learning outcomes about 61.23%

after implementing NHT model. In other research, average student’s pre-test mark

is 46.41 and after implementation of numbered heads together model, student’s

post-test mark of experiment class is 78.46 that researched by Ebtan Sihotang in

(15)

4

learning outcomes about 59.11%." Susanti (2009) stated that: "There is increasing

on student learning outcomes taught by cooperative model types numbered head

together by 49.37%."

The general difference with previous research is in method of teaching. In

this research I use experiment method, so student more understand dynamic

electricity while implementing NHT model. In this research, writter will develop

the applicating Numbered Heads Together model to know student’s learning

outcomes.

Based on the description above writter conducted a research using

cooperative learning model type numbered heads together (NHT) on student’s

physics learning outcomes on dynamic electricity in grade X SMA Negeri 1

Berastagi. The title taken by writter is : "The Difference of Student’s Physics

Learning Outcomes using Cooperative Learning Model Type Numbered Heads

Together with Direct Instruction Model in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi "

1.2. Problem’s Identification

Based on the above background, the main points of the problem is

formulated as follows:

1. Lack of student motivation to learn physics

2. Student only memorizing the formula of physics without understanding

the matter

3. Student still have low team work to do discussion

4. Student’s learning activity is passive and student become have low

learning outcomes

5. Teacher seldom use learning model in teaching and learning activity, so

(16)

5

6. Teacher only explain the matter and give the exercise to student, so

student think that physics only calculating, finally student think physics is

difficult.

1.3. Problem Limitation

Based on the background problems described above and the identification

of problems that have been described, the study is quite extensive and limited

ability and time researchers, the researchers made the extent of the problem is

important. The extent of the problem that will be examined are:

1. Implementation of cooperative learning model type numbered head

together (NHT) in class.

2. Student learning outcomes by implementing cooperative learning model

type numbered head together (NHT).

3. The topic is dynamic electric, and the sub topic is current, voltage, and

ohm’s law will implement in Grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic

Year 2012/2013.

1.4. Problem Statement

Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, and

limitation issues, the problems in this study can be formulated as follows:

1. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,psychomotoric, and

cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together on

dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic

Year 2012/2013?

2. How student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and

cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade

X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?

3. Is there the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,

(17)

6

numbered head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity

topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013?

1.5. Objectives

Based on the background of the issues, identifying problems, limitation

issues, and the problems in this study, the objectives of this research can be

formulated as follows:

1. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,

and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered head together

on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic

Year 2012/2013.

2. Identify student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric,

and cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in

grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.

3. Identify the difference of student’s physics learning outcomes (affective,

psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered

head together and direct instruction model on dynamic electricity in grade X

SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013.

1.6. Advantages of Research

The research expected to be useful for: • Physics Teacher

1. Become a reference for physics teachers to use Numbered Head

Together model for teaching physics in available physics topic.

• Student

1. Increasing student interest and curiosity about physics.

2. Increasing student’s physics learning outcomes after applicate

cooperative learning model type numbered heads together.

3. Make student usuall to discuss with their group discussion and develop

(18)

7

• Researcher

1. Gain the knowledge about implementation Numbered Head Together in

physics subject

2. Adding experience about teaching by using Numbered Head Together

and know the influence in student’s physics learning outcomes

• Next Researcher

1. As a reference for further research on the application of cooperative

(19)

64

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

Based on the research result, data analysis, and discussion so can

be concluded that :

1. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and cognitive) use cooperative learning model type numbered heads together

on dynamic electric topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi is, affective

is 56.45 medium category, psychomotoric is 62.49 medium category, and

cognitive is 71.25 good category.

2. Student’s physics learning outcomes (affective, psychomotoric, and cognitive) use direct instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in

grade X SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, affective is 18.35 bad category,

psychomotoric is 15.87 bad category, and cognitive is 60.48 enough

category.

3. There is a difference of student’s physics learning outcomes use

cooperative learning model type numbered head together and direct

instruction model on dynamic electricity topic in grade X SMA Negeri 1

Berastagi Academic Year 2012/2013. In this research, student’s physics learning outcomes using numbered heads together better than direct

instruction learning.

5.2 Suggestion

Based on research result and discussion before, researcher give

suggestions as follows :

• For Student

Student learn about the material before study in class. So student easy to

(20)

65

Physics teacher should help the researcher to guide the student to do

discussion. And together with the researcher observe the activity of

student.

• For School

School provide the instrument and material that use in learning process.

So, student more understand the physics learning material. • For Next Resercher

Next Researcher should have good time management so, every phase of

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS PHYSICS LEARNING OUTCOMES USING COOPERATIVELEARNING MODEL TYPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER WITH DIRECT INSTRUCTION IN GRADE X SMA N 1 BERASTAGI.

BIOGRAPHY

PREFACE

CONTENTS

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 36

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION 64

TABLES LIST

APPENDIX LIST

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background

1.2. Problem’s Identification

1.3. Problem Limitation

1.4. Problem Statement

1.5. Objectives

1.6. Advantages of Research

CHAPTER V

5.1 Conclusion

5.2 Suggestion