THE DIFFERENCE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
USING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) OF THINKING
EMPOWERMENT BY QUESTIONS (TEQ)
TECHNICAL AND CONVENTIONAL
LEARNING AT FIRST GRADE OF
SMAN 1 BERASTAGI 2011/2012
By:
Janna Sri Bina Br Barus ID. Number 408111067
Bilingual Education Mathematics Program
THESIS
of The Requirement for The Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE FACULTY STATE
UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
PREFACE
First of all, I would like to thank God Almighty for His blessing, which
enables me to complete my thesis in order to fulfill one of the requirements to
obtain a Sarjana Pendidikan at the Mathematics Bilingual Department, Faculty
Mathematics and Sains, Medan State University.
Writing this thesis is not an easy task for me. I faced many problems and
challenges, which sometimes made me almost give up. However, I preserved
because this is my obligation.
My special gratitude goes to Dr. Esther Nababan, M.Sc as my consultant
who has given her valuable instruction, advice, ideas, suggestion and sacrifice in
reading the draft my thesis. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Asmin, M.Pd, Dr. Edi
Syahputra, and M.Pd, Dr. W. Rajagukguk, M.Pd as my examiners, for their
willingness to read and correct this thesis.
My thank also goes to Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D. The Dean of Mathematics and Sains Faculty, Medan State University. My deepest gratitude
also goes to Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as the coordinator of Bilingual
Program and Prof. Dr. Mukhtar, M.Pd., the Head of Mathematics Department and
Drs. Syafari, M.Pd, secretary of the Mathematics Education Department, Dra. Ida
Karnasih, M.Sc.Ed, Ph.D as my academic consultant and to all the lecturers who
had advised and guided through academic years at the State University of Medan.
My deepest gratitude is due to my beloved parents, S. Barus and M. br
Ginting and also to my beloved older sisters Jenita Barus, S.S, Erma Barus Amd,
Mewanita Barus AMK and my younger sister Gelora Barus for their moral and
material supports and prayer for me in writing my thesis.
Further, many thanks are offered to Alberto Colia M.Pd, The Headmaster
of SMAN 1 Berastagi and to the Mathemathics teacher, Linda Br Ginting S.Si.,
for their kindness and support during the research.
Sincerely thanks are also addressed for my best friends “SERAPHIM”
(Putri, Togu, Blessing) and Rustam Efendi S.Pd as our leader for the support,
Mathematics Bilingual Education 2008 for their encouragement and their kindness
during spending time in Medan State University and all people that cannot be
mentioned one by one, for their love, support, and pray, may God bless them.
Medan, September 2012
Writer
THE DIFFERENCE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES USING THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) OF THINKING EMPOWERMENT
BY QUESTIONS (TEQ) TECHNICAL AND CONVENTIONAL LEARNING AT FIRST
GRADE OF SMAN 1 BERASTAGI
Janna Sri Bina Br Barus (NIM 408111067)
ABSTRACT
Learning outcomes are the learning achievements of learners who can be measured from the students after work the problems given by the teacher at the time of the evaluation carried out. Based on observation at SMA N 1 Berastagi, many students have low achievement in learning mathematics. They don’t have preparation to do learning mathematic and some of them assume that it is difficult to understand. So, it needs technical to be done cooperative learning to increase students learning outcomes even though activity learning process.
CONTENT
Page
Validation Sheet i
Content ii
Figure list iii
Table list iv
Appendix list v
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Problem Identification 4
1.3. Problem Formulation 4
1.4. Scope of Research 4
1.5. Research Objectives 5
1.6. Research Benefits 5
1.7. Operational Definition 6
CHAPTER II : REVIEW REFFERENCE
2.1. Theoretical Background 7
2.1.1. Learning and Teaching 7
2.1.2. Cooperative Learning 9
2.1.3. Element of Cooperative Learning 10
2.1.4. Cooperative Learning in Mathematics 11
2.1.5. Model of Learning Think Pair Share 12
2.1.6. The Excess and The Weakness of TPS 14
2.1.7. Thinking Empowerment by Question Technical 15
2.1.8. Conventional Learning 17
2.1.9. Learning Outcomes of Mathematics 18
2.2. Conceptual Design 21
2.3. Research Hypothesis 22
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Time and Place of Research 23
3.2. Population and Sample Research 23
3.2.1. Population 23
3.2.2. Sample 23
3.3. Design of Research 24
3.4. Variable of Research 25
3.5. Research Procedure 25
3.6. Instrument to Collect Data 27
3.7. Data Analysis Technique 28
CHAPTER IV : THE RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Description Data The Research 33
4.1.1. Data Pretest Student’s Learning Outcomes in
Experiment class I and Experiment class II 33 4.1.2. Data Posttest Student’s Learning Outcomes in
Experiment class I and Experiment class II 33
4.2. Analysis of Research Data 36
4.2.1. Normality Test of Student Learning Outcomes 36 4.2.2. Homogeneity Test of Student Learning Outcomes 37
4.2.3. The Hypothesis Test 37
4.3. Discussion of Research Result 37
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion 40
5.2. Suggestions 40
TABLE LIST
Page
Table 3.1 Design of Research 23
Table 4.1 Summary Data Learning Outcomes Student of Mathematics 34 Table 4.2 The Result Normality Test of Student Learning outcomes 36 Table 4.3 The Result Homogeneity Test Data Pretest and Posttest 36
Appendix List
Page
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 Experiment Class I 44
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan 2 Experiment Class I 49
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan 1 Experiment Class II 58
Appendix 4 Lesson Plan 2 Experiment Class II 60
Appendix 5 Format TEQ 1 64
Appendix 6 Format TEQ 2 67
Appendix 7 Validation Assessment Paper Pre Test 70
Appendix 8 Question of Pre Test 74
Appendix 9 The Solution of Pre Test 75
Appendix 10 Validation Assessment Paper Post Test 78
Appendix 11 Question of Post Test 82
Appendix 12 The Solution of Post Test 83
Appendix 13 Data 86
Appendix 14 Statistic of Data 87
Appendix 15 Normal Test 90
Appendix 16 Homogeneity Test 96
Appendix 17 Normalize Gain 98
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Success in an educational institution teaching-learning process can be seen from the result of learning achieved by learners. Learning outcomes are the learning achievement of learners who can be measured from the students after work on the problems given by the teacher at the time of the evaluation carried out. Successful learning in school will come from studying the success of their students. Student success in learning can be influenced by any factor of the individual from outside the individual and inside individual.
Factors that influence learning can provide positive support in learning, but can also hinder the learning process. When the result of student learning is low means the learning process can be said fail. It is a problem in education. This problem happens in SMAN 1 Berastagi especially those of mathematics.
It can be seen from the achievement of the average score of mid semester test in class X SMAN 1 Berastagi Academic Year 2011/2012 is 46.93 with a population of 32 students and the percentage of completeness 22.22% by Minimum Criteria for completeness is 70.
When researcher observation in this school, researcher get there are some the weakness of learning, are: (1) student passive in learning process, (2) student
afraid to share student’s opinion to teacher, (3) student stop try to solving problem
when student get difficult problem.
In fact Mathematics as one subject in school was considered quite an important role in shaping students into qualified, because mathematics is a mean to study something to think logically and systematically.
As expressed by Hamalik(2009:88) that:
"In mathematics lessonwe will findthe followingpurposes:
1. Inculcate, nurture, and developbasicmathematics knowledge andpracticalskills.
2
3. Inculcate, nurture, anddevelop the abilitytoappreciate the time-saving and intelligent, rationaleconomics.
4. Inculcate, nurture, anddevelop an attitude ofmutual cooperation,honest, andbelieve in yourself. "
Improving the quality ofmathematics educationis necessary,in particularan increase instudents' mathematicsachievementin schools.
The role ofmathematicsis soimportant, and student thatis the outputof educationwho will facethe developmentof science and technologyoften criticizedfrom many quartersthat lead tostudents' mathematicslearning outcomesarestill low.
The number of students who are weak in mathematics is very alarming. Trianto (2009: 5) states that:
The main problem in learning in formal education (school) today is the low absorptive capacity of student. This is evident from the average of the results of study of students which is still very alarming. This achievement is certainly a result of the current teaching method used and do not touch the realm of conventional dimensions of the learners themselves, namely how to actually learn it. In a sense, that the learning process until today still provide the teacher dominance and does not provide access for student to develop independently through discovery and thinking processes.
Of the above problems, it’s required to apply a mathematical learning model that is expected to improve student learning outcomes.Cooperative learning model can be used as an alternative model for such purpose.
Tritanto(2007:49) satate:” There are some variance of cooperative learning
models, are: STAD, JIGSAW, Team Game Tournament (TGT), and structure
approach like Think Pair Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT).” In
this study research choose one learning type it is cooperative learning type Think Pair Share (TPS).
Think Pair Share is a type of cooperative learning designed to influence the interaction patterns of student and an alternative to class structure as well as greater involvement of student in reviewing the material covered in the lesson.
According LiaSaragih, the research results show that:
3 essential in order to achieve the expected goals. Gunawan(2010) state thatThink Pair Share Learning model would be optimal if the function is combined with learning strategies using Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ).
Learning experimental research result carried out by Corebima(2006) had proven that TEQ in TPS strategy as well as in Jigsaw Strategy having bigger potency to empower student thinking skills then expository strategy. This fact related with the characteristics of TEQ learning strategy all well as cooperative.
This is supported by statement of Vivilia (2006:14) that Thinking Empowerment by Questions Technical is an empowering question pattern of reasoning. Display Thinking Empowerment by Questions Technical cursory look as a kind of Work sheet student is unknown at this time, substantial differences are very striking fact, substantial differences that have to do with characteristics very empowering student reasoning, of this can be seen that the Thinking Empowerment by Questions Technical is one tool that has the potential to develop reasoning student.
In this study, researcher selects cooperative learning model type TPS
since these types of cooperative learning is designed to influence student’s
4
The above mentionedleads to the little of this research:
“The difference student mathematics learning outcomes using Think Pair Share (TPS) Learning Model by Using Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ) Technical and conventional learning in First Grade of SMAN 1 Berastagi 2011/2012”
1.2. Problems Identification
1. Student’s mathematics learning outcomes is low.
It can be seen only 22,22% student pass in mid semester by criteria minimum competence is 70.
2. Student passive when teacher teaches by conversional model.
It can be seen from the teacher used teacher-centered learning model so students are less involved in the learning process.
3. Student’s interest to study mathematics is low.
This is consistent with the expression of one mathematics teacher at Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ) Technical and conventional learning in First Grade of SMAN 1 Berastagi 2011/2012
1.4. Problem Formulation
Based on the scope of the research, then this study can be formulated as follows:
5
1.5. Research Objectives
In accordance with the formulation of problems and restrictions that have been raised, the purposes of this study are as follows:
To get description the difference of student mathematics learning outcomes using Think Pair Share (TPS) Learning Model by Using Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ) Technical and conventional learning in First Grade of SMAN 1 Berastagi 2011/2012
1.6. Benefits of Research
The expected benefitsoft this research is to obtain description about the effect of TPS to student achievement. When applied this research can give benefits like: 1. ForStudents
Improvestudents'activeroleinteaching and learning activities
Increaseunderstanding ofstudentsinlearningmathematics, especiallyonthe
subject oftrigonometry function and education.
The results ofthis studycan contributeto bothschoolsin the improvement ofmathematicsteachinginX RSBI SMAN 1 Berastagi.
4. For other researchers
This research can inputsandcomparabletoother researcherswhowant toexaminethe sameissuesinthe future.
1.7 Operational Definition
6
2. Learning model is something of a plan or pattern that is used as a guide in planning the learning in the classroom.
3. Cooperative learning is learning which emphasis on active of student who form a group to achieve common goals.
38
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing the data, the conclusions are drawn as follows:
1. There is the difference of learning outcomes that taught by Think Pair Share (TPS) Learning Model by Using Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ) Technical and than taught by conventional learning at First Grade of SMAN 1 Berastagi 2011/2012.The student’s learning outcomes that taught by Think Pair Share (TPS) Learning Model by Using Thinking Empowerment by Questions (TEQ) Technical is better than taught by conventional learning.
5.2 Suggestions
Related to the writer’s research, some suggestions are pointed out as follows:
a. Formathematics teacher, in teachingthe materialdistancein spaceorother appropriatetopicsit is recommended to useThink Pair Share (TPS) learning models with TEQ as one way ofimprovingstudent learning outcomes.
39
REFERENCES
Abdurrahman, Mulyono,(2003), pendidikan bagi anak berkesulitan belajar. Rineka Cipta. Jakarta
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan
Praktik. Rineka Cipta. Jakarta
Arends, Richard.2008. Learning To teach, Mc.Graw Hill Companies.New York. Basarab, J and K. Parcell, 1992, The Training Evaluation Process,
http://books.google.co.id , accessed on July 2012
Cooney, et al, 2002. Open-Ended Assessment In Math a Search Collection of
450+ Question, http://books.heinemann.com/math.index.cfm, accessed
on July 2012
Corebima. 2004. Pengembangan Lembar PBMP (TEQ) dalam Pembelajaran
IPA-Biologi. Makalah disajikan dalam rangka Upaya Peningkatan
Pembelajaran di National School Buin Batu Town Site NTT, Desember. Cresweel, John W. 2008. Educational Research (Planning, Conducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research), Pearson Education,
Inc., The Unite State of America
Davidson,Neil.Teaching Mathematics in the block, http://books.google.co.id , accessed on July 2012
Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan,2009, Buku Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi Mahasiswa dan Standard
Oprasional(SOP) Kepembimbingan Skripsi Program Studi
Pendidikan.Medan, FMIPA UNIMED
Habibah, K. N. 2008. Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran PBMP (Pemberdayaan Berpikir Melalui Pertanyaan) dan TPS (Think Pair Share) terhadap Kemampuan Berpikir Keterampilan Metakognitif dan Pemahaman Konsep Siswa Kelas VII Di SMPN 4 Malang Pada Kemampuan
Akademik Berbeda. Skripsi tidak diterbitkan. Malang: UM.
40
Sadiman, Arief S.2008. Media Pendidikan. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Sanjaya,Wina. 2008. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses
Pendidikan. Kencana Prenada Media: Jakarta
Siswanto,2009.Theory and Application of Mathematics for Grade X of Senior
High School and Islamic Senior High School. Tiga Serangkai: Solo
Slameto. 2010. Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Rineka Cipta: Jakarta
Slavin, Robert. E. 2008. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset, dan Praktik. Nusa Media: Bandung
Sudjana, Nana. 2009. Penilaian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar. Remaja Rosdakarya: Bandung
Sudjana. 2005. Metode Statstika. Tarsito: Bandung
Sudrajad.2009. Pegertian Pendekatan , Strategi,Metode, Teknik dan Model
Pembelajaran. Htpp://akhmadsudrajad.wordpress.com/
Sugiono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Alfabeta: Bandung
Sukardi. 2009. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Bumi Aksara: Bandung
Tritanto. 2007. Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik. Prestasi Pustaka, Jakarta
Undang-undang Republik Indonesia No 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
Vivilia, N. 2006. Pengaruh Penerapan Pemberdayaan Berpikir Melalui Pertanyaan (PBMP) dengan Metode TPS terhadap Pencapaian Kecakapan Akademik dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Siswa Kelas VII SMP 11
