COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS LEARNING ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME FOR HUMAN SENSORY SYSTEM TOPIC FOR THE
SECOND SEMESTER YEAR XI SCIENCE CLASS SMA NEGERI 1 MEDAN
2012/2013
by : Mawaddah
409342023
Biology Bilingual Education
THESIS
THESIS
Submitted to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praise and thank Allah SWT, the Almighty, who has
granted countless blessing, knowledge, and oppurtunity to the writer, and
shalawat to Muhammad SAW, so that she has been finally able to accomplish her
thesis.
The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her gratitude but for
sure the gratitude goes to all those who have assisted her in the process of
completing this thesis. It would be impossible to list all names but several people
deserve her sincere and special thanks.
She gratefully acknowledges the deepest gratitude to her thesis supervisor,
Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D, who has provided guidance and advice to writer from the preparation through the completion of the writing of this thesis.
Her enormous appreciation is addressed to Drs. Tri Harsono, M.Si., the head of Biology Department, Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Si., M.Sc., the coordinator of Bilingual Program, and Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si., and Mr. Samsuddin for his administrative assistances. She heartily wishes to acknowledge
Dra. Hj. Martina Restuati, M.Si., Dr. rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., and Dra. Meida Nugrahalia, M.Sc., as the examiners, for the valuable inputs to be included in this thesis. Thanks Dr. Fauziyah Harahap, M.Si as Academic
Supervisor. She is indebted to Dra. Melva Silitonga, M.S., Dr. Hasruddin, M.Pd., and Prof. Dr. Sri Milfa Yetty, M.S (Kons)., as evaluator for her research instruments, for their constructive comments and suggestion for the improvement
of this study. She is also in enermous intellectual debt to all lectures of Biology
Education Bilingual Program, who has become her inspiration during the
academic years and also during the completion of this thesis. Special thank are
extended to Drs. H. Ahmad Siregar, MM., as SMA Negeri 1 Medan headmaster,
Dra. Hamidah as Biology teacher of XI IPA classes and Drs. Arsyad Sembiring
as vice of headmaster of SMA NEGERI 1 Medan and also special thank are
v
Finally, she will forever be indebted to her beloved parents Fauzi Effendi Nasution, S.PdI and Surayyah Gawi Aziz for having given her love, unfaliling support and encouragement during the academic year and the completion of this
thesis, her beloved guardian and uncle Drs. H. M. Sazli Nasution who always gives her love, support, and guidance, and her lovely uncle Drs. H. Irsyad Tanjung, M.Si whogivesher support and guidance, too. They are always praying and provide funds for the completion of this thesis, and her lovely sister and
brother Marhamah and Muhammad Abduh, my nieces Nita Khairina Lubis, M.Pd and Aldina Nasroh Azizah, S.Pd and for all the families who supported me. And also her lovely husband Rahmad Arief Siregar who always gives support and keep her on track whenever and whatever problems, she have to
overcome.
Last but not least, her heartfelt thanks also go to his fellow students,
especially students of Biology Bilingual Program Year 2009 FMIPA UNIMED
name may not mention one by one writer as well as all those who helped in the
writing of this thesis. And thank my beloved seniors Aisyah, Tari, Dina, Azmi and Maria that always answer all her questions in completing this thesis.
The writer has tried as much as possible in completing this thesis.
However, the writer recognized there are still many weaknesses in terms of both
content and grammar. Contents of this thesis would be useful in enrich science
education. It would be difficult to find adequate words to convey how much she
owes the people. Lots of love and thank all of you.
May Allah bless us.
Medan, April,2013 The author,
THE EFFECT OF NHT (NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER) COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL ON STUDENTS LEARNING ACTIVITY AND LEARNING OUTCOME FOR HUMAN SENSORY SYSTEM TOPIC FOR THE SECOND SEMESTER YEAR XI SCIENCE
CLASS SMA NEGERI 1 MEDAN 2012/2013 Mawaddah
409342023
ABSTRACT
This quasy experiment research aim to investegated the influence of NHT (Numbered Head Together) Cooperative Learning Model on the students learning outcome of biology on the main subject human sensory system which had been conducted in class XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Medan academic year 2012/2013. This
research implemented design “control class pretest-postest design”. The population of this research was all students in class XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi totaling 488 students. The sample was taken by using random sampling and was obtained the sample for 27 students of experimental class (XI-IPA 1) and 27 students of control class (XI-IPA 2). The instrument of research was student’s achievements test in multiple choise form with 40 questions which had been validated before and also the observation sheet of students learning activity.
The result of data analysis showed that pretest in experimental class (47,59±8,73) and pretest in control class (47,22±10,61). After t test was carried out by using significance degree ά = 0,05, it was obtained that tobs =0,196 < ttable=
1,6762, so it can be known both experimental and control class had not significant
difference of student’s beginning achievements. Then, postest in experimental
class (91,39±4,51) has significant different compare to postest in control class (82,87±5,31). After carried out t test it was obtained that tobs = 6,306 > ttable
=1,6762, so it can be known that student’s achievements of biology in experimental class higher than control class. For the students learning activity in experimental class at 1st meeting (71,96±10,09) has significant different compare
to students learning activity in control class (49,74±17,44). After t test was carried
out by using significance degree ά = 0,05, it was obtained that (tobs =5,694 > ttable=
1,6762, so it can be known the students learning activity of experimental class is higher than control class. For the students learning activity in experimental class at 2nd meeting (78,84±13,36) has significant different compare to students learning activity in control class (50,26±17,88). After carried out t test it was obtained that tobs = 6,630 > ttable =1,6762 , so it can be known students learning
vi
1.6. Significances of Research 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.6. Cooperative Learning 13
2.1.6.1. Understanding Cooperative Learning 13
2.1.6.2. Cooperative Learning Objectives 16
2.1.6.3. NHT (Numbered Head Together) type of Cooperative
Learning model 17
2.1.7. Direct Instruction Model 19
2.1.8.2.6. Composition and Balance Tool. How it works 28
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
3.1. Location and Time 35
4.1.3. Observation of Student Activities 53
4.1.4. Test of Data Analysis Requirements 57
x
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Taxonomy Bloom’s Levels 10
Table 2.2 Cooperative Learning Model Consists of Six Phases 16
Table 2.3 The Phases of Direct Instruction 20
Table 3.1. Grating Test Students Learning Outcomes in
The Human Sensory System 36
Table 3.2. Difficulty Level 39
Table 3.3. Research Design 39
Table 4.1. Data Recapitulation of Pretest Study 46
Table 4.2. Data Recapitulation of Postest Study 49
Table 4.3. Percentage of Students Learning Activity Observations 56
Table 4.4. Summary of Data Normality Test with Liliefors Test 57
Table 4.5. Summary of Variance Homogenity Test 58
Table 4.6. Summary of Hypothesis Test Calculation 59
Table 4.7. Summary of 1st Meeting Hypothesis Test Calculation 59
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Research Procedures 42
Figure 4.1. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class Pretest
Comparison 47
Figure 4.2. Pie Chart Percentage of Pretest Experimental Class C1
until C6 47
Figure 4.3. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest
Correct Answer 48
Figure 4.4. Pie Chart Percentage of Pretest Control Class C1
until C6 48
Figure 4.5. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest
Correct Answer 49
Figure 4.6. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class
Postest Comparison 50
Figure 4.7. Pie Chart Percentage of Postest Experimental Class C1
until C6 51
Figure 4.8. Pie Chart Percentage of Experimental Class Pretest
Correct Answer 51
Figure 4.9. Pie Chart Percentage of Postest Control Class C1
until C6 52
Figure 4.10. Pie Chart Percentage of Control Class Postest Correct
Answer 52
Figure 4.11. Stem Diagram of Experimental Class Pretest and
Postest Comparison 53
Figure 4.12. Stem Diagram of Control Class Pretest and Postest
ix
Figure 4.13. Stem Diagram Both Eksperimental and Control Class
Pretest and Postest Comparison 53
Figure 4.14. Pie Chart Percentage of experiment class students
activities at first meeting 54
Figure 4.15. Pie Chart Percentage of control class students activities
at first meeting 55
Figure 4.16. Pie Chart Percentage of experiment class students
activities at second meeting 55
Figure 4.17. Pie Chart Percentage of control class students a
activities at second meeting 56
Figure 4.18. Stem Diagram of Experimental and Control Class 57
Figure 4.19. Result of Pre-test between Students who were taught
with ‘DirectInstruction (DI)’ learning model and
those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together
(NHT)’ learning model (t =0,196; P =0,845). 60
Figure 4.20. Result of Post-test between Students who were taught
with ‘Direct Instruction (DI)’ learning model and those
who were taught with ‘Number Head Together (NHT)’
learning model (t =6,306; P =0,000). 60
Figure 4.21. Result of first meeting activities between Students who
were taught with 'Direct Instruction (DI)’ learning model and those who were taught with ‘Number Head
Together (NHT)’ learning model (t =5,694; P = 0,000). 61 Figure 4.22. Result of second meeting activities between Students who
were taught with 'Direct Instruction (DI)’ learning model
and those who were taught with ‘Number Head Together
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. Sillaby 70
Appendix 2. Lesson Plan in Experimental Class 71
Appendix 3. Lesson Plan in Control Class 79
Appendix 4. Lattice of The Research Instrument 85
Appendix 5. Research Instrument 87
Appendix 6. Keys 97
Appendix 7. Answer Sheet 98
Appendix 8. Worksheet 99
Appendix 9. Observation Sheet of Student Learning Activities 100
Appendix 10. Observation Letter 103
Appendix 11. Letter From School 104
Appendix 12. Construct Validity 105
Appendix 13. Validity,Reliability, and Difficulty Level Calculation 106
Appendix 14. Discrimination Index Calculation and Questions Criteria 112
Appendix 15. Validity by Validators 115
Appendix 16. Research Letter From Faculty 123
Appendix 17. Research Letter From DINAS PENDIDIKAN 124
Appendix 18. Research Letter From School 125
Appendix 19. Pretest , Postest And Activities Result 126
Appendix 20. Analysis data 129
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background
In general, the process of education and teaching in schools today is still
running in the classical style, which means that a teacher in the classroom faces
the number of students between 20-40 students in the same time and delivers the
same learning materials as well. Teachers often use the same model to the whole
students. In this classical teaching, the teachers assume that all students of the
class have not different ability, different readiness and different maturity.
Actually, each person has different characteristics - different from one to another
one. One such individual differences is the ability, so we often found in each class
that the students group that has a high, medium and low capability. Nowadays,
teachers use the learning model that have not been able to appreciate and
accommodate the individual differences of students. In the implementation of the
learning process ,the teachers teaching by same service for all the students,
whether it is for the high, medium and low ability of student. The students have
different learning speeds and they can get the service of learning is depended on
each of their abilities. Students who are slower still left behind, while students
who are faster get the optimal service learning. This learning process that takes
place in the class can not encourage students to progress and develop according to
each of their abilities.
When I was in my teaching experience program, the results of my
interviews with a Biology teacher at SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi, Ms. Florida
Ginting, S.Pd., learning process in class is still very less effective. One
contributing factor according to her, is that her students less active in the learning
process. It can be seen in the learning process, students pay less attention in
teaching process, they just listened to the teaching’s lectures, did not ask questions on other class activities. The facts that occurred when the learning process is less
enthusiastic following of students in learning activities. When the teacher asked,
many students were not able to answer. The students ability to remember newly
Thus, probably it is why formative test scores of students for human sensory
system is still below the Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimum (KKM). KKM value in
RSBI SMA Negeri 1 Berastagi at XI Science Class is 78, while the students score
average was only 53.
The results of my interviews with a Biology teacher of SMA Negeri 1
Medan, Ms. Dra. Hamidah when I observed, the direct instruction learning model
is still being used in the learning process in the class. For the human sensory
system, KKM value in SMA Negeri 1 Medan at XI Science Class is 75, and the
teacher said that almost all of the students’ formative test results passed the KKM and also almost all of the students were active in the class. I choosed this school
as my research location, to observe the effect of Numbered Head Together as
learning model in the learning process. My expectation, all of the students are
active in learning process and NHT improves the students learning outcome in
Human Sensory System Topic.
There are a number of potential approach to improve this learning process
and outcome, namely the teacher’s teaching approach, method or model. Out of a number of well teaching model that improve students activities and learning
outcomes, i.e NHT (Numbered Head Together) Cooperative Learning Model.
Numbered Head Together or NHT is considered a very good model candidate to
be studied since this model will improve students learning outcomes, the activities
of students in the teaching, and learning process. This model is also considered
suitable for a medium class size (20 up to 40 students). And from my observation
result in SMA Negeri 1 Medan, the number of the students in XI IPA 1 as the
experiment class is 27 students. It is the medium class size. It is suitable to apply
NHT (Numbered Head Together) Cooperative Learning Model in this class for
my research. Thus, it can make the students active in learning process.
According to Lie (2004), cooperative learning of NHT type may provide
benefits both of the students in high, medium and low capability in learning, the
students will work together, accomplish the tasks of learning, high-achieving
students will be tutors for students which lower achievements. Cooperative
3
The aims are to launch cooperative skills to learn and work relationships.
NHT is also able to provide a broad acceptance of people who differ by race,
culture, social, and other capabilities. There are several benefits of NHT
(Numbered Head Together) cooperative learning model expressed by Lundgren in
Ibrahim in Husna (2010), they are:
1. Self-esteem is higher
2. Improving attendance
3. Acceptance of the individual into a larger
4. Disruptive behavior becomes smaller
5. Conflicts between reduced personal
6. Deeper understanding
7. Increasing cultivation kindness, sensitivity and tolerance
8. Higher learning outcomes
Sitompul (2008) found that on average who were taught human
reproduction system at the second semester class XI SMA Negeri 2 using NHT
had 89.06 score. Simatupang (2009) found that on 91,25 % of students passed
KKM who were taught human sensory system at the second semester class XI
SMA Parulian 1 using NHT. Husna (2010) found that on mean 71,19 who were
taught human reproduction system at the second semester class XI SMA Negeri
11 using NHT, she said that Numbered Head Together can improve the students
learning outcome.
1.2. Problems Identification
Based on the above background, the problems can be identified are as
follows:
1. The learning model that is used by the teacher nowadays still can not
improve students learning activity and learning outcome.
2. The student learning outcome is low, especially in biology subject.
3. Low of motivation, enthusiasm for learning, and the involvement of
the student in the learning process because of the lack of teacher skill
4. Learning model that is used by the teacher nowadays tends to be
monotonous, resulting in students not able to absorb the subject matter
maximally and the optimal service learning is not evenly distributed in
the learning process in the medium class
5. The social skill of the students is still low. It caused of the individual
student learning activities likely resulting with fellow students in the
learning process.
1.3. Study Scope
The problems of this research was limited to the students learning outcome
and students learning activities. This study was limited the use of two teaching
models namely NHT (Numbered Head Together) Cooperative Learning Model
and Direct Instruction Learning Model as a baseline comparison. The topic taught
in this research was human sensory system and the students learning activities and
students learning outcome were dependent variable. This study was planned to be
carried out in XI Science Class of SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013
1.4 Problem Questions
The problems with restrictions on the formulation in this research are:
1. Are the students who were taught with NHT (Numbered Head
Together) Cooperative Learning Model more active than students who
were taught using Direct Instruction Learning Model?
2. Is students’ average learning outcome who were taught with NHT
(Numbered Head Together) Cooperative Learning Model higher than
students who were taught using Direct Instruction Learning Model?
3. What is the comparison of the students learning outcome and students
activity who were taught with NHT (Numbered Head Together) of
Cooperative Learning Models and Direct Instruction Learning Model
in human sensory system topic for the second semester year XI
5
1.5. Research Objectives
Based on the formulation of the problem described above, the objectives
of this research to find out:
1. The students learning activities who were taught with NHT (Numbered
Head Together) of Cooperative Learning Model in human sensory
3. The students learning outcome who were taught with NHT (Numbered
Head Together) of Cooperative Learning Model in human sensory
5. The comparison of the students learning outcome and learning activity
who were taught by using NHT (Numbered Head Together) of
Cooperative Learning Models and Direct Instruction Learning Model
in human sensory system topic for the second semester year XI
Science Class of SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013.
1.6. Significances of Research
The expected benefits of research in this study are:
1. For researcher, as an input and motivation to carry out the profession
as a teacher.
2. For the teachers, as an input especially, for the teachers of biology in
3. For the students, this research will improve the students learning
outcome and also the students learning activities, and the students will
work together in group to develop a social skill.
4. For the school, as an input in improving students learning activity and
66
sensory system class XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013 increased
by 6,89 where the average value is 71,95 at the 1st meeting and 78,84 at the
2nd meeting.
2. The results of students learning activities who were taught by Direct
Instruction learning model on the subject of human sensory system class
XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013 increased by 0,53 where the
average value is 49,73 at the 1st meeting and 50,26 at the 2nd meeting.
3. The results of students learning outcome who were taught by Numbered
Head Together Cooperative Learning Model on the subject of human
sensory system class XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013 increased
by 43,80 where the average value is 47,59 of pretest and 91,39 for postest.
4. The results of students learning outcome who were taught by Direct
Instruction learning model on the subject of human sensory system class
SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013 increased by 35,65 where the average
value is 47,22 of pretest and 82,87 for postest.
5. Based on the t-test calculation (α = 0.05) obtained the proposed hypothesis is accepted,it can be concluded that there iss a significant effect of
applying Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning Model on the
students learning outcome and students learning activities on the subject of
human sensory system class XI IPA SMA Negeri 1 Medan 2012/2013.The
applying of Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning Model is
better than Direct Instruction learning model on the subject of human
5.2. Suggestions
Having considered the findings of this research, the suggestions are:
1. For biology teachers, Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning Model
is one of biology learning alternative which application could increases
students learning outcome and learning activity.
2. The implementation of Numbered Head Together Cooperative Learning
Model needs well preparation. There are eleven steps that will be
implemented in the learning process. Some tools that support learning should
68
REFERENCES
Adeyemi, B. 2008. Effects of Cooperative Learning and Problem-Solving
Strategies on Junior Secondary School Students’ Achievement in Social
Studies, Research in Educational Psychology, 6: 691-708
Allyn and Bacon. 2011. Bloom’s Taxonomy.
http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learning/exams/blooms-taxonomy.html
Arikunto, S. 2007. Manajemen Penelitian. Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Armstrong, N., Chang, S., and Brickman, M. 2007. Cooperative Learning in
Industrial- Sized Biology Classes, Life Science Education, 6: 163-171
Aryulina, D. 2007. Biologi 2 SMA dan MA untuk kelas XI. Esis, Jakarta
Djamarah, B. 2000. Guru dan Anak Didik Dalam Interaksi Edukatif. Rineka cipta,
Jakarta.
Dosen, Tim. 2011. Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi dan Proposal Mahasiswa
Program Studi Pendidikan. FMIPA UNIMED, Medan
Husna, N. 2010. Perbandingan Hasil Belajar Siswa dengan Menggunkan Model
Pembelajran Kooperatif NHT (Numbered Head Together) dan Tanpa
Menggunakan Model NHT pada Sub Materi Pokok Sistem Reproduksi
pada Manusia di Kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri 11 Medan Tahun
Pembelajaran 2009/2010. Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatera Utara
Hutagaol, G. 2012. The Differencces of Student’s Problem Solving Ability
Between Taught by Students Teams – Achievement Division (STAD)
and Direct Instruction (DI) at Class VII SMP Negeri 1 Medan Academic
Year 2011/2012. Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatera Utara
Joyce, B., Well, M., and Calhoun, E. Models of Teaching. Pearson Education Inc,
New Jersey, U.S.A
Karmana, O. 2007. Cerdas Belajar Biologi. Grafindo, Jakarta
Lie, A. 2008. Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas.
Gramedia, Jakarta
Marieb, E. 2007. Human Anatomy & Physiology. New Jersey, U.S.A
Muraya, D., and Kimamo, G. 2011. Effects of Cooperative Learning Approach on
Machakos District, Kenya, Educational Research and Reviews, 6: 726-745
Pratiwi,D. 2008. Biologi untuk SMA Kelas XI. Erlangga, Jakarta
Sandjaja, B. 2006. Panduan Penelitian. Prestasi Pustaka, Jakarta
Simatupang, C. 2009. Efektivitas Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe NHT Pada
Sub Materi Pokok Sistem Alat Indera Pada manusia di kelas XI IPA SMA
Parulian 1 Medan T.P 2009/2012. Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatera
Utara
Sitompul, S. 2008. Efektivitas Model Pembelajaran Tipe NHT (Numbered Head
Together) Pada Materi Pokok Sistem Reproduksi Di XI SMA Negeri 2
Kisaran. Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatera Utara
Suprijono, A. 2010. Cooperative Learning. Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta
Syah, M. 2000. Psikologi Pendidikan dengan Pendekatan Baru. RR, Bandung
Tanner, K,. Chatman, L., and Allen, D. 2003. Approaches to Cell Biology
Teaching : Cooperative Learning in The Science Classroom-Beyond
