TO INCREASE THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN FACTORI ZATION ALGEBRAIC TOPIC
IN GRADE VIII IN THE YEAR 2013/2014
By: Evi Sriwahyuni ID. Number 409312006
Bilingual Mathematics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Eligible to Get Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iv
PREFACE
Give thanks to God should give me more spirit to finish my thesis. The
title of this thesis is “Implementation of Group Investigation (GI) to Know the
Student Achievement in Factorization Algebraic Topic in Grade VIII in the Year
2013/2014 “ . This thesis was arranged to satisfy the requirement to get the
Sarjana Pendidikan of Mathematics and Science Faculty in State University of
Medan.
Prof. Dr. Ibnu Hajar, MS as head of State University of Medan and his
staff, Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc as dean of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Faculty, Drs. Syafari, M.pd for a Leader of Mathematics Department, Drs. Zul
Amry, M.Si for a Leader of mathematics education study program, Drs. Yasifati
Hia, M. Si to a secretary of Mathematics Department and then Prof. Dr. rer. Nat.
Binari Manurung, M.Pd as coordinator of Bilingual Program.
Special thanks to Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si because he always guide me in
preparing, doing, and finishing this thesis, and then thanks a lot for Dr. E. Elvis
Napitupulu, Ms, Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd, Dr. Edi Syahputra, M.Pd, who’s the
personsible for my thesis.
Special thanks to my lovely father Lirman Sitorus and my lovely mother
Sabariah br. Siagian, who give me some motivation, pray and my needs until I can
finish this thesis. And then, thank you so much also to my lovely sisters, Rah
Maya Sari Sitorus, Siti Khairani Sitorus, Ayu Azhari Sitorus, my lovely brother,
Saiful Azhar Sitorus and Ridho Hamdani Sitorus. And then, thank you so much
also to my Aunt and Ucle, Arfan Rangkuti and Leny Nurminah br. Siagian.
Writer say thank to Drs. Ahmadi as the headmaster of MTs. Islamiyah
Londut and Mrs. Hernawati S.Pd for Mathematics teacher who help the writer in
the research activities.
Writer also say thank you so much for all my lovely friends in Bilingual
Class Mathematics Education 2009 (Enny Fiana (mentel), Iwan Prakasa
(muncung), Faradilla Bafaqih (Behel), Rizky Khusnaini (kicot), Rini Prautami
Qoriyanti, Siti Zulayfah (babo), Iin Suhartini, Nurhabibah Nst, Joy Juli G. S,
Widia Shopa, Dini Rahmadani, and Retni Triandini). Thank you so much, I love
you all. And for friends writer say thank to Roy Frans Saraan, Lasni Riama
Kristanti S.Pd, Desi Wahyuni and my kost friends, Etty rahmadani Panjaitan,
Andriani rahayu, kak Eviana, kak Leny, dek Ery, who always give motivation,
support and prayers to the writer.
Considering that this thesis has so many weaknesses, the writer needs
some suggestions to make it this thesis be better. The writer wishes that this thesis
can improve our knowledge.
Medan, 27 January 2014
Writer
iii
IMPLEMENTATION OF GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI)
TO KNOW THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN
FACTORIZATION ALGEBRAIC TOPIC
IN GRADE VIII IN THE
YEAR 2013/2014
Evi Sriwahyuni (ID. 409312006)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to know the student achievement and response student in grade VIII by implementing Group Investigation (GI) in factorization algebraic topic. achievement test, observation sheet of teacher activity, questionnaire and documentation.
LIST OF TABLE
Page
Table 3.1. Guideline of Class Score Average 40
Table 3.2. Score in Scale Five 40
Table 3.3. Criteria of Student’s responses 41 Table 4.1. Different of Actions in Cycle I and Cycle II 54
Table 4.2. Average of Class Score and Percentage 57
Table 4.3. Description of Mastery Level of Student in Diagnostic Test 58
Table 4.4. The average of score of Grade VIII-1 of cycle I 59
Table 4.5. Description of Mastery Level Student Outcome in Cycle I 59
Table 4.6. Percentage of Complete Student in Cycle I 60
Table 4.7. The average of score of Grade X-5 of Cycle II 61
Table 4.8. Description of Mastery Level Student Outcome in Cycle II 62
Table 4.9. Percentage of Complete Student in Cycle II 63
Table 4.10. Description of Teacher Ability in Cycle I 64
Table 4.11. Description of Teacher Ability in Cycle II 65
Table 4.12. Result of Student Response Questionnaire in Cycle I 67
Table 4.13. Student Response for each Indicator in Cycle I 68
Table 4.14. Result of Student Response Questionnaire in Cycle II 69
Table 4.15. Student Response for each Indicator in Cycle II 71
viii
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
Figure 3.1. CAR Design 34
Figure 4.1. Student Mistake in SOT I item 1 48
Figure 4.2. Student Mistake in SOT I item 3 48
Figure 4.3. Student Mistake in SOT I item 2 49
Figure 4.4. Student Mistake in SOT I item 4 49
Figure 4.5. Student Mistake in SOT II item 5 50
Figure 4.6. Mastery Level of Diagnostic Test 50
Figure 4.7. Mastery Level of SAT of Cycle I 60
Figure 4.8. Percentage of Completeness of SAT in Cycle I 61
Figure 4.9. Mastery Level of SAT of Cycle II 62
Figure 4.10. Percentage of Completeness of SAT in Cycle II 63
x
LIST OF APPENDIX
Page
Appendix 1. Lesson Plan 1 80
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan 2 87
Appendix 3. Lesson Plan 3 95
Appendix 4. Lesson Plan 4 102
Appendix 5.Student Activity Sheet-01 110
Appendix 6. Student Activity Sheet-02 115
Appendix 7. Student Activity Sheet-03 122
Appendix 8. Student Activity Sheet-04 127
Appendix 9. Diagnostic Test 132
Appendix 10.Student Outcome Test–I 133
Appendix 11. Student Outcome Test-II 134
Appendix 12. Blue Print of Diagnostic Test 135
Appendix 13. Blue Print of Student Outcome Test –I 136
Appendix 14. Blue Print of Student Outcome Test-II 137
Appendix 15. Solution Alternative of Diagnostic Test 138
Appendix 16. Solution Alternative of Student Outcome Test –I 141
Appendix 17. Solution Alternative of Student Outcome Test – II 143
Appendix 18. The Result of Diagnostic Test 147
Appendix 19. Result of Student Outcome in Cycle I 148
Appendix 20. Result of Student Outcome in Cycle II 149
Appendix 21. Blue Print of Student Response 150
Appendix 22. Questionnaire of Student Response 151
Appendix 23. Tabulation of Student Response of Questionnairein Cycle I 153
Appendix 24. Tabulation of Student Response of Questionnairein Cycle II 155
Appendix 26. Observation Sheet of Teacher Activity Meeting II 158
Appendix 27. Observation Sheet of Teacher Activity Meeting III 159
Appendix 28. Observation Sheet of Teacher Activity Meeting IV 160
Appendix 29. The Sheet Validation of Diagnostic Test 161
Appendix 30. The Sheet Validation of SOT-I 164
Appendix 31. The Sheet Validation of SOT-II 167
Appendix 32. Observation Result of Teacher Activity 170
Appendix 33. Scoring Rubric 171
Appendix 34. Name List of Research Subject 172
Appendix 35. List of Interview Question with Teacher 173
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
One of the objectives of national development in the field of education is
the intellectual life of the nation and improves the quality of the Indonesian
people. Through improving the quality of education at all levels of education,
which allows citizens to develop themselves as whole Indonesian people. To
realize the national development in the field of education needed improvement
and improvement of education in accordance with the development of science and
technology.
Mathematics is universal science that underlies the development of
modern technology, has an important role in various disciplines and develops the
power of human thought. Mathematics is a major part of the elementary school
curriculum. The actual selesction of what mathematics to teach is likely to be
among your first major tasks (Ashlock, et al, 1983:22). Therefore, mathematics
courses should be given to all students start from primary education to higher
education to equip learners with the ability to think logically, analytical,
systematic, critical, and creative as well as the ability to work together to survive
in a state of ever-changing, uncertain, and competitively. And in this case the
government through the Department of Education continues to develop the
learning of mathematics in the school system through the development and reform
the learning of mathematics curriculum.
To realize this fact, required a high level of capability that is logical
thinking, creative and proactive collaboration capabilities. This way of thinking
can be developed through the study of mathematics. One subject that cut across all
the sciences is mathematics. Today, mathematical methods pervade literally every
field of human endeavour and play a fundamental role in economic development
of a country. In our match towards scientific and technological advancement, we
Unfortunately performance of students in mathematics at the end of secondary
education has not improved in the past decade (Umoinyang in Tella, 2007). As
stated by Sudrajat in the seminar of the role of mathematics in the development of
science and technology that mathematics is a basic science that is needed for the
foundation for modern technology and science. In addition, mathematics provides
the high skills on a person in terms of abstraction, problem analysis and logical
reasoning. This shows that math is needed also by other disciplines due to develop
the science of mathematics that is needed as the foundation. Given the importance
of the science of mathematics, it is expected that students can learn the science
well. By mastering mathematics, the students will also be easier to learn other
subjects especially in science and engineering.
Science education had emphasized the importance of mathematics in
science teaching and learning (Iroegbu, (1997). Abdullahi (1982) said, concerning
science and mathematics. Although mathematics and science are taught as
separate subjects in schools from instructional point of view, science activity in
the classroom has mathematical implications as working mathematical problems
has scientific imports (Adesoji & Ibraheem, 2009:15).
Algebra is a branch of mathematics that uses mathematical statements to
describe relationships between things that vary over time. These variables include
things like the relationship between supply of an object and its price. When we
use a mathematical statement to describe a relationship, we often use letters to
represent the quantity that varies, since it is not a fixed amount. These letters and
symbols are referred to as variables (MerriamWebster, 2002).
And the other definition of algebra namely algebra is a generalized form of
arithmetic, and for the purpose of generalization of arithmetic, letters and signs
are used. No doubt, the use of letters and signs that make an abstract subject.
Because of the nature of generalization and abstraction, algebra is considered to
be the mathematics subjects which is difficult to understand. Factorisation is the
process of using the distributive law to reverse the process of multiplying out
3
According to Gomez-Chacon (in Ignacio, et al, 2006:18) that:
“one of the variables with most influence on mathematics teaching and learning, related to the pupils' attitudes, their perspective on the world of mathematics, and their social identity. The most important elements of this construct are their subjective knowledge and emotions relative to the following aspects: interest in mathematics, efficiency in performing”
Quality of Indonesian mathematics education has not achieved the
expected results. So it is not surprising that mathematics achievement needs to get
the attention of various parties. Besides the student learning outcomes in mathematics are less exciting as stated by Suharyanto (2006), “math is still the main cause of students not graduating UAN. Of the participants who did not pass,
as much as 24.44% fall in the subjects of mathematics ".
Mathematicians from the Technology Institute of Bandung, Iwan
Pranoto, in a roundtable discussion organized Indonesian Teachers Association
states that, mathematical illiteracy condition has not changed even since 2003. For
seven years, from the scale of 6, Indonesian students' math skills are only at
level-2. Another study from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
in 2010 showed a similar condition. The position of Indonesia was ranked third
from the bottom, better than Kyrgyzstan and Panama. However, Iwan explained
that it is not to worry about the position, but two other important facts. First, the
percentage of students in Indonesia are below the level of two very large (76.6 %),
and the percentage of students who are at level five and six are statistically
nothing. According to the definition of math proficiency level of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), student below the level
two will not be able to be function effectively in 21st century life (Nadia, 2011).
One cause of low mathematics learning outcomes this is because many
students who consider mathematics as a difficult subject to learn. From the
various fields of study that are taught in school, mathematics is a field of study
that is considered the most difficult by the students. Often, students with
mathematics learning difficulties due to their repeated experience of failure are
those who present the most maladapted attributional patterns. Doubting their own
their failures to their lack of ability. They also show low expectations of success,
and give up easily in the face of difficulties. When they are successful, they
attribute it to the easiness of the problem, to help from the teacher or their
classmates, or to luck. Continued failures are seen as confirmation of their low
level of ability. Their negative beliefs about themselves as learners prevent them
from improving their mathematics performance, since they believe that it is
beyond their possibilitiesto do well (Chapman in Ignacio, 2006:18)
One of the mathematical materials that considered difficult by students is
algebra that is taught of grade VIII. Based curriculum, intended target after
completion the learning process is students can completing a matter of algebra in
junior MTs Islamiyah, by giving 5 items to students, as analyzed by many
students that cannot be solve the problems algebra properly.
Thus, to achieve better learning outcome in the learning process to
choose appropriate teaching can help students gain information, ideas, skills,
values, ways of thinking and can make students participate in the learning process.
One solution is to implement cooperative learning model. There are several types
of cooperative learning model that can be developed in mathematics; one of them
is a cooperative learning model Group Investigation (GI). Group investigation is
cooperative learning strategies that put the students into groups to investigate a
topic. From these statements it can be concluded that the GI method has a major
focus for the investigation of a topic or a specific object (Eggen & Kauchak,
2012).
A much more effective form of cooperative learning that uses task
specialization is group investigation (Sharan & Sachan). In which students take on
subtasks within an overall group task. In contrast to jigsaw. Group investigation bases individuals evaluations on the group’s product or report, so this method may in actuality be an in stance of group goals and individual accountability (Slavin,
1988:32).
As stated Shran and Sharan (1989:17) the group investigation is as
5
“In group investigation, student take an active part in planning what they wiil study and how. They form cooperative groups according to common interest in a topic. All group members help plan how to research their topic. Then they divide the work among themselves, and each group member carries out his or her part of the investigation. Finally, the group synthesizes and summarizes its work and presents these finding to the class.”
As stated by Arends (2007:353) states that:
“Group investigation is perhaps the most complex of the cooperative learning approaches and the most difficult to implement. In contrast to STAD and Jigsaw, the GI approach involves students in planning both the topics for study and the ways to proceed with their investigation. This requires more sophisticated classroom norms and structures than do approaches that are more teacher-centered”.
Meanwhile, the main problem in learning in formal education (school)
today is the low absorptive capacity of learners. This is evident from the study of
students that is always very alarming. This is based on the interest and willingness
of students who lack in math. The definition of interest is the tendency of a person
to an object or something popular activity, which is accompanied by feelings of
pleasure, lack of attention, and the activity of doing. From this definition, we can
say that without any interest in math then it could not have liked math students, can’t be addressed by the student and no student activity therein. Besides interest, willingness also is the basic thing that is needed for students to learn because with
the willingness of students to learn without perforce from others that means that
he/she can learn from his own willingness. Student learning environments also
affect student learning outcomes. The learning environment is very important,
namely:
Effective learning begins from the student-centered learning.
Teaching should focus on how students use their new knowledge.
Learning strategies is more important than the result.
Feedback is very important for the students, who come from the
Develop a learning community in the form of group work is
Based on the analysis of research about the low of learning outcomes of
students due to the dominance of conventional learning process. In the
conventional learning environment tends to teacher-centered classroom so that
students become passive. In this case, students are not taught learning strategies to
understand how to learn think and motivate yourself (self-motivation), but these
aspects are key to success in a lesson. This problem is often found in the teaching
and learning activities in the classroom. Therefore, it is necessary to apply a
learning strategy that can help students to understand the teaching materials and
applications as well as its relevance in everyday life.
Based on the interview (September 3, 2013) with the mathematics teacher
in MTs. Islamiyah, Mrs. Hernawati, said that:
“Students are difficult to study mathematics and one of the topics that they can’t understand is factorization algebraic. Students think that algebraic factorization has many formula and they are difficult to remember and to apply that formula in the algebra problem. In learning process, the student also inactive to ask or answer the question from the teacher. The evident, in daily examination of algebra, all of students can’t reach the standard value and all the value is very concern, so the student achievement in the topic of algebraic factorization is low”.
From the some descriptions above researcher can conclude that many of
students are not able to understand the subject matter well. This can happen due to
lack of student interest in learning so that every student learning seems less active
and saturated in learning. In addition to the student, activity that is still lacking in
learning, things that affect students' learning is their ability in terms of completing
the given problem.
From the results of diagnostic test that is conducted, the researchers
7
questions. The result of survey that conducted by researcher (September 9, 2013)
by conducting diagnostic test to the students of grade VIII of MTs Islamiyah in
topic of algebraic factorization. From 32 students who take the test, the average
of test is 65.23 or in very low level. Total of students who complete in student
achievement is 12 students (37.5%) and the incomplete students in student
achievement is 20 student (62.5%). From the data, it can be concluded that student
achievement in the topic of algebraic factorization is low.
Seeing this situation, it should be the task of the teacher is not only
teaching science alone, but also plays a role in terms of helping students in each
solve existing problems. Teachers are also expected to master math learning
concepts well and able to think critically in terms of finding the solution of
problem. In this case, the teacher has the task of trying to improve the ability of
students to understand the material so well that with it, the results can also be
improved student learning. In addition to learning outcomes, things that should be
considered by the teacher are the activity of the students. Students are expected to
be more active in the learning process so that there is good feedback between
teachers and students so that students can be more interested in learning math
One way to enhance student learning outcomes is the adoption of
cooperative learning model. Learning is using small groups so that students work
together to achieve learning objectives. Students in cooperative learning group
discussions, help each other and work together to overcome learning problems.
Cooperative learning consists of several types that have the advantages of each.
One of them is the strategy of Group Investigation (GI). GI strategy is the learning
of investigation student work freely, individual or group. Teacher only acts as a
motivator and facilitator that given a boost to students to be able to express or
pouring of thoughts a new situation, so that with learning is expected to attract
more students, so that students can understand math concepts was learned and
ultimately improve comprehension and learning outcomes students. Thus,
students can be more active in following and learning can improve student
Based on explanation above, then research in interested to conduct a
research entitle “Implementation of Group Investigation (GI) To Know The
Student Achievement in Factorization Algebraic Topic in Grade VIII in the
Year 2013/2014”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background above, some problems can be identified as
follows:
1. Mathematics students outcome are still low.
2. Mathematics is a field of study that is considered difficult by students.
3. Students still dominant passive and tend to only receive information from
the teacher
4. The use of learning model that is chosen by teacher irrelevant.
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, the problem that is exist limited on
the implementation of Group Investigation (GI) to know the student achievement
in the factorization algebraic topic in grade VIII of MTs Islamiyah in the year of
2013/2014.
1.4. Problem Formula
Based on the problem limitation above, then the problem can be
formulated as follows.
1. How the student achievement in grade VIII in the topic of factorization
algebraic by implementing GI?
2. How does student respond to the implementation of GI in the topic of
factorization algebraic?
1.5. Research Objective
1. To know the student achievement in grade VIII in the topic of
9
2. To know student respond by implementing GI in the topic of
factorization algebraic.
1.6. Research Benefit
1. For student, to increase student achievement especially in the topic of
factorization algebraic.
2. For teacher, as information material, overview and consideration in
choosing learning model that can increase student achievement.
3. For school, can use the result of research as reference that can be used
by the other teachers.
4. Academicians gain an overview of cooperative learning model in type
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
1. Based on the student achievement test of cycle I and cycle II by
Implementation of group investigation, student achievement in cycle I is
72.18 (65.63%) and cycle II is 80.16 (90.63%) in class VIII-1 of MTs.
Islamiyah Londut in factorization algebraic topic.
2. The average score of student responses is 75.53 (83.92%) and it is
classified into good category. It means that student think that GI is good
and interesting learning strategy that can increase their student outcome in
learning process.
5.2. Suggestion
1. For teacher, expected to consider conducting GI strategy in learning
process with the suitable topic.
2. For student, expected to use GI strategy in learning that they are expected
to be able to think independent, to be able to discuss with friend and to be
able in sharing their opinion/idea in front of class.
3. For next researcher, expected to use the research result as comparison
REFERENCES
Adesoji, F. A., Tunde L. I. (2009). Effects of Student Teams Achievement Divisions Strategy and Mathematics Knowledge on Learning Outcomes in Chemical Kinetics.The Journal of International Social Research, 2/6, 15-25.
Ashlock, R. B., et al. (1983). Guiding Each Child’s Learning of Mathematics. United States of America. A Bell & Howell Company.
Arends, R. I. (2007). Learning to Teach – Seventh Edition. New York, McGraw-Hill
Ashlock, R. B., et al. (1983). Guiding Each Child’s Learning of Mathematics. United States of America. A Bell & Howell Company.
Borich, Gary D. 1996. Effective Teaching Methods Third Edition. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Coletta, V. P., Philips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. America Association of Physics Teacher 73 (12) : 1172 – 1182. California, Loyola Marymount University.
Diezmann, et al. (2001). Implementating Mathematical Investigation with Young Children. Sydney, Department of Adult, Career & Higher Education
Djamarah, S. B., Aswan, Z. (2006). Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta, PT. Rineka Cipta.
Eison, J. (2010). Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create Excitement and Enhance Learning. South Florida, Department of Adult, Career & Higher Education
Erniwati, R. 2011. Upaya Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 2 Depok dengan Menggunakan LKS Berbasis PMR melalui Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe STAD pada Pokok Bahasan Panjang Garis Singgung Lingkaran. Thesis, FMIPA, UNY, Yogyakarta.
Giibbs, G., Simpson, C. (2003). Measuring the Response of Students to Assessment: the Assessment Experience Questionnaire. International Journal Education Science 12(5): 103-107.
Ignacio, Nuria Gil, Lorenzo J. Blanco Nieto and Eloísa Guerrero Barona, (2006), The Affective Domain In Mathematics Learning, International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Vol : 16-32.
Jordan, Nancy C., and Susan C. Levine, (2009),SocioeconomicVariation , Number Competence, And Nathematics Learnng Difficulties in Young Childre, Journal of Education 15: 60-68.
Kupczynski, et al. (2012).Cooperative Learning in Distance Learning : A Mixed Methods Study, International Journal Of Instruction 5(2): 81-90. USA, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.
Kember, D. et al. (2000). Action Laerning And Research. USA. Stylubs Publishing Inc.
Morgan, B. M. (2012). Teaching Cooperative Learning with Children’s Literature, National Forum of Teacher Education Journal 22(3). Brownsville, TX, The University of Texas
Noormandiri. (2004). Matematika untuk SMP Jilid 1 Kelas VIII. Jakarta, Erlangga.
Ofudo, G. O.,Raheem, A. L. (2011). Cooperative Instructional Strategies and Performance Levels of Students in Reading Comprehension, International Journal Education Science 3(2): 103-107.
Pauls, N. (2006). Basic Maths Law of Factorization Algebra. http://www.mathstat.strath.ac.uk/basicmaths/135-factorization.html
(accessed on March 5, 2013).
Popham, J. W. (1981). Modern Educational Measurement. United States of America, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
79
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative Learning and the Cooperative School. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative Learning and student achievement. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University.
Suharyanto, R. (2006). Waduh…76.6% Anak Buta Matematika. http://www.smu,.net.com (accessed on March 7, 2013).
Tella, A. (2007). The Impact of Motivation on Student’s Academic Achievement and Learning Outcomes in Mathematics among Secondary School Students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 3(2), 149-156.
Trianto.(2011). Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif – Progresif: Konsep, Landasan, dan Implementasinya pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP). Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Uno, H. B. (2006). Teori Motivasi & Pengukurannya – Analisis di Bidang Pendidikan. Jakarta, Bumi Aksara.
Webster, M. (2001). Function of Algebraic.
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/algebra/unit1/algebra.htm (accessed on March 7, 2013)
