THE COMPARISON OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS OF STUDENT USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING JIGSAW APPROACH AND
THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) APPROACH ON PRISM SUBTOPIC IN VIII GRADE AT SMP NEGERI 1
TEBING TINGGI
By: Yanti Rambe ID. Number 408 111 024
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
Title : The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills of Student using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on Prism Subtopic in VIII Grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
Name : Yanti Rambe
ID. Number : 408 111 024
Study Program : Mathematics Bilingual Education Department : Mathematics
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah SWT, most gracious, most merciful and master of the
judgment. Thanks are 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 title of this research was “The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills using Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on Prism Subtopic in VIII Grade
at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi” as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Sarjana Pendidikan of the Mathematics Department, Faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Science State University of Medan.
In this occasion, the writer would like to express thank you very much to
her supervisor Drs.Parapat Gultom, MSIE, Ph.D for his advice, motivation,
suggestion and guidance to finish this thesis. To her lecturer examinator Prof.Dian
Armanto, M.Pd,MA, M.Sc, Ph.D, Dr.Edi Syahputra,M.Pd, and Mulyono,S.Si,
M.Si, for their correction with valuable comments to correct the manuscript of
scientific writing, to her academic lecturer Dr.W.Rajagukguk,M.Pd for his advice
support to her.
The writer also would like to express thank you to Mr. Prof. Dr. Ibnu
Hajar,M.Si as ahead of university and staff in office of university head, to Mr.
Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc,Ph.D as a dean of Mathematic and Natural Science
Faculty and staff in Mathematic and Natural Science Faculty, to Mr. Prof. Dr
Mukhtar, M.Pd as a head of Mathematics Department, Mr.Drs. Syafari, M.Pd as
ahead of Mathematics Education Program, Mr. Prof.Dr.Herbert Sipahutar, M.S,
M.Sc as a coordinator of Bilingual Program, Mr. Drs.Yasifati Hia,M.Pd as
secretary of Mathematic Department, Mrs. Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as secretary of
Bilingual program, and all staff in Mathematic Department and Bilingual
Program to help the writer.
The writer also would like to express thank you to head master of SMP
to mathematic teacher Mrs. Esni Purba,S.Pd, Mr. Saheri, S.Pd and all teacher and
staff in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi that help the writer to do the research.
The writer also would like to express her deepest love gratitude to her
father Bismar Rambe, A.Md, her mother Rosmini Ritonga, her sister Nur Asiyah,
Nur Laila, Fitriana, her brother Faisal, Hamzah, Amril, Yusuf, Maju affectionately
which gave birth and enlarge to writer, gave morale support, material and pray
and so all her family. To her lovely friends Rida, Eva, Ira, Siti Rahmadani,
Fatimah, Emil, Siti Rafiah, Misna 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
this thesis.
iii
THE COMPARISON OF PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING JIGSAW APPROACH AND THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) APPROACH ON PRISM SUBTOPIC IN VIII GRADE AT SMP
NEGERI 1 TEBING TINGGI Yanti Rambe (ID. Number 408 111 024)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to know whether cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share (TPS) approaches can increase problem solving skills of student, is there any difference of problem solving skills of student using cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share approaches, what kinds of mistake that student made in solving problem using cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share approaches on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.
The population of this research is all students in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi that divided into four classes. The sample of this research is 52 students that divided into two classes; those are 26 students in VIII-1 was taught using cooperative learning jigsaw approach and 26 students in VIII-2 was taught using cooperative learning think pair share (TPS) approach.
Analysis result of gain for problem solving using t testing with significant level =0,05 for the first hypothesis is tcalculate = 14,7639 and ttable = 1,706, so that
tcalculate > ttable. So,Cooperative learning jigsaw approach can increase problem solving
skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. For the second hypothesis, tcalculate = 6,1916 and ttable = 1,706 so that tcalculate > ttable. So,
cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi. For the third hypothesis, tcalculate = 2,324 and ttable = 2,008 so that -2,009 < tcalculate < 2,009.
Because of that, the criteria -t /2(50) < tcal < t /2 (50) is rejected. So, there is significant
difference of problem solving skills that taught using cooperative learning jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi.
The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using jigsaw approach are: (a) errors in determining the height and base of prism, the height of triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem, (h) did not make re-evaluation correctly.
The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using think pair share approach are same with jigsaw approach, but they did not make errors in determining the height and base of prism.
CONTENTS
1.3The Scope of Problem
1.4Research Question
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Framework
2.1.1 Cooperative Learning
2.1.1.1 Overview of Cooperative Learning
2.1.1.2 The Element and Principal in Cooperative Learning
2.1.1.3 Cooperative Learning Effects
2.1.1.4 Cooperative Learning Phases
2.1.1.5 Why must Cooperative Learning can be Applying in
Teaching Math
2.1.1.6 Approaches to Cooperative Learning
2.1.2 Jigsaw Approach
2.1.2.1 The Steps of jigsaw
2.1.2.2 The Lesson Plan of Jigsaw Approach
2.1.2.3 The Advantages and Weakness of Jigsaw Approach
2.1.3 Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach
2.1.3.1 The Steps of Think Pair Share (TPS)
2.1.3.2 The Advantages and Weakness of Think Pair Share (TPS)
Approach
2.1.4 Technique to Give Recognition of Group
2.1.5 Problem Solving Skill of Mathematics
2.1.5.1 Evaluation Tools for Problem Solving Skills
2.1.6 The Mistake in Learning Mathematic
2.2 Subject Matter
2.2.1 Prisms
2.2.2 Surface Area of Prisms
2.2.3 Volume of Prisms 3.1Research Time and Place
3.2Population and Sample
3.6Instrument of Data Collecting
3.6.1Kinds of Instrument
3.8 Level of Problem Solving Skill of Student in Mathematic Problem
37
3.9 Observation Result of Learning Process 45
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1 The Result of Problem Solving skills
4.1.1 Pre test of First and Second Experment Classes
4.1.2 Post test of First and Second Experment Classes
4.1.3 Gain of First and Second Experment Classes
4.1.4 Normality Testing of Data
4.1.5Homogeniety Testing of Data
4.16 Hypothesis Testing
4.1.8 Description of student mistake for solving problem in the Second
Experiment Class
60
4.1.9 Level of Problem Solving Skill of Student in Mathematic Problem 66
4.1.10 Observation Result of Learning Process 68
4.2 Discussion 69
4.2.1 Discussion of the Result of Problem Solving Skills of Student 69
4.2.2 Discussion of Student Mistake for Solving problem 71
Jigsaw Approach
4.2.2.2For the Second Experiment Class using Cooperative
Learning Think Pair Share approach
75
4.2.2.3The Comparison of Student Mistake in the First and Second
Experiment Classes
78
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 80
5.2 Suggestion 81
REFERENCES 82
APPENDIX 84
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1 Cooperative Learning Phase
Page
12
Table 2.2 Approaches to Cooperative Learning 14
Table 2.3 The Steps of Think Pair Share (TPS) 20
Table 2.4 Calculating of Gaining Score 21
Table 2.5 Example of Giving Gaining Score 22
Table 2.6 Technique of Giving Score For Each Step in Problem Solving 25
Table 3.1 Research Design 33
Table 3.2 Criteria of Student Mastering Level 45
Table 4.1 Pretest result of the first and second experiment classes 47
Table 4.2 Post test result of the first and second experiment classes 48
Table 4.3 Gain of the first and second experiment classes 49
Table 4.4 Result of Normality Testing 51
Table 4.5 Result of Homogeneity Testing 51
Table 4.6 The Result of Hypothesis Testing 53
Table 4.7 Description of Student Misatake for number 1using jigsaw
approach
55
Table 4.8 Description of Student Misatake for number 2 using jigsaw
approach
56
Table 4.9 Description of Student Misatake for number 3 using jigsaw
approach
57
Table 4.10 Description of Student Misatake for number 4 using jigsaw
approach
59
Table 4.11 Description of Student Misatake for number 1using TPS
approach
61
Table 4.12 Description of Student Misatake for number 2using TPS
approach
62
Table 4.13 Description of Student Misatake for number 3using TPS
approach
Table 4.14 Description of Student Misatake for number 4using TPS
approach
65
Table 4.15 Level of Problem solving Skills 66
Table 4.16 The average of observation result of learning process 69
FIGURE LIST
Page
Figure 2.1 Jigsaw Teams 15
Figure 2.2 Jigsaw Steps 17
Figure 2.3 Example of prism 27
Figure 2.4 Triangular Prism and its nets 27
Figure 2.5 Dividing Cuboids become Two Triangular Prisms 28
Figure 3.1 Research Procedures Scheme 36
Figure 4.1 Average of pre test, post test and gain 49
Figure 4.2 Level of Problem Solving 67
Figure 4.3 Students Mistake in Understanding Problem Number 2,3,1,and
4 using Jigsaw
72
Figure 4.4 Student Mistake for arranging Strategy using Jigsaw Approach 73
Figure 4.5 Mistake in calculating using Jigsaw 74
Figure 4.6 Mistake in Putting Some Values 74
Figure 4.7 Student’s Mistake for Understanding Problem using TPS
Approach
76
Figure 4.8 Student’s Mistake for Arranging Strategy to Solve Problem 77
Figure 4.9 Student’s Mistake in Implementing the Planning 78
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class A
Page
84
Appendix 2 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class A 91
Appendix 3 First Lesson Plan for Experiment Class B 98
Appendix 4 Second Lesson Plan for Experiment Class B 104
Appendix 5 Student Work Sheet I 110
Appendix 6 Student Work Sheet II 115
Appendix 7 Blue Print of Pre-test 120
Appendix 8 Blue Print of Post-test 121
Appendix 9 Pre-test Question 122
Appendix 10 Alternative Solution of Pre-test 124
Appendix 11 Post-test Question 127
Appendix 12 Alternative Solution of Post-test 129
Appendix 13 Observer Assessment Scale 132
Appendix 14 Validator Assessment Paper 134
Appendix 15 Validator Names 135
Appendix 16 Observation Paper of Learning Process Using Cooperative
Learning Jigsaw Approach
136
Appendix 17 Observation Paper of Teacher Activity for cooperative
learning Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach
138
Appendix 18 Technique of Giving Score For Mathematic Problem
Solving
140
Appendix 19 Validation Analysis of Validator Agreement for Pre Test 141
Appendix 20 Validation Analysis of Validator Agreement for Post Test 143
Appendix 21 Reliability Analysis of Pre Test 145
Appendix 22 Reliability Analysis of Post Test 147
Appendix 23 Pre Test for the First Experiment Class 149
Appendix 24 Pre Test for the Second Experiment Class 150
Appendix 25 Post Test for the First Experiment Class 151
Appendix 26 Post Test for the Second Experiment Class 152
Appendix 27 Pre Test and Post Test Mark for the First and Second
Experiment Classes
153
Appendix 28 Calculation of Normality Testing 154
Appendix 29 Calculation of HomogenietyTesting 158
Appendix 30 Calculation of Gain Score 160
Appendix 31 Calculation of Hypothesis Testing 162
Appendix 31 Documentation of Research 165
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the 21st century, national education system is trying to set up human
resources quality to compete in the global era. The tool for building human
resources with high quality is education. The Government has organized repairs to
improve the quality of education, but the facts have not shown satisfactory
achievement especially in mathematics achievement.
To increase student achievement, government has made efforts to improve
learning quality in schools. The Application of Educational Unit Level
Curriculum (KTSP) demand paradigm change in education and learning in
schools. According to Komaruddin (in Trianto, 2009: 8), some of those changes
are learning orientation which teacher centered at first to student centered;
methodology which was dominated by expository at first become participatory
and approach which textual at first to contextual.
One of the interesting innovations that accompany the change of paradigm
was found and implemented of innovative-progressive learning models that are
able to develop and explore the knowledge of students concretely and
independently. The selection of learning model was adapted to characteristics of
material, student and learning methodologies in order to increase the activity and
creativity of students.
One of some topics that quite difficult to understand of student at the
junior high school is geometry. Based on the identification of problems at the time
of training activities in Mathematics P4TK, many teachers find difficulties to
teach flat area and polyhedral volume (Yeni, 2011: 64).
That statement was also supported by the results of initial observations and
interviews conducted with Mr. Saheri as mathematic teacher at SMP Negeri 1
Tebing Tinggi. He stated that the level of student understanding in polyhedral is
still low and the results of tests carried out to the students are still under the
2
two classes are 40,68 and 39,24. The minimum successful criteria (KKM) of
mathematic are 75.
Many mistakes are made when students solve geometry problems,
especially polyhedral. This is supported by a research that conducted by Anis
Sunarsi as a student in University of Sebelas Maret on 2009. Her research
analyzes some of the mistakes made by students for solving problem of surface
area and volume of prism and pyramid. Those mistakes are: (1) Mistake in
receiving information and mistake associated with the concept of prism and
pyramid; (2) Mistake in the received information, that is an error in writing down
what is known and what is asked in problem; (3) Mistake associated with the
concept of the prism and the pyramid, that is a mistake in using and applying the
formula; (4) Mistake in finding the surface area of pyramid; (5) Mistake in finding
the volume of the pyramid; (5) Mistake in determining the base and top of prisms
and mistake in determining the polyhedral shape that is requested.
Those mistakes shown that student have low ability in solving problem.
This can be concluded from problem solving indicator that formulated by Polya,
that is: (1) understanding the problem; (2) Planning the solution; (3) solve the
problem according to planning and; (4) to re-evaluate the procedures and results
of the solution (Tarhadi and friends, 2006: 122)
The low ability of student in solving problem due to the learning of
geometry at this moment still tends to be teacher centered so that can lead to
underdevelopment of the thinking skills of students. For example, the prism sub
topic of polyhedral that is often taught using conventional teaching, the teacher
explained the formula of volume and surface area of prism and then the student
should be able to memorize the formula for solving the given problem.
The teacher said that if they carried out student centered learning,
curriculum targets can not work as expected. One of the reasons is takes relatively
long time, but the curriculum must be completed. But teachers are required to use
variation methods, not only lectures but also other methods that more emphasis on
3
Polyhedral is one of the sub topics in mathematics that are closely related
to daily life. This can facilitate student active to construct their own concept and
also fun. It is not easy thing to realize students discover and construct their own
concept of polyhedral through experience, and then it can be concluded in a
common formula. But if not done at all, there will be no change in learning
practices that aim to enhance students' cognitive development and creativity. Thus
required an effort to locate, establish and develop appropriate learning model and
accordance with the conditions of student learning, that is active, creative,
effective and fun.
One model that can be applied is a cooperative learning model.
Cooperative learning is a model that emphasizes learning activities of student in
small groups so that student can work together to achieve learning objectives.
Students in cooperative learning groups learn to discuss, help each other, and
invite each other to overcome learning problems. Cooperative learning makes
student condition to be active and give each other support in the working group to
resolve problems in learning.
Johnson and Johnson (in Trianto, 2009: 57) stated that the purpose of
cooperative learning is to maximize student learning to improve academic
achievement and understanding of both individuals and groups. Zanroni (in
Trianto, 2009: 57) also stated the benefits of the implementation of cooperative
learning is to reduce inequalities in education, especially input form at the level of
individual.
The experts have also shown that cooperative learning can improve
student performance in academic tasks, excels in helping students understand
difficult concepts and develop critical thinking skills (Trianto, 2009: 59).
To support statement above, Richard I. Arends (2009) also said that
cooperative learning model was developed to achieve at least three important
instructional goals: academic achievement, tolerance and acceptance of diversity,
and social skills development.
Cooperative learning has several approaches, such as Student Teams
4
Tournament (TGT), Think Pair Share (TPS) and Number Head Together (NHT).
Those approaches are distinguished from cognitive goals, social goals, team
structure, topic selection, the main task, assessment and recognition.
Cooperative learning Jigsaw and Think Pair Share (TPS) approach are two
alternative solutions that can be implemented in mathematic learning. Because by
using both approach students will more active in learning process and then it will
be expected to increase mathematic student achievement. By using Jigsaw
approach student will more active because each student has responsibility in
solving problem and explain their assigned topic to another student. And by using
Think Pair Share approach student will more active because student has two
opportunities, to work alone first and then cooperate with another student. So,
before they cooperate with other student, they have preparation to make
discussion. In this approach, student discuss in pairing so that they can
communicate directly with their pair and it will make effective discussion in class.
In Jigsaw approach, Students start out in heterogeneous home or base
teams comprised of four or five members. Members number off and then move to expert groups. Each expert group learns a different part or aspect of the assigned
topic. They read and discuss learning materials provided by the teacher and help
each other learn about their assigned topic. They also decide how best to present
the material to others when their home teams reconvene. Each member of the
team teaches their part to other home team members. (Richard I. Arends and Ann
Kilcher, 2010: 316)
This gives the possibility to student engaging actively in discussion and
communication with each other both in the home team and the expert group.
Skills to work and learn cooperatively studied directly in the activities of the two
types of grouping. Students are also given motivation to constantly evaluate their
learning process.
In Think Pair Share (TPS) approach, the teacher poses a question,
individual students think about (and record) their answer. Individuals then pair
5
pairs to share with the large group (Richard I. Arends and Ann Kilcher, 2010:
316). So this model provided all students time to think and opportunity to respond.
Some of the consequences of this model is students can communicate
directly with other individuals, keep each other informed and exchange ideas and
able to train to defend his/her opinion if that opinion is worthy to be preserved.
The successful of the use cooperative learning jigsaw and think pair share
approach conducted visits of student achievement in mathematics to understand
and utilize this understanding for solving mathematic problems and other
sciences.
Problem solving here is an attempt to find a way out performed in
achieving the goal. It is based on Polya statement in Firdaus (2009) which states
that problem solving is an attempt to find out solution of a difficulty to achieve an
objective that is not immediately be reached.
Problem solving skill is very important for students because of various
reasons. The reason is confirmed by Branca in Firdaus (2009):
1. Problem solving skills is a common goal of teaching mathematics.
2. Problem-solving that include methods, procedures and strategies is a core
and major in mathematics curriculum
3. Problem solving is a basic ability in learning mathematics.
Learning approach is developed appropriate with learning objective that
will be achieved. By seeing student achievement after taught student using
cooperative learning jigsaw approach and think pair share approach, then can be
concluded are both of those approaches effective to achieve learning objective of
mathematic and which approach that will more effective after implemented in
class.
Based on explanation above, the researcher were motivated to conduct a
research entitled "The Comparison of Problem Solving Skills of Student using
Cooperative Learning Jigsaw Approach and Think Pair Share (TPS) Approach on
6
1.2Identification of Problem
Based on the background above, the problems identification in this
research are:
Many mistakes which made by students at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi
for solving problem of polyhedral
Mathematic understanding of student at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi in
polyhedral is low
Problem solving skills of student at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi on
polyhedral topic is still low
Learning polyhedral at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi is still oriented to
teacher
1.3The Scope of Problem
In order to avoid misperceptions and expansion issues, this research is
restricted in prism subtopic about surface area and volume in VIII grade at SMP
Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.
1.4 Research Question
Based on the background and identification of problem above, the research
questions are:
1. Can cooperative learning Jigsaw approach increase problem solving skills
of student on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?
2. Can cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach increase
problem solving skills of student on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP
Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?
3. Is there any difference of problem solving skills of student that taught by
cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share (TPS)
approach on prism subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?
4. What kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism
subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw in VIII grade at SMP
7
5. What kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on prism
subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in VIII grade
at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi?
1.5 Research Objectives
The Objectives of this research are:
1. To find out whether cooperative learning Jigsaw approach can increase
problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP
Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi
2. To find out whether cooperative learning Think Pair Share (TPS) approach
can increase problem solving skills of student on prisms subtopic in VIII
grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi
3. To find out is there any difference of problem solving skills of student
taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share
(TPS) approach on prisms subtopic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing
tinggi
4. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on
prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Jigsaw in VIII grade at
SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi
5. To find out the kinds of mistake that student made for solving problem on
prism subtopic that taught by cooperative learning Think Pair Share in
VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi
1.6Research Benefits
The benefits which expected of this research are:
a. The benefits for author
Increasing knowledge of the authors in conducting research in
educational field in the future
Gaining experience in applying learning model and provide a
8
b. The benefits for education
As consideration for the teachers in formal educational institutions
in an effort to improve student achievement in mathematics
As a comparison for the next researchers in examining similar
issues
1.7Operational Definition
The operational definitions in this research are:
a. Cooperative learning Jigsaw approach is learning model where student
involve in two teams or groups, those are home teams and expert groups.
First students are assigned to four or five students heterogeneous as the
home team. Each member in this team has different part of learning
material. The student that has same part is grouped in expert group and
then discuss their part in that group. After that, they come back to home
team and teach her/his own part to other member in home team. In this
model, each team member is responsible for mastering their part and then
teaching that part to the other member inhome team.
b. Cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach is a learning model that
give more time to student to think and then answering and sharing with the
other. In this model, teacher poses a question first, then individual
students think about (and record) their answer. Individuals then pair with
another student to share their answer. The teacher calls on individuals or
pairs to share with the large group.
c. Problem solving skill is skill that shown by student in understanding
problem, arrange planning to solve problem, implement planning and
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1Conclussion
Based on the result research from data analysis, can be obtained some
conclussion, those are:
1. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning
Jigsaw approach has average of post test 72,5 and average of gain 49,135. By
testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that cooperative learning
Jigsaw approach can increase problem solving skills of student on prism sub
topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi.
2. Problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning Think
Pair Share approach has average of post test 81,5 and average of gain
53,4615. By testing hypothesis using t-testing, can be concluded that
cooperative learning Think Pair Share approach can increase problem solving
skills of student on prism sub topic in VIII grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing
Tinggi.
3. By testing hypothesis using t-test of the gain average in the first and second
experiment classes, then can be concluded that there is significant difference
of problem solving skills of student that taught using cooperative learning
Jigsaw approach and Think Pair Share approach on prism subtopic in VIII
grade at SMP Negeri 1 Tebing tinggi.
4. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Jigsaw approach
are: (a) errors in determining the height and base of prism, the height of
triangle and trapezoid, and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete
information from the problem, (c) wrote wrong formula of surface area,
volume and the height of prism, (d) wrote not complete strategy to solve the
problem, (e) errors in calculation and algebra operation, (f) errors in
calculating area and perimeter of prism base, (g) errors for using Pythagorean
81
5. The kinds of mistake that student made after taught using Think Pair Share
approach are: (a) errors in determining the height of triangle and trapezoid,
and drawing the prism, (b) wrote not complete information from the problem,
(c) wrote wrong formula of surface area, volume and the height of prism, (d)
wrote not complete strategy to solve the problem, (e) errors in calculation and
algebra operation, (f) errors in calculating area and perimeter of prism base,
(g) errors for using Pythagorean theorem to find the height of triangle and
trapezoid, (h) 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 who want to use cooperative learning Jigsaw
approach, give more attention to time allocation for each phase so that
learning process can be done better.
2. For mathematic teacher, cooperative learning Jigsaw and Think Pair Share
approaches can be used as alternative learning approach because it can be
increase problem solving skills of student.
3. For mathematic teacher who want to give some topic to student, make sure
that student has mastered prerequisite material so that learning process more
effective.
4. For students, especially students in SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi are
suggested to cooperate in discussion based on rule from the teacher.
5. For the next researcher, to make deeper analysis about the mistakes that
82
REFERENCES
Arends, Richard I., (2009), Learning to Teach Eight Edition, Mc. Graw-Hill International International Edition, New York
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
Astuti, A Yuni, (2010), Buku Panduan Pendidik Matematika untuk SMP/ MTs, Jepe Press Media Utama, Surabaya
Cohen, Louis, and friends, (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge, New York.
Creswell, John W, (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Pearson, USA.
Dhoruri, A., (2010), Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah
Matematika Siswa SMP melalui Pembelajaran dengan Pendekatan Pendidikan Matematika Realistik (PMR),LSM Paper, FMIPA UNY
Firdaus, A., (2009), Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika.
http://madfirdaus.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/kemampuan-pemecahan-masalah-matematika/ (Posted November 2009)
Harris, R., (2010), www.visualsalt.com, (accessed on March, 4th 2010)
Huda, Miftahul, (2011), Cooperative Learning Metode, Teknik, Struktur, dan Model Penerapan, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta
Kirkley, Jami, (2003), Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. Technical Paper, Plato Learning Indiana University.
Silver, Harvey F. and friends, (2007), The Strategic Teacher, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA
Sudjana, (2005), Metode Statistik, Tarsito, Bandung
Sugiono, (2008), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitaive,
Kualitatif dan R & D, Alfabeta, Bandung
83
Tambunan, M., (2011), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Model Kooperative Tipe Number Head Together (NHT) dan Students Team Achievement Division (STAD). Thesis of Mathematic and science Faculty, State University of Medan
Tarhadi and friends, (2006), Perbandingan Kemampuan Penyelesaian Masalah Matematika Mahasiswa Pendidikan Jarak Jauh dengan Mahasiswa Pendidikan Tatap Muka, Journal of Universitas Terbuka
Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Progresif, Kencana, Jakarta
Wardhani, S. and friends, 2010, Pembelajaran Kemampuan Masalah Matematika di SMP, PPPPTK, Yogyakarta
Yeni, E. Mukhlesi, (2011), Pemanfaatan benda-benda Manipulatif untuk
