THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) MODEL INTEGRATED WITH STUDENT TEAM ACHIEVEMENT
DIVISION (STAD) TO INCREASE STUDENT’S OUTCOMES IN LEARNING BUFFER SOLUTION AT SENIOR HIGH
SCHOOL CLASS XI ACADEMIC YEAR 2014/2015
By:
Intan Permata Sari Reg. Number: 4113332001
Bilingual Chemistry Education Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill Requirement for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATIC AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATES UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
Graduation Date : June, 17th 2015
Title of Thesis : The Implementation of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model Integrated with Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) to Increase Student’s Outcomes in Learning Buffer solution at Senior High School Class XI Academic Year 2014/2015
Name : Intan Permata Sari
ID : 4113332001
Study Program : Bilingual Chemistry Education 2011 Department : Chemistry
Approved by: Thesis Supervisor,
Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si NIP. 19651015 199203 2 003
Acknowledged by:
Head of Chemistry Department Coordinator of Bilingual Program
Agus Kembaren, S.Si., M.Si Prof. Dr.rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si NIP.19680814 199403 1 004 NIP.19640404 198903 1 006
FMIPA UNIMED Dean,
iv
PREFACE
Firstly, writer said thankfullness to Allah SWT that give rahmat and
hidayah so writer can finished this thesis. This thesis submitted to fulfill the
require ment for getting degree of sarjana pendidikan with title is “The
Implementation of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Model Integrated with Student
Team Achievement Division (STAD) to Increase Student’s Outcomes in Learning
Buffer Solution at Senior High School Class XI Academic Year 2014/2015”.
In this oppurtunity, the writer would ypu like to express the thanks and
great appreciation to Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si as my thesis supervisor for her
valuable time spent in giving guidance, advices, motivation and suggestion during
completing this thesis. The writer also thanks to Prof. Albinus Silalahi, M.S., Drs.
Eddyanto, Ph.D., and Dra. Ani Sutiani., as reviewer conselor for this thesis that
giving me advices, suggestion, guidance and constructive comments for this thesis
completeness.
The writer also say thanks to Prof. Motlan, M.Sc., as the Dean of
Mathematics and Natural Science Faculty, State University of Medan,
Prof.Dr.Rer.nat Binari Manurung, M.Si., as the coordinator of Bilingual
Department, Dr. Iis Siti Jahro, M.Si., and Mr. Syamsudin as administrator of
Bilingual Office for their advices and other necessary administrative business.
The great thanks are also given to Jamalum Purba, M.Si., as my academic
supervisor for his guidance during my academic process in this University. The
writer also say thank to Prof. Dr. Retno Dwi Suyanti, M.Si as the instrument’s
validator in this research.
The author appreciation also given to Principal of SMA Negeri I Rantau
Selatan, M. Yahya, S.Pd, M.Si., and also Yusmaniar, S.Pd as the chemistry
teacher and all teachers who give me chance to do research there.
A deepest love, appreciation and thanks also goes to my parents, Sarono,
SKM and Sri Agustini, also my sister Ratih Putri Susanti and Tri Widya Astuti,
my little brother Satrio Nugroho also my aunty Yusniar and family for their
v
process. Thanks also give to my boyfriend M. Ardiansyah Hsb, ST that alwaya
become inspiration, motivation and strength during this process.
Special thank are given to all my classmate in Bilingual Chemistry
Education 2011 that always gives me the best moment in my education process,
especially for Yuni, Fatma, Juliani, Liesa, Cholida and Desy for their kindness
from first semester and spending time with me and in many times of our
unoccupied time. Also big thanks to Hasma, Arif, Agung, Dedi, Yulius, Wulan,
Ridha as my close friend and Raffi, Difa Fayyedh, Daffa, Reza, as my student’s
for their time when i got bored. And thank you so much for my student in SMA
Negeri I Plus Matauli Pandan and my friend in Vita and Habsyah kost when I was
PPL in Pandan.
Writer realize that this thesis is still not being perfect yet. Therefore, writer
hopes the suggestion and critic from the reader for perfection this thesis. Perhaps
this thesis can be useful and give many function and knowledge to the reader
especially about subject matter which is researched in this thesis.
Medan, June 17th, 2015
The writer,
Intan Permata Sari
LIST OF CONTENTS
Legalization Sheet i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of Contents vi
List of Figures x
List of Tables xi
List of Appendix xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Research background 1
1.2. Problem Identification 5
1.3. Scope of Research 5
1.4. Problem Formulation 5
1.5. Research Objectives 6
1.6. Research Benefits 6
1.7. Operational definitions 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE STUDY 8
2.1. Learning 8
2.2. Learning Outcomes 9
2.3. Learning Model 11
2.4. PBL 11
2.4.1. The Characteristics of PBL Model 12
2.4.2. The Stages in the PBL Model 13
2.4.3. The Advantages of PBL Model 13
2.4.4. The Disadvantages of PBL Model 14
2.5. STAD 14
2.5.1. The Stages in the STAD 15
2.5.3. The Disadvantages of STAD 16
2.6. The Implementation of PBL Model Integrated with STAD 16
2.7. Character Education 17
2.7.1. Active Character 18
2.7.2. Teamwork Character 19
2.8. Conceptual Framework 20
2.9. Research Hypothesis 21
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS 22
3.1. Location and Time of Research 22
3.2. Population and Sample 22
3.3. Research Variable and Instrument 22
3.3.1. Research Variable 22
3.3.2. Research Instrument 22
3.3.2.1. Test Instrument 23
3.3.2.2. Observation Sheet of Student’s Character 23
3.3.3. The Instrumet’s Trial 26
3.3.3.1. Validity of Item Test 26
3.3.3.2. The Difficulty Level 26
3.3.3.3. Discriminating Power 27
3.3.3.4. Reliability Test 28
3.4. Type and Research Design 28
3.4.1. Type of Research 28
3.4.2. Research Procedure 28
3.4.3. Design of Research 30
3.5 Technique Data Analysis 31
3.6. Data Analysis 31
3.6.1 The Normality Test 31
3.6.2. The Homogeneity Test 31
3.6.3. Normalized Gain 31
3.8. Hypothesis Testing 32
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 33
4.1. The Description of School Sample 33
4.2. The Instrument’s Analysis 33
4.2.1. The Observation’s Sheet of Student’s Character 33
4.2.2. The Validity of Evaluation Test 34
4.2.3. Reliability of Evaluation Test 35
4.2.4. Difficulty level of Evaluation Test 35
4.2.5. Discriminating Power of Evaluation Test 36
4.3. The Data of Research Result 38
4.3.1. The Result of Pretest and Posttest 38
4.3.2. The Result of Development of Student’s Active and Teamwork
Character by Observation Sheet 39
4.4 The Analysis Data 39
4.4.1. Normality Test 39
4.4.1.1. The Normality Test of Student’s Achievement 40
4.4.1.2. The Normality Test of Student’s Active and Teamwork Character 40
4.4.2. The Homogeneity Test 41
4.4.2.1. The Homogeneity Test of Student’s Achievement 41
4.4.2.2. The Homogeneity Test of Student’s Active and Teamwork
Character 41
4.5. Student’s Achievement 42
4.5.1. Student’s Achievement before Teaching Treatment 42
4.5.2. Student’s Achievement after Teaching Treatment 42
4.5.3. The Analysis of Question Based on Posttest Result 45
4.5.4. Gain (increasing of Student’s Achievement) 46
4.6. Student’s Character 47
4.6.1. The Development of Student’s Active Character 47
4.6.2. The Development of Student’s Teamwork Character 48
4.7.1. Hypothesis Testing for Cognitive Aspect 49
4.7.2. Hypothesis Testing for Affective Aspect 49
4.7.2.1. Active Character 50
4.7.2.2. Teamwork Character 50
4.7.3. Hypothesis Testing for Correlation between Student’s Active and
Teamwork Character with Student’s Achievement 51
4.8. Relation between Student’s Active and Teamwork Character with
Student’s Achievement 52
4.9. Discussion 54
CHAPTER V CONCLUTION AND SUGGESTION 58
5.1. Conclution 58
5.2. Suggestion 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 The stages of PBL model 13
Table 2.2 The stages of STAD 15
Table 2.3 The stages of PBL model integrated with STAD 17
Table 3.1 The specification of test instrument 23
Table 3.2 The specification of observation sheet of active character 24
Table 3.3 The specification of observation sheet of teamwork character 25
Table 3.4 Research Design 29
Table 4.1 Description of class that used as sample 33
Table 4.2 Validity of Evaluation test 34
Table 4.3 Difficulty level 36
Table 4.4 Discriminating power 37
Table 4.5 Summary of instrument test 38
Table 4.6 Data of pretest and posttest 39
Table 4.7 Normality test of student’s achievement 40
Table 4.8 Normality test of student’s active and teamwork character 40
Table 4.9 Homogeneity test of student’s achievement 41
Table 4.10 Homogeneity test of student’s active and teamwork character 41
Table 4.11 Data of student’s achievment before teaching treatment 42
Table 4.12 Data of student’s achievment after teaching treatment 42
Table 4.13 Average value of normalized gain 45
Table 4.14 The analysis of question based on posttest result 46
Table 4.15 The summary of student’s active character 48
Table 4.16 The summary of student’s teamwork character 48
Table 4.17 Hypothesis testing for cognitive aspect 49
Table 4.18 Hypothesis testing for active character 50
Table 4.19 Hypothesis testing for teamwork character 51
Table 4.20 Hypothesis testing for correlation 52
Table 4.21 The relation between active and teamwork character with
student achievement in experimental class I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Six level of thinking in cognitive domain 9
Figure 3.1 Flowchart of the research 30
Figure 4.1 The student’s achievement in experimental class I 43
Figure 4.2 Increasing student’s achievement (gain) in experimental class
I
43
Figure 4.3 The student’s achievement in experimental class II 44
Figure 4.4 Increasing student’s achievement (gain) in experimental class
II
vi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Syllaby 63
Appendix 2 Lesson plan 68
Appendix 3 Apperception and motivation 103
Appendix 4 Problem for experimental class I 105
Appendix 5 Learning material 107
Appendix 6 The observation sheet of student’s active character 112
Appendix 7 The observation sheet of student’s teamwork character 114
Appendix 8 Table of specification based on indicator before validated 116
Appendix 9 Table of validity item test 124
Appendix 10 Reliability of instrument test 139
Appendix 11 Table of difiiculty level 141
Appendix 12 Table of discriminating power 144
Appendix 13 Instrument test (after validation) 147
Appendix 14 The observation data of student’s active character in
experimental class I
154
Appendix 15 The development of student’s active character in
experimental class I
157
Appendix 16 The observation data of student’s active character in
experimental class II
158
Appendix 17 The development of student’s active character in
experimental class II
161
Appendix 18 The observation data of student’s teamwork character in
experimental class I
162
Appendix 19 The development of student’s teamwork character in
experimental class I
165
Appendix 20 The observation data of student’s teamwork character in
experimental class II
166
Appendix 21 The development of student’s teamwork character in
experimental class II
169
vii
Appendix 23 Gain of pretest-posttest in experimental class II 172
Appendix 24 Normality test 174
Appendix 25 Homogeneity test 179
Appendix 26 Hypothesis testing 182
Appendix 27 The relationship of student’s character with student’s
achievement in experimental class I
188
Appendix 28 The relationship of student’s character with student’s
achievement in experimental class II
189
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background
The quality of a nation is determined by the quality of national education
itself. Currently, the quality of education in Indonesia is still low. Evidenced by
the date of Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011 that released by the
United Nation Education scientific and Culture Organization (UNESCO)
annually, Indonesia occupy 69th rank in education among 127 countries. (Azhar,
2014). Another fact indicates the low quality of Indonesia’s education based on
the results of follow TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study) in 1999 involving thousands of Indonesian students to get an overview of
the capabilities of Indonesian students. In TIMSS 1999, Indonesia achievement is
less satisfactory. In science Indonesia occupy 32nd rank out of 38 countries. In
TIMSS 2003, Indonesia occupies 37th rank out of 46 countries. Also in 2007
Indonesia occupies 35th rank out of 49 countries. In this regard, Indonesia
achievement is below Brunei Darussalam and Singapore as neighboring states.
(Litbang Kemdikbud, 2011).
The low quality of education in Indonesia is generally caused by the
effectiveness and teaching effeciency, standardization of education, poor quality
of infrastructure, less of teachers' welfare, low student achievement, less of equal
opportunity of education, less of relevance of education to the needs, the high cost
of education. (Dwiwahyuni, 2011). For prospective teachers, the main centers of
attention to improving the quality of education independently are low student
learning outcomes and learning effectiveness. The most important things is
teachers should pay attention to the characteristics of the material to be taught and
then choose the appropriate learning models that can improve learning
effectiveness and student learning outcome.
In senior high school, the chemistry is considered as a difficult subject
even creepy. Chemistry is also regarded as an abstract lesson, filled with confused
2
are not interested to learn. Generally, students give up even before studying
chemistry. Less interesting of the students has direct impact on student learning
outcome. As proof when I was in school where PPLT implemented, most students
learning outcomes below minimum completeness criteria (KKM). The KKM in
Senior High School 1 Matauli Pandan is 77. From 236 students of class XI, in first
daily examination only 96 students (40,67%) can achieve KKM and in mid
semester examination about 105 students (44.49%) can achieve KKM. In other
words, the percentage of students who can achieve KKM is not more than 50%.
Another school, in Senior High School I Rantau Selatan, the KKM is equal to 70.
Based on interviews with teachers of chemistry in there, the number of student
can achieve KKM is about 35% out of 280 students in class XI science.
From observation in Senior High School I Rantau Selatan, low student’s
achievement related to how the teachers present lessons. Teachers have less
variation in presenting the subject matter. Learning activities always begin with
greetings, apperception, material explanations, exercises and giving home
assignments. Everything is done by teachers without involving students directly.
Sometimes teachers also provide media in learning activities, but students just
listen to it. Learning activities like that make student become passive, less
interaction and collaboration with other students. Supposedly, the teacher is
demand for creative in implementing a learning model that allows students to
active, interact and collaborate with each other and also can achieve the goal as
expected. The learning model should effective appropriate with the subject being
taught in improving student achievement (Purtadi, 2012).
One of model learning that allow student become more active is Problem
Based Learning (PBL). In PBL, guided by teacher students develop critical
thinking, problem solving and collaborative skills as they identify problem,
formulate hypotheses, conduct data seaches, perform experiment, formulate
solution and determine the best of solution to the problems (Surif, et.all, 2013).
PBL is model which centers on student, develops active learning, problem solving
3
the classroom where using PBL is used, students take much more responsibility
for their own learning progressively (Akinoglu and Tando, 2006).
PBL also can improve student achievement is higher than the individual
learning (Dewi, 2013). It is also proved by research that was conducted by Jefri
(2013), obtained percentage of student learning outcomes improvement is 79.7%
using the model PBL on the subject of colloids. Research conducted by Batubara
(2013), the percentage of student learning outcomes improvement is 51.781% on
the subject of the reaction rate using the model PBL. And a recent study by Fitri
(2014) obtained the percentage of student learning outcomes improvement using
PBL on the subject of the redox reaction is 75.12%.
Nowadays, teachers only measure learning outcomes in cognitive aspect.
Cognitive is not the only object of assessment of learning outcomes. Actually,
teachers is not only measure learning outcomes in cognitive aspect but affective is
too. The reason is our national education has objectives to develop the potential of
students to be the faithful human to the God, have a certain character, healthy,
bookish, capable, creative, autonomous, and being the democratic and
responsibilty citizen (Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang
Perundangundangan, 2003). It show the quality of character education is very
important to be improved.
Beside active, teamwork character includes to character that belong to the
student. It’s important to measure it to know the development of student’s
affective. So the result of learning outcome involve cognitive and affective. To
improve teamwork character, teachers must be able to create an atmosphere of
cooperative learning. In the cooperative learning classroom, student work together
to attain group goals that cannot be obtained by working alone. In this classroom
structure, student discuss the subject matter, help one another learn, and provide
encouragement for members og the group (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1986).
Cooperative learning is a solution to increase teamwork character among
students in learning activities. One example of cooperative learning is the STAD.
STAD is one of the many strategies in cooperative learning, which helps promote
4
STAD is good interaction among students, improve positive attitude toward the
subject, better self-esteem, interpersonal skills Increased (Khan, 2011). Expected
with the implementation of STAD not only improve student’s achievement in
cognitive but also student teamwork character.
STAD also can increase student achievement. Based on the previous
research STAD can increase student learning outcome. Result of research
Pradiyanti (2013) prove the effectiveness of STAD. The pretest of cognitive
learning result is 41 and the post test is 86. This mean STAD gives a positive
effect on learning activity. Using the STAD had researched by Hakimitriyuza
(2014) she said that resulted student achievement was improved where the
percentage of increasing student achievement about 79% by implementing STAD.
According to Anggraini (2014) in her thesis, the mean of student’s chemistry
achievement that taught by cooperative learning STAD type multimedia based on
computer is 86, 67%.
The researcher chooses the buffer solution as learning material. Buffer
solution is studied in even semester of class XI. The material of the buffer
solution contains many complex concepts and calculation that require
problem-solving process. Many students struggle to learn it, especially if taught by direct
instruction. Selection of model of learning appropriate with the characteristic of
material is important to overcome the problem faced by students. PBL model
integrated with STAD is appropriate when applied to this material. This model
engages students to solve problems through the stages of scientific methods so
that students can learn the knowledge related to the problem and can increase
student activity and teamwork character.
Based on the background described, researcher interest to do the research
by integrating the PBL with STAD. Previous studies distinguish between the
model PBL and STAD although both have the objectives to increase student
achievement. Research carried out by integrating PBL and STAD expected can
improve student learning outcomes, include achievement in cognitive, student
activity and teamwork character of students in the learning process with the title:
5
with Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) to Increase Student’s Outcomes in Learning Buffer Solution at Senior High School Class XI Academic Year 2014/2015".
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on the background described above, then obtained that:
1. Why the quality of education in Indonesia stiil low?
2. As a prospective teacher what is a major concern to improve the quality of
education?
3. Why is the student’s achievement in learning chemistry still low?
4. Less variation in implementation of model of learning that appropriate
with learning material characteristic
5. How to increase student’s achievement in learning chemistry?
6. Why the teacher only measure cognitive aspect as student achievement?
1.3. Scope of Research
To focus on the problem, so the scope of this research are:
1. The teaching models were PBL integrated with STAD in experimental
class I and STAD in experimental class II
2. The subject taught in this research was chemistry on buffer solution topic
3. In this research learning outcome to be measured including student’s
achievement and student’s active and teamwork character
4. The research object was student Class XI in Senior High School I Rantau
Selatan
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the background described above, then the problem can be
formulated as follows:
1. Is the student’s achievement that taught by PBL model integrated with
6
2. Is the student’s active character that taught by PBL model integrated with
STAD significant higher than taught by STAD?
3. Is the student’s teamwork character that taught by PBL model integrated
with STAD significant higher than taught by STAD?
4. Is there significant correlation between student’s active and teamwork
character with student’s achievement?
1.5. Research Objective The research objectives are:
1. To investigate whether the student’s achievement that taught by PBL
model integrated with STAD is significant higher than taught by STAD
2. To investigate whether the student’s active character that taught by PBL
model integrated with STAD is significant higher than taught by STAD
3. To investigate whether the student’s teamwork character that taught by
PBL model integrated with STAD is significant higher than taught by
STAD
4. To investigate the significant correlation between student’s active and
teamwork character with student’s achievement
1.6. Reserach Benefit
This study is expected to provide benefits, especially for chemistry teachers,
students and also for the other researcher about how to improve learning through
implementation of PBL model integrated with STAD to improve student’s
learning outcome in buffer solution. The expected benefits of this research are
generally described as follows:
1. For chemistry teacher, give alternative learning model to improve student
learning outcome and develop student’s activity and teamwork character in
learning process
2. For student, give chance to have different experience in learning due to
7
understanding and showed by higher student’s learning outcome. Student
can optimalized student’s active and teamwork character.
3. For researcher, give new experience when apply PBL model integrated
with STAD in learning process. In addition, the result of the study are
expected to be a reference for firther research.
1.7. Operational Definition
There are some operational definition in this research “The Implementation
of PBL Model Integrated with STAD in Learning Buffer Solution Senior High
School I Rantau Selatan Class XI Academic Year 2014/2015". Those are:
1. PBL model is series of learning activities that emphasize to the process of
solving problem scientifically (Sanjaya, 2008).
2. STAD is the simplest cooperative learning model is developed by Robert
slavin at all from John Hopkins University (Lie, 2008).
3. Buffer solution is a topic in XI grade at even semester discuss about
composition of buffer solution, working principle of buffer solution, pH
calculation in buffer solution and the function of buffer solution.
4. Learning outcome is a change in behavior as a result of learning in a
broader sense includes the areas of cognitive, affective and psychomotor
(Sudjana, 2005).
5. Active character is used as an indicator of the desire or motivation of
students to learn (Hakim, 2014).
6. Teamwork is an effort in people or a group of human to reach one or some
58 CHAPTER V
CONCLUTION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclution
After conducting the research and analyzing the data, there are some conclutions
that gotten, they are:
1. The student’s achievement that taught by PBL model integrated with STAD
is significant higher than taught by STAD
2. The active character that taught by PBL model integrated with STAD is
significant higher than that taught by STAD
3. The teamwork character that taught by PBL model integrated with STAD is
significant higher than taught by STAD
4. There is significant correlation between student’s active and teamwork
character with student’s achievement
5.2. Suggestion
From the result of the research, there are some suggestion must be raised:
1. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use PBL model integrated with
STAD in learning buffer solution to increase student’s achievement in
learning process especially for students who have medium to high initial
knowledge about buffer solution.
2. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use PBL model integrated with
STAD in learning buffer solution to increase student’s active character in
learning process.
3. It is suggested for chemistry teacher to use PBL model integrated with
STAD in learning buffer solution to increase student’s teamwork character in
59
REFERENCES
Ahmad, Z. A., (2012), Perencanaan Pembelajaran, Pedayogja, Yogyakarta.
Anggraini, A., (2014), The Implementation Of Cooperative Learning STAD Type With Multimedia Based On Computer To Foster Teamwork And Inrease Student’s Achievement In Redox Reaction Topic, Terhadap Hasil
Belajar Siswa Kelas XI SMA Pada Materi Struktur Atom, Skripsi, FMIPA,
Universitas Negeri Medan.
Azhar, (2012), Kualitas Pendidikan Indonesia Rangking 69 Tingkat Dunia, http://azharmind.blogspot.com/2012/02/kualitas-pendidikan-indonesia-ranking.html (Accessed on December, 2014).
Baron, R. and Byane D., (2000), Social psychology 9th edition. Plenum, USA.
Batubara, R., (2013), Pengaruh strategi Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah
(Problem Based Learning) dengan Media Peta Konsep untuk Meningkatkan Hasil belajar Siswa pada Materi Pokok Laju Reaksi, Skripsi, FMIPA,
Universitas Negeri Medan.
Bilgin, I., Senocak, E., Mustafa, (2008), The Effect of Problem Based Learning-Instruction on University Students Performance of Conceptual and Quantitative Problems in Gas Concept, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 5: 153 – 164.
Deputi Menteri Sekretaris Negara Bidang Perundang-undangan, (2005),
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, Lembaga Negara Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Dewi, R.S., Haryono., and Utomo, SB., (2013), Upaya Peningkatan Interaksi Sosial dan Prestasi Belajar Siswa dengan Problem Based Learning pada Pembelajaran Kimia Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid di SMA N 5 Surakarta Tahun Pelajaran 2011/2012, Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 2:15-20.
Dwiwahyuni, A., (2011), Penyebab Rendahnya Kualitas Pendidikan di Indonesia, http://blog.umy.ac.id/anadwiwahyuni/pendidikan/penyebab-rendahnya-kualitas-pendidikan-di-indonesia (Accessed on, December 2014).
60
Gulo, W., (2011), Strategi Belajar Mengajar, Grasindo, Jakarta.
Hakimitriyuza, B., (2014), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe STAD
(Student Team Achievement Division) Menggunakan Media TTS Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas XI SMA Pada Materi Struktur Atom, Skripsi,
FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Medan.
Hakim, Z., (2014), Keaktifan Siswa dalam Proses Pembelajaran. www.zainalhakim.web.id/keaktifan-siswa-dalam-proses-pembelajaran. (Accessed on January 2015).
Istarani, (2011), 58 Model Pembelajaran Inovatif, Media Persada, Medan.
Jefri., (2013)., Pengaruh Penerapan E-Learning Berbasis Weblog Dalam Model
Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning Terhadap Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Kimia Siswa Pada Pokok Bahasan Sistem Koloid. Skripsi, FMIPA,
Universitas Negeri Medan.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (1986)., Circles of Learning:
Cooperation in the Classroom. Interaction Book Company: Edina, MN.
Khairani, M., Fridiyanto, Memertanyakan pendidikan karakter: Pendidikan karakter dalam kehidupan sehari hari di SMP N 7 Kota Jambi, www.acamedia.edu/3404780/implementasi_pendidikan_karakter (Accessed on January, 2015).
Khan, G.N., (2011), Effect of Student’s Team Achievement Division (STAD) on Academic Achievement of Students, Journal of Asian Social Science, 7(12).
Komalasari, D., (2013), Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah. Dinikomalasari.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/pembelajaran_berbasis_masalah _problem_based_learningpbl/ (Accessed on january, 2015)
Lie, A., (2008), Cooperative Learning,edisi ke-2, Alfabeta, Bandung.
Litbang Kemdikbud, (2011), Survei International TIMSS, http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php/survei-internasional-timss
61
NN, (2014), Kamus Online, http: indosdm.com/kamus_kompetensi_ kerjasama_teamwork (Accessed on January, 2015).
Pradiyanti, R., Cahyono E., and Supartono., (2013), Pembelajaran Laju Reaksi Model Kooperatif Tipe STAD untuk Meningkatkan Efektifitas Belajar Siswa, Journal of Innovative Science Education 2(1): 49-56.
Purtadi, Sukisan, and Permanasari, L., (2012), Metode Belajar Berbasis Masalah
(Problem Based Learning) Berbantuan Diagram V (Ve) dalam Pembelajaran kimia http://staff.uny.ac.id/s ites/default/Problem%20Based
%20Learning%20Berbantuan%20Diagram%20Ve%20dalam%20Pembelaja ran%20Kimia.Pdf (Accessed on, December 2014).
Rahmi, Y., (2014)., Ranah Kognitif Taksonomi Bloom, http://yonitarahmi.blogspot.com/2014_06_01_archive.html (Accessed on January, 2015).
Rai, N., Samsuddin,S., (2007), STAD Vs Traditional teaching, Redesigning Pedagogy –crpp conference 2007. http://conference.nie.edu.sg/2007/ paper/papers/STU349.pdf. (Accessed on December 2014).
Ruhimat, T., (2014), Pengembangan Pembelajaran Siswa Aktif, file_upi.edu/direktori/fip/jur_kurikulum_dan_tek_pendidikan/19571121198 5031_toto_ruhimat/active_learning.pdf (Accessed on, January, 2015).
Rusman, (2012), Model-Model Pembelajaran, Rajagrafindo Persada, Bandung.
Sadirman, A.M., (2010), Interaksi Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Rajawali Press, Jakarta.
Sanjaya, W., (2008), Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan, Kencana Prenada Media, Jakarta.
Sunilasati, N., Dantes, N, Candiasa., (2013), Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif tipe STAD terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Ditinjau dari Kemampuan Numerik Siswa Kelas IV SD, e-Journal Program
62
Sari, D, K., (2013), Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah, http:Dinikomalasari.
wordpress . com/ 2013/12/27/pembelajaran-berbasis-masalah-problem-based-learning/pbl/ (Accessed on January 2015).
Silitonga, P.M., (2011), Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, FMIPA, Iniversitas Negeri Medan, Medan.
Situmorang, M., (2010), Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PTK) Untuk Mata Pelajaran
Kimia, Penerbit Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan.
Slameto, (2010), Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Sudjana, N., (2005), Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung.
Sudarman, (2007), Problem Based Learning: Suatu Model Pembelajaran untuk Mengembangkan dan Meningkatkan Kemampuan Memecahkan Masalah,
Jurnal Pendidikan Inovatif 2(2).
Sukanti, (2015), Penialain Afektif dalam Pembelajaran Akutansi, http://staff.uny.ac.id/sites/default/files/penelitian/Sukanti,Dra.%20%20M.Pd ./Domain%20Afektif.pdf (Accessed on January, 2015).
Suryosubroto, (2012), Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Suskie, L. A., (2009), Assessing student learning: A Common sense Guide, John Wiley and Sons, USA.
Sutikno, M.S., (2014), Metode & Model-Model Pembelajaran, Holistica, Lombok.
Tirtaraharja, U., Sulo, S.L.La., (2005), Pengantar Pendidikan, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Trianto, (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta
