NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT): AN ENDEAVOUR TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITYAND MASTERY CONCEPT IN LEARNING GLOBAL WARMING.

(1)

RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted as Partial Requirement to Obtain Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education Study Program

By:

Reza Taufik Maulana

1002556

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE EDUCATION

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Oleh

Reza Taufik Maulana

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam

Juli 2014

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

LEARNING GLOBAL WARMING By:

Reza Taufik Maulana 1002556

Approved and Authorized by, Supervisor I

Prof. Dr. Hj. Nuryani Rustaman, M.Pd. NIP.195012311979032029

Supervisor II

Dr. Yayan Sanjaya, M. Si. NIP. 197112312001121001

Perceive,

Head of International Program on Science Education Study Program

(4)

Reza Taufik Maulana, 2014

NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT): AN ENDEAVOUR TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND MASTERY CONCEPT IN LEARNING GLOBAL WARMING

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT): AN ENDEAVOUR TO

IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITYAND MASTERY

CONCEPT IN LEARNING GLOBAL WARMING Reza TaufikMaulana

International Program on Science Education

ABSTRACT

This research was investigated the impact of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) as a type of cooperative learning to be acted as an endeavor to improve students scientific creativity and mastery concept in learning global warming. The method that was used in this experiment was combination of descriptive and pre experiment with one-group pretest-posttest design. The sample was taken based on convenient situation (n=19 students) grade 7 in a Private Bilingual School. The quantitative data was gained through mastery concept test and scientific creativity test, while qualitative data was gathered trough rubrics and questionnaire. Based on the analysis of the results, it is shown that students’ scientific creativity improved in all indicators tested and the normalized gain results for mastery concept shown 0.59 which categorized as medium improvement.All of the results are supported with the responseof students towards NHT implementationwhich showed positive response in all indicators. This research indicated that NHT implementation in Global Warmingtopic can improve students’scientific creativity and mastery concept.

(5)

NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT): AN ENDEAVOUR TO

IMPROVE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITYAND MASTERY

CONCEPT IN LEARNING GLOBAL WARMING Reza Taufik Maulana

International Program on Science Education

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini mengungkap efek dari Numbered Heads Together (NHT) yang merupakan salah satu tipe dari cooperative learning sebagai sebuah usaha untuk meningkatan kreatifitas ilmiah dan penguasaan konsep siswa dalam topik pemanasan global. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah gabungan antara deskriptif dan pre-experiment dengan desain one group pretest-posttest. Sampel diambil menggunakan convenient sampling di sebuah sekolah bilingual kelas 7 dengan (n=19 Siswa). Data kuantitatif didapat dari test penguasaan konsep dan kreativitas ilmiah, sedangkan data kualitatif didapatkan melalui rubric dan Kuisioner. Hasil analisis menunjukkan kreativitas ilmiah siswa mengalami peningkatan di seluruh indicator, begitu pula dengan penguasaan konsep menunjukkan hasil normalized gain sebesar 0.59 yang dikategorikan seabagai peningkatan yang medium. Seluruh hasil pun didukung dengan respons positif dari siswa selama pengimplementasian NHT. Maka, penelitian ini mengindikasikan bahwa pengimplementasian NHT pada topic pemansan global dapat meningkatakan kemampuan kreativitas ilmiah dan penguasaan konsep pada siswa.

(6)

Numbered Heads Together (NHT): An Endeavour To Improve Student’s Scientific Creativity And Mastery Concept In Learning Global Warming

A. Location and Subject….……….. B. Research Method andDesign...………... C. Research Instrument…..………..……… D. Data Processing……..………... E. Instrument Development…..……… F. Instrument Analysis Results……..……….. G. Research Procedure……….. H. Research Plot..……….………

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Research Result..………...……….. B. Research Discussion ....………...………

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions…….………..……….………... B. Recommendation ………...……….

REFERENCES...………..………....

APPENDICES...…………...……….

23 23 24 28 34 39 42 45

46 62

72 72

(8)

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 2.1 Three Popular Approach of Cooperative Learning………

Table 2.2 Structure of Cognitive Process Dimension in the Revised

Taxonomy……… Table 2.3 The Cognitive Process Dimension……… Table 3.1 Mastery Concept Test (Pretest and Posttest) Item Specification….. Table 3.2 Mastery Concept Test (Group Test) Item Specification... Table 3.3 Scientific Creativity Test Item Specification... Table 3.4 Students’ Response Item Specification ……….. Table 3.5Teacher’s Numbered Heads Together Implementation Rubric... Table 3.6Students’ Numbered Heads Together Implementation Rubric…… Table 3.7 Scoring Procedure of Scientific Creativity Test……….. Table 3.8 Scoring Procedure of Scientific Creativity Test……….. Table 3.9 Interpretation of Normalized Gain Value………... Table 3.10 Scoring Guideline of Students’ Response………... Table 3.11 Classification validity coefficient……….. Table 3.12 Classification of Reliability Coefficient...………... Table 3.13 Discriminating Power Classification... Table 3.14 Coefficient classification of difficulty level ……….. Table 3.15Recapitulation of test item for students’ mastery concept... Table 3.16 Recapitulation of test item for students’ scientific creativity... Table 4.1 Profile of Students’ Scientific Creativity Score Before

Implementation of NHT……….. Table 4.2 Profile of Students’ Scientific Creativity after the Implementation of NHT... Table 4.3 Recapitulation of Students Mastery Concept Results ………. Table 4.4Summary of Student Mastery Concept Results………...…... Tabel 4.5Recapitulation Students’ Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s

(9)

Taxonomy……….. Table 4.6 Results of T-test analysis on Students Mastery Concept………….. Table 4.7 Recapitulation of students’ group results... Table 4.8 Recapitulation of Students’ Response toward NHT... Table 4.9 Recapitulation of Teacher Implementation on NHT……… Table 4.10 Recapitulation of Students Accomplishment Activity in NHT

Implementation (Observer Score)……….. Table 4.11 Recapitulation of Students Accomplishment Activity in NHT

Implementation (Peer Assessment Score)……….

50 52 53 54 58

60

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 2.1 Scientific Structure Creativity Model (SSCM) ...

Figure 4.1 Graphs of Students’ Scientific Creativity Results……….. Figure 4.2 Graphic of Students’ Mastery Concept Results... Figure 4.3 Recapitulation of Students’ Response toward Teamwork Ability

as a Group... Figure 4.4 Recapitulation of Students Response toward NHT

Implementation……… Figure 4.5 Recapitulation of Students Response toward Scientific Creativity Test Implementation……… Figure 4.6 Recapitulation of Students Response toward Problem Based

Group Activity Implementation……….. Figure 4.7 Recapitulation of Teacher Accomplishment in NHT

Implementation……… Figure 4.8 Recapitulation of students’ activity accomplishment on NHT

Implementation (Observer Scoring)... Figure 4.9 Recapitulation of students’ activity accomplishment on NHT

Implementation (Peer Scoring)……….. Figure 4.10 group discussion results that attached the bicycle (the red circle)

as solution on reducing global warming rate………. Figure 4.11 Interaction among students on Group discussion during NHT

Implementation………... Figure 4.12 Poster as Students’ discussion results in NHT

(11)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page A. INSTRUCTIONAL TOOLS

Appendix A.1LessonPlan ……….. Appendix A.2Power Point Slide ………

B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

Appendix B.1 Instrument of StudentMasteryConcept ………. Appendix B.2 Instrument of StudentGroupDiscussion ……… Appendix B.3 Instrument of StudentsGroupDiscussionObservation………... Appendix B.4Instrument of StudentScientificCreativity ………. Appendix B.5Instrument of Questionnaireof Students Response... Appendix B.6Instrument of Teacher’s NHT Implementation ……….. Appendix B.7Instrument ofStudents‘NHT Implementation(Observer)……... Appendix B.8 Instrument of Students’NHTImplementation (Peer Scoring)….. .

C. RESULT OF INSTRUMENT TRIAL

Appendix C.1 Trial Test Item of StudentMastery Concept Result ……… Appendix C.1 Trial Test Item of StudentScientificCreativityResult ………...

D. RESULT OF RESEARCH DATA

AppendixD.1 Data Processing of StudentMastery ConceptResult ………….. Appendix D.2 Data Processing of StudentGroupDiscussionResult ………… Appendix D.3 Data Processing of ScientficCreativityResults ……….. Appendix D.4 Data Processing of StudentResponseResult...………... Appendix D.5 Data Processing of Teacher’s NHT Implementation…………... Appendix D.6 Data Processing of Students’NHTImplementation……….

(12)

E. RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION

Appendix E.1 Letter of Research Permission……….. 133

Appendix E.2 Letter of Validation Instrument Test……….. 134

Appendix E.3 Letter of Validation Research………. 135

F. RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION

Appendix F.1 Implementation of NHT Syntax………. 136 Appendix F.2 Students Poster Discussion Results……… 138

G. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT JUDGEMENT

(13)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Students process of acquisition knowledge and achieving goal in class activity commonly done by their own effort. In other hand, application of interaction among students will help to reshape and develop students reasoning, critical thinking and some others students’ ability. Cooperative learning is one of way in teaching learning process which gives chance to students to be able to interact each other in order implementing their learning ability. This interaction will eventually lead students to shape their values and perspective that can be useful to be used either inside or outside class (Ajaja&Eravwoke, 2010).

Cooperative learning situation will make students have discussion and work in group and have chance to share their knowledge with other group member in order to help each other to reach group goal. This condition will lead students to apply and build their attitudes and value,beside of that in cooperative learning students will be either reach success or failure based on team results (Pandey and Kishore, 2003).

(14)

As stated by Hu and Adey (2002) scientific creativity can be described as a condition where students are able to imagine the combination of novel knowledge and technique in solving scientific problem. This condition can be happened when students can combine their existing knowledge with their scientific imagination (e.g. Using several routes to solve scientific problem). Hence, as stated by Hu and Adey (2002) This is the justification for considering scientific creativity as worthy of attention in the education of students who will either become scientists or who need an understanding of the way that scientists work as part of their general understanding of society.

Beside of the probability of the existence of the scientific creativity as the result of interaction and discussion among students, Number-Heads Together also can give

an impact on the improvement of students’ mastery concept. As stated by Lago and

Nawang (2007) “The findings of the study advance the conclusion that cooperative

learning method using the Number-Heads-Together significantly increased the

achievement of the students.”

Based on the background that have been stated before then researcher would like to entitled the research by “Learning Global Warming through Numbered Heads Together (NHT): An Endeavour to Improve Students Scientific Creativity and Mastery Concept”

B. Research Problems

Based on the background that have stated before the research problem in this

research is “How does the impact of Numbered Heads Together toward students’ scientific creativity and students’ mastery concept in learning global warming?”

Elaborating from this problem researcher attempts this following research questions: 1. How does Numbered Heads Together Impact to Students’ Scientific Creativity

Improvement?

(15)

3. How do the students’ response toward the Numbered Heads Together Implementation?

C. Scope of The Research

Based on the research questions above, researcher only limited the research in this certain area:

1. Students’ scientific creativity of secondary that will be examined based on Hu and Addey (2002) Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School are; Unusual use of Object; Sensitivity to science problem; Improvement of Technical product; and Science Problem Solving ability.

2. Students’ mastery concept will be determined using revised Bloom Taxonomy on understanding (C2), applying (C3) and analyzing (C4)

D. Aim of Research

1. To Figure out the impact of Numbered Heads Together towards students’ scientific creativity in learning global warming.

2. To figure out the impact of Numbered Heads Together towards students’ mastery concept in cognitive domain

3. To figure out students’ response toward Numbered Heads Together implementation in learning process.

E. Research Benefits 1. For Researchers

As a prove of the theory of numbered heads that can increase students’ mastery concept as the result of the discussion and also possibility of the improvement of students scientific creativity due to the result of earning new knowledgefrom another group member.

2. For Teachers

(16)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3. For Students

As an alternative solution to have discussion learning so that there will be a chance among students to be able to share their knowledge and help each other beside of expanding it.

4. For Other Researchers

As the data comparison or reference for the possibility of having the similar research with different subjects or area of research.

F.Operational Definition

1. The implementation of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) in this research regards to the stage of NHT. Steps to be done the NHT are (1) Teacher divides students in the class into the Group into 4-5 persons, (2) Teacher gives Number to each member of the group, (3) Teacher Gives every group the problem to be solved, (4) Students put

their “heads together” to solve the problem, (5) Teacher ask representative of

students by calling out his/her number to present their discussion result. To assess

NHT it can be seen using oral test based on students’ answers toward the questions

that given previously.

2. The students’ mastery concept in this research is seen from the improvement in

revised Bloom’s taxonomy using Cognitive level 2 (C2) until cognitive level 4 (C4), the Revised Taxonomy (RT) can be used as a standard to measure the cognitive

domain of students’ achievement. Students’ mastery concept will be determined

using pre-test and post-test using objective test.

3. Students’ Scientific Creativity is represented by improvement of unusual use of object, sensitivity to science problem, improvement of technical product, and science problem solving. Those indicators will be measured by the existence of answer for each indicator as stated in the scientific creativity test for secondary students using the scoring procedures developed by Hu and Adey (2002).

4. Students’ response in this research is seen from students’ response toward the

(17)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu G.Assumptions

Based on previous results of research there are some assumptions that is underlying this research as stated by the study of Luna (1998) as its written in (Lago and Nawang, 2007) proved that cooperative learning groups learned better than the group of students whom used the traditional teaching-learning process. This proved is happening based on the situation that students were conducting discussion among the group member, which eventually lead to the result that the lesson are retained better in their memory. Casinillo (1999) cited by Lago and Nawang (2007), and in his study, “Gender and Groupings: Their Effects on Problem-Solving

AchievementScores”, concluded that when students solve their problems cooperatively it will influence positively toward their achievement and attitudes.

(18)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A. Location and Subject 1. Location of Research

This research is implemented in Private Junior High School in Bandung on April 2014. The school is using National Curriculum of 2006 Kurikulum Tingkat SatuanPendidikan(KTSP)

2. Population and Sample

Population of this research is all of junior high school students‟ ability in

scientific creativity and cognitive achievement. The sample of the student is one class of 7th grader. The sampling method that is carried out is convenient sampling the sampling technique based on soliciting due to the possibility of sampling availability in the field. (Hultsch, Macdonald, Hunter, Maitland, Dixon, 2002)

B. Research Method and Design 1. Research Method

Research method that is used in this experiment iscombination of pre experimental and descriptive. This is related to the purpose of the research which is

to investigate the impact of NHT implementation toward improvement of students‟

(19)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 2. Research Design

Considering the number of classes that is given treatment is only one class in the absence of comparable classes and control class, the research design used in this study is one group post-test design. the observations made after the treatment given is called the post-test. Hence, the research design will be the effect of a treatment in form of teaching-learning process using Numbered Heads Together (NHT), and eventually the results of the treatment will be investigated using the post-test and compare the results with the school standard score.

C. Research Instrument

The research instruments to collect the data in this research was adapted from the scienctific creativity test for secondary school as developed by Hu & Adey (2002), mastery concept test both group and individual using the cognitive domain developed by Anderson et. al (2001), unstruced questionnaire and rubrics from Sejati (2013). And It consist of:

1. Scientific creativity test, in form of scientific creativity test for secondary school students to measure students scientific creativity in learning ecosystem. 2. Mastery Concept test in a form of multiple choice question is used to measure

students‟ mastery concept before and after treated byNumber Heads Together in ecosystem concept.

3. Problem based test is used to measure students cognitive and scientific creativity in a group as the implementation of stage ”heads together” as the part of the implementation of Number Heads Together.

4. Unstructured questionnare form, this instrument also used for analyzing the

students‟ response towards implementation of Number Heads Together in ecosystem concept.

(20)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu a) Mastery Concept Test (Pretest and Posttest)

The students‟ mastery concept is the quantitative data that will be gained from

this research. The data will be collected through mastery concept test in form of

multiple choice consist of 20 questions. The students‟ mastery concept that will

be measured is only in learning global warming. The result will be collected then analyzed using the normalized gain formula.

Table 3.1 Mastery Concept Test (Pretest and Posttest) Item Specification

Concept C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Total %

b) Mastery Concept Test (Group Test)

The second data on this research is the results of group test. The group test data

will be gained through four modified essays questions. The answers of students‟

group will be analyzed using revised cognitive level taxonomy. The results will show the results of “heads together” stage in the number heads together.

Table 3.2 Mastery Concept Test (Group Test) Item Specification

Concept C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Total %

Human Activities Effect toward ecosystem

- - 1 - - 1 25

Global Warming as example of effect of human activities toward ecosystem

(21)

Concept C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Total %

Deforestation - - 3 - - 1 25

Effects of Deforestation - - 4 - - 1 25

Percentage 0 0 0 100 0 0 100 100

c) Scientific Creativity

The third data of this research is students‟ scientific creativity. The data will be gained using the adaption of scientific creativity test for junior high school

developed by Hu and Adey (2002). Students‟ scientific creativity will be

determined using specific table of measurement. This following table below will

show the result of students‟ scientific creativity based several specific indicators

as shown.

Table 3.3 Scientific Creativity Test Item Specification

Indicator Number

d) Questionnaire of Students‟ Responses

Non-test data collection through questionnaire was used to determine the response of the students towards students‟ learning in ecosystem using Number Heads Together. The data obtained from the questionnaire is a secondary instrument, and it is processed by a percentage calculation. The blue print of

(22)

Table 3.4 Students‟ Response Item Specification

Indicators Category and Number

Students‟ response toward team

work ability as a group

Positive statement: 1, 3

Negative statement: 2, 4

Students‟ response toward Number Heads Together in learning Global Warming.

Positive statement: 5, 7,9,11,13 Negative statement: 6, 8,10,12,14

Students‟ response in scientific creativity test

Positive statement: 15,17,19

Negative statement: 16,18,20 Students‟ response toward a problem

based activity in group discussion

Positive statement: 21,23 Negative statement: 22,24

e) Rubrics of Numbered Heads Together Implementation

Rubrics will be used by observer to observe the implementation process of Numbered Heads Together in learning process from both teacher and students point of view. The data obtained from the rubricis a secondary instrument, and it is processed by a percentage calculation. The rubric will include some indicators such as explained in Table 3.5

Table 3.5 Teacher‟s Numbered Heads Together Implementation Rubric

Indicator Item Number Total Item

Explaining learning technique to the students

1, 2 2

Create students‟ participation in discussion 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18

6

Supervise students‟ discussion session 5, 6 2 Create conducive learning process 7, 8, 12, 14,

15,16

6

(23)

Table 3.6 Students‟ Numbered Heads Together Implementation Rubric

Aspect Indicator Item Number

Opening Activity Students pay attention to teacher‟s apperception

1

Students come up with their own opinion regarding the topic

2

Student listen to teacher explanation

about Today‟s learning objective 3

Main Activity Students listen to teacher‟s explanation of NHT Implementation

1

Students listen to teacher explanation 5 Students actively discuss and convince that all members of groups know the answer

6

Students raise their hand when teacher call out their number

7

Students actively answer the question 8

Aspect Indicators Item Number Closing Activity Students draw a conclusion from

today‟s lesson 1

Students listen to teacher‟s

confirmation on class answer

2

D. Data Processing

(24)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1. Quantitative Data Processing

The quantitative data processing is done using Microsoft Excel for pre-test score data and post-test. The value of quantitative data will be gained by the result of normalized gain. The process of calculating data will be explained as follow: a) Data of Test Score

In this research, the data of test scores is used to measure the improvement

of students‟ achievement and problem solving skill. The data processing, have been carried out in the following way:

(1) Score of Scientific Creativity Test

The test consists of four essay question that was related with the topic of the learning. The scoring procedure as follows

Table 3.7 Scoring Procedure of Scientific Creativity Test

Indicator Fluency Flexibility

Originality

Total Frequency of the Answers

<5% 5%-10% >10%

Table 3.8 Scoring Procedure of Scientific Creativity Test

Indicator

Frequency of The Answer

<5% 5%-10% >10%

3 Point 2 Point 1 Point

Science Problem Solving Total

(25)

Students Scientific Imaginationare. Counting all of the separate responses given by the subjects, regardless of the quality is how to obtain the fluency score is obtained simply. Counting the number of approaches or areas used in the answer is how to obtain flexibility score for each task. The originality score is developed from a tabulation of the frequency of all of the responses obtained.Frequencies and percentages of each response are computed. If the probability of a response is less than 5%, we give it 2 points; if the probability is between 5 to 10%, we give it 1 point; if the probability of a response is more than 10%, we give it 0 points. The score of science problem skill is computed again by tabulating all answers of all subjects, and then rating a particular answer for its rarity value. If the probability is less than 5%, it gets 3 points; for probabilities from 5 to 10, it gets 2 points; If the probability is greater than 10, it gets 1 point. We only have one score for each method of division (Hu and Adey, 2002).

(2) Score of Test Item

The tests used in this research are paper and pencil tests consist of 20test items. Each multiple choice correct answers are given 1 score and each incorrect answer was given a score of 0

b) Calculation of Gain Score and Normalized Gain

The difference of pretest score andpost-test score is a way to obtain a gain score (actual gain). The effect of the treatment is assuming fromthe difference in pretest scores and the post-test. “Normalized gain calculations are intended to determine the categories of students‟ achievement improvement.gis the single-student normalized gain, defined as:” (Hake, 2002)

(26)

g = (%posttest

–

%pretest) / (100

–

%pretest)

The effectiveness of Numbered Heads Together model in increasing

students‟ scientific creativity and mastery concept in learning global warming

will be seen from the result of the normalized gain that achieved by students during the learning process. The calculation of the normalized gain value and its classification will use these following equations (Hake, 1999):

Normalized gain of each student <g> defined as following formula:

Description:

<g> = Normalized gain G = Actual gain

Gmax = Maximum gain possible Sf = Post-test score

Si = Pretest score

Average of normalized gain (<g>) which is formulated as:

Description:

<g> = Normalized gain <G> = Actual gain

<G>max = Maximum gain possible

<Sf> = Average of post-test score <Si> = Average of pretest score

Table 3.9 Interpretation of Normalized Gain Value %G (%Sf- %Si) <g> = =

(27)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Value g Classification

g 0,7 High

0,7 >g 0,3 Medium g< 0,3 Low

(Hake, 1999)

c) Normality and Homogeneity test

Using of parametric statistic has a deal with assumption that each variable in this research that will be analyzed form a normal distribution. If, the data is abnormal, the homogeneity variant test cannot be done or the parametric technique cannot be used. Meanwhile if the data is normal and homogen, the parametric technique can be used. Normality test is to know whether the sample comes from population that has normal distribution or not. In this research, Normality test uses statistic test from SPSS 20, Kolmogorov-Smirnov with significancy level (α) is 0,05. When significance value > 0,05, H0 will be accepted and H0 will be rejected or denied if significance value < 0,05 The hypotheses are:

H0 : Sample comes from population that has normal distribution. H1: Sample comes from population that has not normal distribution.

The homogeneity test is also uses statistic test from SPSS 20, with significance level

(α) is 0,05. When significance value ≥0,05, the data is considered as homogeny

(Sarwono, 2012).

(1) One Sample T-test

(28)

the similarity means is used two-tailes hypotheses, the hypotheses is determined as bellow:

H0 : Students‟ mastery concept score in learning global warming concept has achieved the school standard of 75 .

H1: Students‟ mastery concept score in learning global warming concept less than school standard (<75)

2. Qualitative Data Analysis

The qualitative data obtained from unstructured questionnaire, group discussion results and rubric of implementation of Numbered Heads Together.Processing is done by calculating Likert scale will be calculated into score and then converted into percentage, the percentage of answers observer to then be evaluated for the next lesson. The scoring guideline will be shown in table 3.10:

Table 3.10 Scoring Guideline of Students‟ Response Strongly

Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree

Strongly Agree Positive Statement 5 4 3 2 1 Negative Statement 1 2 3 4 5

The percentage data will be gained by calculating through the following formula:

P = x 100%

Explanation : P : Percentage

f : score from frequency of the answer n : score from total response

(29)

The conversion of raw score into percentage is conducted to analyze the rubrics. Further, the result of percentage can be classified into several categories. The technique of converting score into percentage is using formula written (Sejati, 2013):

Score = � � �

�� x 100%

E.Instrument Development

Thedevelopment process of instrument begins with of the curriculumanalysis that is applied inschool. The researcher then formulates the questions to be used as an instrument of pretest and post-test. The tests used in this research are writing tests consist of 20 multiple choice questions and four essay questions.

The instrument needs to be consulted (judgment) by the concerned lecturer and some experts in related fields. After being judged, the instrument which is not appropriate enough should be revised. After the instrument revised, it should be tried out on another class which had learned the topic before. Based on the test results, the instrument questions will be analyzed with the following requirements:

1. Instrument Test Requirements a. Validity

(30)

The researcher use the Coefficient of Product Moment Karl Pearson to measure the validity of each test item, there is:

= � −

� 2− 2 � 2 − 2

(Sejati, 2013)

With, : correlation coefficient between x and y variable

n : amount of student x : total score in test item y : total score of student

Interpretation about will be divided into different categories based

on Guilford quoted by Arikunto (2010) cited by Sejati (2013). Table 3.11 Classification validity coefficient

Value � Interpretation

0,90 ≤� ≤ 1,00 Very high validity 0,70 ≤� <0,90 High validity 0,40 ≤� < 0,70 Medium validity 0,20 ≤� < 0,40 Low validity 0,00 ≤� < 0,20 Very low validity

� < 0,00 Invalid

b. Reliability

Anderson as quoted by Arikunto, (2010) quoted in Sejati (2013) revealed that validity and reliability are two important factors in developing test instrument, “A reliable measure in one that provides consistent and

(31)

eventually leads to other characteristics such as predictable and accurate and eventually conclude to be reliable. In another word reliability can be described that the test will resulted the similar results even it is done by different people, times and places. Hence, it can be concluded that the more reliable the research instrument are influenced by greater degree of consistency and stability. Arikunto, (2006) quoted by Sejati (2013).

The value of reliability is determined based on coefficient value which is gained by Alpha formula, as follows:

11

Arikunto(2006) quoted by Sejati (2013)

Table 3.12 Classification of Reliability Coefficient

Value r₁₁ Interpretation

0,90 ≤� ≤ 1,00 Very high reliability degree 0,70 ≤� <0,90 High reliability degree 0,40 ≤� < 0,70 Medium reliability degree 0,20 ≤� < 0,40 low reliability degree

� < 0,20 Very low reliability degree Explanation:

11

r _{: reliability coefficient}

2

i

s : score variant each test item n : amount of test item

2 _∶

(32)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu c. Discriminating Power

Another important procedure in item analysis is calculating the item discrimination power (DP) which can be defined an item test discriminates between high achiever students with low achiever students. Arikunto(2006) quoted by Sejati,(2013).Hence, to obtain the discrimination power of the items, the following formula has been used:

T

DP = Discriminatory power.

RU = The number of tests in the upper group who got the item right. RL = The number of tests in the lower group who got the item right. T = The total of tests included in item analysis.

Classification of discriminating power interpretation

Arikunto (2006) quoted by Sejati (2013):

Table 3.13 Discriminating Power Classification

d. Difficulty Level

After scoring the test papers, the researcher has arranged the scored test in order of scores, from the highest to the lowest score. The researcher, then, separated two subgroups of test papers; an upper group consisting of the top (27%) of the total group who received the highest scores, and a

Value DP Interpretation

�� ≤ , Very poor , <�� ≤0,20 Poor

, <�� ≤0,40 Fair

,� <�� ≤0,70 Good

(33)

lower group including an equal number of papers (27%) who received the lowest scores. The researcher also counted the number of times each response to each item is chosen correctly on the papers of the upper group and does the same separately for the papers of the lower group. In doing so, she intended to calculate the difficultylevel (henceforth DL) or (facility value) of each item.It means as Gronlund (1976) cited by Sejati (2013), revealed that “the percentage of students who got the item right”; so, in order to find out the level of difficulty for each item in the test, the following formula has been used:

Sample

DL = Difficulty level HC = High correct LC = Low correct

Madsen (1983) quoted by Sejati, (2013)

Classification of difficulty level in each test item that used is based on Arikunto, (2010)

Table 3.14 Coefficient classification of difficulty level

Value DL Interpretation

IK = 0,00 Very difficult 0,00 < IK  0,30 Difficult 0,30< IK 0,70 Medium 0,70< IK <1,00 Easy

(34)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu e. Readability

Readability will be used to analyze essay questions. Readability has two common meanings, one applying to document design, the other to language. Readability as it is applied to document design is concerned with such matters as line length, leading, white space, font type and the like Marnell(2009) quoted by Sejati (2013).

F. Instrument Analysis Result

1) Recapitulation of Students’ Mastery Concept Instrument

The instrument for measuring students‟ cognitive achievement is by giving

an objective test in a form of 37 questions. The instrument should be tested in terms of validity, reliability, discriminating power, and difficulty level as explained before. The test was given to 26 students which have learned about the chapter that will be learned for the research. The recapitulation of test item analysis is shown in the following table.

Test item recapitulation:

Reliability test : 0.60 (Medium degree)

Table 3.15 Recapitulation of test item for students‟ mastery concept

Question

Validity Difficulty Level Status

(35)

Question

Validity Difficulty Level Status

10 - Rejected Invalid Rejected Rejected

2) Recapitulation of Students’ Scientific Creativity Instrument

(36)

about the chapter that will be learned for the research. The recapitulation of test item analysis is shown in the following table.

Essay test recapitulation:

Reliability : 0.76 (High degree)

Table 3.16 Recapitulation of test item for students‟ scientific creativity

No Discriminating Power Validity Difficulty Level

Status

D Notes Rxy Notes P Notes

1 28.57 Revised 0.434 Revised 33.93 Accepted Accepted

2 68.37 Accepted 0.896 Accepted 45.41 Accepted Accepted

2. Instrument Non-Test Requirements a. Rubrics

The rubrics will be used to observe the implementation of teacher‟s in

numbered heads together and students activity during the implementation, the rubrics will be fulfilled both by the observer and the students

b. Questionnaire

Unstructured questionnaire is used to know the response of the students towards the implementation of numbered heads together in learning global

warming. This data obtained from students‟ answer from 24 questions given

(37)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu G. Research Procedures

In order to arrange the sequence of research systematically, the procedure of research is arranged based on the stage of numbered heads together implementation. There are three stages of procedure consists ofpreparation stage, implementation stage,and analysis and conclusion stage. Those three stages will be explained as follows:

1. Preparation stage

In this stage, the researcher conduct several steps that support the research, there are:

a. Formulate problem that will be investigated b. Determine the focus of variable research

c. Conduct literature review of project-based learning, learning achievement, problem solving skill, and curriculum

d. Arrange the research proposal which is presented in proposal seminar

e. Revised of research proposal after having suggestions and critics from lecturers.

f. Arrange the research instrument and being judged by expert or lecturer. g. Revised of research instrument after having suggestions.

h. Try out of research instrument

i. Revised of research instrument based on instrument try out analysis result

2. Implementation Stage

This stage explain the step of research implementation, it consists of: a. Determination of experimental class

b. Give pretest to the sample class to recognize the initial condition of students.

(38)

d. Conduct research activity by implementing NHT in experimental class with following scenarios:

i. First Session

In this first session the implementation of numbered heads learning together teacher is grouping the students consist of 5 persons based on their achievement in pre-test that conducted before. After that teacher distribute the carton and some pictures that will be used as the tool in

“head together” stage. After that teacher plays the video that will be used as the material in “heads together” stage. Having finished with the

video, teacher gives three questions regarding the mastery concept of global warming with sub concepts: 1. Please exemplify each of them three examples of activity that can influenced positively and negatively to the ecosystem; 2. What is the effect to the environment if those negative activity continue happen? ; 3. What will happen to environment if the condition has changed? Those question then

answered by the students „group by attaching the picture on the carton

so that they can answer the questions using the arrangement of the pictures that they produce trough the discussion among them.

ii. Second Session

The second session more or less has the same scenario as the first one.

Using the same students‟ group, teacher shows different video with

different content that will be used as a source of discussion, after that teacher ask students to put their heads together again with two different questions there are:

(39)

After that students do the arrangement of pictures so it can help them to answer the questions. Having finished with the “heads together” session, teacher then ask students with their number to present their work to the class. The first number is ask voluntary and after that the numbers is rolling among the group, so that students will have discussion among the group.

Along the session observers are observing the implementation of teacher in numbered heads together, students activity during the learning process. As well as among students they will have peer scoring among their friends during the implementation of the model. e. Give post-test in the sample class to recognize the improvement of

students‟ mastery concept in the sample class.

f. Give questionnaire to know the student‟s response towards implementation of numbered heads together in the whole learning.

3. Analysis and Conclusion Stages

This is the final stage of research design, the step that will be conducted in this stage will be explained as the following steps:

a. Analyze the result of the whole research from based on the instrument result. b. Discuss and conclude for the data analysis result.

(40)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu H. Research Plot

Analysis of KTSP Curriculum

Literature Review (all variables)

Questionnaire Rubrics Pretest/

Pot-test

Test and Validation

Valid Invalid

Revised

Research Implementation: Numbered Heads Together in learning global warming

Collect research data

Process and analyze data

Result and conclusion

Implementation Stage

Analysis and Conclusion Stage

Figure 3.1 Diagram of Research Plot

Research Proposal

(Designing Instrument)

Report the result

(41)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

A. Conclusion

Research of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) implementation has been conducted systematically, based on the research result it is acquired some conclusions as follows:

1. The implementation of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) on Global Warming chapter can improve students‟ scientific creativity; it can be noticed by the difference of students‟ profile of scientific creativity before and after the implementation of NHT where all the results of indicators experienced an improvement.

2. The implementation of Numbered Heads Together (NHT) on Global Warming chapter can improve students‟ mastery concept significantly, it can be noticed by the results of inferential statistic that shown the score of students mastery concept had achieved school score standard.

3. The respond of students towards numbered heads together (NHT) implementation shows positive respond in all indicators; Team Work Ability, NHT Implementation; Scientific Creativity and Problem Based Group Task.

B.Recommendation

Based on the findings of the research that has been conducted and concluded, there are several recommendations that necessary to be conveyed by the researchers, some of them are

(42)

2. Scientific creativity test that was used in this following research can be modified accordance to the concept that will be taught so that students„results will be suitable with the requirement of the subject

3. Teacher supervision during the “heads together” stage, it is necessary to make sure every group member active in the discussion and share their knowledge among the groups member, and also to avoid misunderstanding that may be occurred during students‟ “heads together” session.

(43)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu References

Ajaja, O. P., & Eravwoke, O. U. (2010). "Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Junior Secondary School Students Achievement in Integrated Science."Journal of Science Education. 4, (1), 2-18.

Amer, A. (2006). "Reflections on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy."Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Physcology. 4, (1), 213-230.

Anderson, L. W. et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives . New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Bao, L. (2006). "Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations. American Journal Physic. 74, (10),917-922.

Ceran, S. A., Güngören, S. Ç., & Boyacıoğlu, N. (2014). "Determination of scientific creativity levels of middle school students and perceptions through their teachers."European Journal of Research on Education. Special, 47-53.

Chakravarty, S., Ghosh, S. K., Suresh, C. P., Dey, A. N., & Shukla, G. (2012).

Deforestation: Causes, Effects and Control Strategies. In S. Chakravarty, S. K. Ghosh, C. P. Suresh, A. N. Dey, & G. Shukla, Global Prespective on

Sustainable Forest Management (pp. 1-28). InTech.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Edward Brothers, Inc.

Hake, R. R. (1999, March 13). Analyzing Change/Gain Scores.[Online]. Avaliable at: http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf.[24 January 2014]

Hake, R. R. (2002). Relationship of Individual Student Normalized Learning Gains in Mechanics. Physics Education Research Conference. Idaho.

Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). "A scientific creativity test for secondary school."International Journal Science Education. 24, (4), 389-403.

Hultsch, D. F., Macdonald, S. W. S., Hunter, M. A., Maitland, S. B., Dixon, R. A., (2002). "Sampling and Generalizability in Developmental Research:

Comparison of Random and Convenience Samples of Older Adults." International Journal of Behavioral Development. 26, (4), 345-359.

(44)

Kagan, S. (1989). The Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development , 12-15.

Lago, R. G., & Nawang, A. A. (2007). "Influence of Cooperative Learning on Students' Achievement, Self-Efficacy And Attitude."Liceo Jurnal of High Education Research. 5, (1), 210-223.

Pandey, N. N., & Kishore, K. (2003). "Effect Of Cooperative Learning on Cognitive Achievement in Science."Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in S.E. Asia. 26 (2) 52-60.

Sarwono, J. (2012). Metode Riset Skripsi Pendekatan Kuantitatif Menggunakan Prosedur SPPS. Jakarta: PT. Elex Media Komputindo

Sejati, B. K. (2013). Project-Based Learning: An Effort To Improve Students’ Achievement and Problem Solving Skill on People And The Planet

Chapter.Research Paper (Skripsi) at FPMIPA UPI Bandung: unpublished.