THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE STUDENT’S IN TOPIC
OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1 PERBAUNGAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
By:
Elmina Sari Panjaitan ID.Number 4113121017
Bilingual Physics Education Program
THESIS
Submitted to Acquire Eliglible Sarjana Pendidikan
PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
iii
THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) TYPE TO CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE STUDENT’S IN TOPIC OPTIC GEOMETRY GRADE X SMAN 1
PERBAUNGAN ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015 ELMINA SARI PANJAITAN (4113121017)
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research was to analysis the Cooperative Learning Model to student’s Learning Outcomes by using Cooperative learning model Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. The research was done in SMAN Perbaungan which consists of two class, they were experimental class and control class. The sample in this research were taken with cluster random sampling. The research instrument had twenty questions in multiple choice forms with five options, the instrument tested validated. After that do the treatment in experiment class taught by cooperative learning model of GI type to conceptual knowledge student’s and in control class taught by conventional learning model and then done the post-test. After that was done the data analysis technique like average value, standard deviation, normality test, homogeneity test, hypothesis test. In experimental class and control class the average value of pretest were 39.62 and 37.90 that means the capability of students are same, while the value of posttest in experimental class and control class were 78.37 and 69.68, from the research get the conclusion that there was effect of Cooperative learning model Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s. First, it could be seen by the result of outcomes learning that get from each class, the outcomes value from the experiment class was higher than control class. Second, it could be seen the active of students when the model of cooperative type Group Investigation were happened. Third, it could be seen the conceptual knowledge from the experiment class was higher than control class.
vi
1.2. Problem Identification 4
1.3. Problem Limitation 4
1.4. Problem Formulation 5
1.2. Research Objective 5
1.6. Research Benefit 6
1.7. Operational Definition 6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Framework Theoretical 7
2.1.1 Definition of Learning 7
2.1.2. Definition of Learning Outcome 8
2.1.3. Definition of Learning Model 16
2.1.3.1. Cooperative Learning Model 17
2.1.3.2. Syntax Cooperative Learning Model 19
2.1.3.3. Cooperative Learning Model GI 20
2.1.4. Definition Conventional Learning 23
2.2. Learning Materials 24
2.3. Group Investigation Journal 34
2.4. The conceptual framework 37
2.5. Hypothesis of Research 38
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research Location 39
vii
3.2.1. Population of Research 39
3.2.2. Sample of Research 39
3.3. Research Variable 39
3.3.1. Independent Variable 39
3.3.2. Dependent Variable 39
3.4. Type and Research Design Research Instrument 39
3.4.1. Type of Research 39
3.4.2. Design of Research 40
3.5. Research Procedure 40
3.6. Data Analysis Techniques 42
3.6.1. Determine Average Value 42
3.6.2. Determine The Standard Deviation 42
3.6.3. Normality Test 42
3.6.4. Homogeneity Test 43
3.6.5. Hypothesis Test 43
3.7. Research Instrument 46
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Research Result 49
4.1.1 . Pre-test Score and post test of Students 49
4.1.2. Data Analysis of Post-test 51
4.1.2.1 Normality Test of pre-test data 51
4.1.2.2 Homogeneity test of Pre-test 51
4.1.2.3 Hypothesis Test of Pre-test 52
4.1.3 Post Test Value of students 52
4.1.4 Data analysis of Post-test 54
4.1.4.1 Normality Test of Post-test Data 54
4.1.4.2 Homogeneity test of post-test 54
4.1.4.3 Hypothesis test of Post-test 55
4.1.5 Outcomes Learning in Higher Cognitive 55
ix
LIST OF TABLE
Table. 2.1 Major Types of knowledge in the knowledge dimension 11 Table 2.2 The Dimension and Related Cognitive Process 13
Table 2.3 Syntax Cooperative Learning Model 19
Table 2.4 Group Investigation Phases 21
Table 2.5 The advantages and disadvantages of GI 22
Table 2.6 Characteristic of Shadows in mirror 31
Table 2.7 Group Investigation Journal 36
Table 3.1 The design of the research 40
Table 3.2 The Specification learning outcomes test 47 by Anderson’s taxonomy
Table 4.1 Pre-test Score and Post-test Score in Experiment 49 Class and Control Class
Table 4.2 The comparison of pre-test value in 2 classes 50
Table 4.3 Normality test of pre-test data in Experiment 51 and Control Class
Table 4.4 Homogeneity Test of Pre-test Data 51
Table 4.5 Hypothesis Test of Pre-test Data 52
Table 4.6 Post-test Data in Experiment Class and Control Class 53 Table 4.7 Normality Test of Post-test Data in Experiment 54 and control class
Table 4.8 Calculating homogeneity test 54
Table 4.9. Hypothesis Test of Post-test Data 55
viii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1 Light interacts with atoms as sound interacts with tuning forks 24
Figure 2.2 Ordinary Plane Mirror Beneath 25
Figure 2.3 Solid Lines Mirror Beneath 25
Figure 2.4 The reflection light 25
Figure 2.5 The Law of Reflection 25
Figure 2.6 Instead of measuring the angles of incident and reflected rays 26
Figure 2.7 The Extended Reflected Rays 26
Figure 2.8 Example of Mirror 27
Figure 2.8 Example of a surface of clear glass 27
Figure 2.9 Diffuse Reflection 27
Figure 2.10 Example of radio wave 28
Figure 2.11 Example of refraction 28
Figure 2.12 Example of light from hot road 29
Figure 2.13 Example of refraction 30
Figure 2.14 Example of refraction 31
Figure 3.1 The overview of Research Planning 42
Figure 4.2 Column Diagram Pre-test value data in 50
Experiment Class and Control Class
Figure 4.3 Column Diagram Post-test value data in 53
Experiment Class and Control Class
x
Appendix 6 Students Worksheet II I 105
Appendix 7 Grating Optical Instruments In The Subject 111 Matter Optic Geometry
Appendix 8 Test 127
Appendix 9 Key Answer of Test 133
Appendix 11 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Experiment Class 134 Appendix 12 Pre-Test and Post Test Data of Control Class 136 Appendix 13 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation 137
Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Experiment Class
Appendix 14 Calculation of Average Score and Deviation 138 Standard of Pre-test and Post-test in Control Class
Appendix 15 Normality test 139
Appendix 16 Homogeneity Test Data 143
Appendix 17 Hypothesis Test 146
Appendix 18 Level of Higher Cognitive of Post Test 151 in Experiment Class and Control Class
Appendix 19 The Critical Value of L for Liliefors Test 157 Appendix 20 List of Percentil Value of t Distribution 158 Appendix 21 Table of Large Area under the Normal 0 to z 159
Appendix 22 Table of F-Distribution 160
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
According to Indonesian dictionary education words have meaning or how to process or act of educating. By definition language education is the process of changing attitudes and code conduct of a person or group in a mature business man through teaching and training efforts. Awareness about the importance of education has prompted various efforts and attention of the whole society against any development of education, particularly developments in the field of technology and information, then the learning process should be able to develop students' skill in order to have quality fully human resources both to meet the challenge there. In the learning process of teachers are required to be able to choose appropriate learning models according to the circumstances of the student in order to achieve success in learning.
Physics is one of the science subjects in schools that teach a variety of knowledge that can develop the power of reason, the analysis, so that almost all of the problems connected with nature can be understood so interesting to learn. To understand the physics broadly, it must begin with the ability of the understanding of the basic concepts in physics. A student in learning physics said to be less successful if the change in behavior that occurs has not been able to determine the discretion to achieve result that has been set correctly in the allotted time. To achieve maximum learning outcomes, many aspects that influencing, including aspects of teacher quality, level of desire learners to learn, teaching and learning methods media, and others.
Based on interview the researcher to one of physics teacher Mrs.Ir.Julina at SMAN 1 Perbaungan at October 16th, 2014 when researcher is training teacher
2
also said that the average value in physics are not satisfy, where the average value are 65 has not reached the minimum completeness criteria, minimum value specified criteria completeness of school at 70 to declare the student completed the study of physics. Value achieved by students categorized enough, but not purely from the results of their own learning abilities but has additional from teacher, including the assessment of teachers to personal tasks, student attendance, and student discipline during the process of learning. The problems faced by students in the learning process that students are difficult in understanding the material taught by teachers using learning model that has not enable all students. They assume that physics is the most difficult lesson and when they face various types of formula and calculation the physics. Students are also difficult to investigate the questions of physics when they face the problem to answer the questions. Based on interview about the laboratory, the teacher tells that’s seldom to use. In that school just has one laboratory for science that’s combined with one, there are physic, biology and chemistry lab. The problems about the lab are the teachers seldom lazy to ask students discuss in lab because they have many reasons, so that they just tell by conventional model.
3
Number Head Together (NHT) and Group Investigation (GI ) is planning a general classroom setting where students work in small groups using cooperative inquiry, discussion groups, as well as planning and cooperative projects, in this case the students were released to form his own group consisting of two to six members.
To solve the problem, the researcher changes the conventional learning model with cooperative learning model and also the Conceptual knowledgeis used about the learning outcome by using the Andersons’ cognitive start from C4 until C6 about analyze, evaluate and create. Cooperative learning models have some types. One type of cooperative learning model to build students' confidence and encourage their participation in the classroom is a Group Investigation cooperative learning model. It is one form of cooperative learning that emphasizes the participation and activities of the students to find their own materials (information) lesson will be studied through the suitable materials, from a textbook or students can search through the internet. It is often seen as the most complex model and the most difficult to implement in a cooperative learning. It involves students from planning, both in determining the topic as well as a way to learn through investigation. It requires the students to get a good ability to communicate well in a group process skill .The teachers who use it generally divided in to five till six students with heterogeneous characteristics. The division of the group can be also based on the pleasure of friends or common interest to a particular topic. The students choose the topics that they want to learn, following a thorough investigation of the various sub topics, then preparing and presenting a report to the class at all.
4
lack of planning early in the organization of the group and the capability of beginning students. Suheni (2013) conducted a study on the subject matter Temperatures in class VII SMP, obtain an average value of 75.3 where the value exceeds the value with the criteria. Researcher also obtained that with this model of learning activities of students in becoming active.
Based on explanation above the writer wants to do the research with title “The Effect of Cooperative Learning Model Group Investigation (GI) Type to Conceptual knowledge Student’s in Topic Optic Geometry Grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015”.
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background that already explained, so the problem identification in this research are:
1. The physic teacher still use the conventional learning
2. Students' learning outcomes of physics is still low in cognitive
3. During the lessons teacher never do jokes so that the lessons feel bored
4. Student rarely do physic experiments and rarely to use laboratory
5. Interaction between students and teachers in cooperative learning is still low
1.3. Problem Limitation
Based on the problem identification, researcher limits this problem items namely:
1. Sub topic that will be learn is Reflection in the mirrors and Refraction in the lens
5
3.Physics student learning outcomes in the Conceptual knowledgedomain bounded in grade X SMA
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the limitation problem, so the problem formulation are:
1. How is the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching and learning process by using the conventional learning in the topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
2. How are the physics outcome learning of students during the teaching and learning process by using cooperative learning model Group Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
3. Are learning outcome physic for students by using in cooperative learning model group investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s better than conventional learning in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015?
1.5.Research Objective
There are some research objective items, namely:
1. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Conventional in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015.
2. To analyze student's learning outcomes by using Cooperative learning model Group Investigation (GI) type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015.
6
(GI) type to Conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry grade X SMAN 1 Perbaungan Academic Year 2014/2015.
1.6. Research Benefit
From this research expected are:
1. To make the teacher understand about the type model and improve the models that use cooperative in Group Investigation to high cognitive
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning model.
3. As the source for another researcher to develop research about cooperative learning model of group investigation type to high cognitive
4. For reference for researcher in do more research further
1.7. Operational Definition
61
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based pm result research and data collection can be concluded that:
1. Average value of pre-test of experiment class is 39.62 with standard deviation 39.62, after given by treatment then students are given posttest, the average value of posttest in experiment class using Cooperative Learning model Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge become 78.37 that’s category good.
2. Average value pretest of control class is 37.90 with standard deviation is 6.42, after given by treatment then the students are given post test, the average value posttest in control class with Conventional Learning Model 69.68 that’s category enough with standard deviation 6.57.
3. Student’s learning outcomes in experimental class higher than in control class, so it can be concluded that there is effect of cooperative learning model Group
Investigation type to conceptual knowledge student’s in topic Optic Geometry
62
5.2 Suggestion
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives suggestion to school as below:
1. To help the teacher in teaching and learning process about the type model and improve the models to use cooperative in Group Investigation to conceptual knowledge.
2. For materials input to physics teachers in selecting appropriate learning model and make discussion by cooperative during the lessons.
Based on discussion of research result and conclusion above, researcher gives suggestion to further researcher as below:
1. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model Group Investigation type to conceptual knowledge, observer must make students more active in discussion process
2. For further researcher who wants observe using Cooperative Learning Model Group Investigation type to to do more efficiently time when do discussion, so time to make the discussion can use during the discussion
63
REFFERENCES
Anas,Sudijino. (2003) . Pengantar Evaluasi. Jakarta : PT Raja Grafindo Persada
Arends, Richard I. (2008). Learning to teach . New York: Mc Graw Hill
Companies
Arifin, Zaenal. (2009). Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya
Cutnell & Johnson.(2001). Physics . New Delhi : Wiley India.
Hewitt,G.Paul.(2006). Conceptual Physics. United State of America:St.Petersburg
Huda, Miftahul. ( 2012 ). Cooperative Learning.Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar
Ibrahim,R. ( 2010 ). Perencanaan Pengajaran. Jakarta : PT Rineka Cipta
Istarani. ( 2011). 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif. Medan : Media Persada
Kanginan,M.(2006). Fisika untuk SMA Kelas X. Jakarta : Erlangga
Krathwohl.R.David,2002, “A Revision Of Bloom's Taxonomy”. College of
Education, The Ohio State University
Lie.( 2010 ). Cooperative Learning. Jakarta : PT. Gramedia
Mulyasa. (2009). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Matthew, B.R Hergenhahn. (2009). Theories of Learning. Jakarta: Kencana
Sanjaya,Wina . (2005). Pembelajaran Dalam Implementasi Kurikulum Berbasis
Kompetensi .Jakarta: Kencana
Slavin, Robert.E. (2005). Cooperative Learning. London : Allymand Bacon.
Sumarmi. (2012). Model-model Pembelajaran Geografi. Malang : Aditya Media
64
Sudjana. (2002). Metode Statistika. Bandung : PT Tarsito.
Siddiqui,Mujibal Hasan,2013, “Group Investigation Model of Teaching”. Indian
journal of research. Volume 3, may 4th 2013.
Doymus,2010, “The Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on the
Teaching and Learning of the Topics of Chemical Kinetis”. Journal of
Turkish science education. Volume 7, 2 june 2010.
Doymus,2012, “The Effects of Group Investigation and Cooperative Learning Techniques Applied in Teaching Force and Motion Subjects on
Students’ Academic Achievements”. Journal of educational science
research. Volume: 2, june 1st 2012.
Simsek,Ufuk,2013, “The Effects of Cooperative Learning Methods on Students’
Academic Achievements in Social Psychology Lessons”. International
journal on new trends in education and their implication. Volume: 4,
July 3rd 2013.
Doymus,2009, “Effects of Two Cooperative Learning Strategies on Teaching and
Learning Topics of Thermochemistry” .World applied science journal.
Volume : 7, 2009.
