THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTEXTUAL TEACHING LEARNING APPROACH TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S LEARNING ACTIVITY AND
LEARNING OUTCOME OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION FOR 7th GRADE STUDENT SMP NEGERI 1 TEBINGTINGGI
ACADEMIC YEAR 2011/2012
By:
Desriana Marpaung 408141048
Biology Bilingual Education Study Program
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for the degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to praise and gratitude to God Almighty for His
love and grace that has given the health and wisdom to the author so that this
thesis can be completed properly in accordance with the planned time.
Thesis entitled “The Implementation of Contextual Teaching Learning Approach to Improve Student’s Learning Activity And Outcome of Environmental Destruction For 7th Grade Student SMP Negeri 1 Tebingtinggi
Academic Year 2011/2012” arranged to obtain S1 degree of Sarjana Pendidikan, faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, State University of Medan.
During writing this thesis, the author had the guidance, assistance and
prayer support from the various parties. First and foremost, the writer would like
to express the endless gratitude to my beloved parents, Ayahanda Piter Marpaung
(Alm) and Ibunda Hoddi D. Matondang, S.Pd for their patience, encouragement
including their endless love and pray to me.
Therefore, the author would like to say thank profusely to
1) Prof. Drs. Motlan, M.Sc, Ph.D., as Dean of the faculty of Mathematics and
Natural Science, State University of Medan.
2) Dr. rer. nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si, as my thesis supervisor and academic
supervisor for his valuable time in correcting and critizing the thesis draft until its
present form.
3) Dr. Syarifuddin, M.Sc, Ph.D, Dr. H. Syahmi Edi, M.Si, and Dr. Fauziyah
Harahap, M.Si, as the lecturer team of examiner for their suggestion and
constructive criticism for the revision of this thesis.
4) Prof. Dr. Herbert Sipahutar, M.Sc as he coordinator Bilingual Program Study for
his motivation to the author in make this thesis.
5) All the staff in faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science and Biology
Department, State University of Medan who have given the knowledge that are
useful for the author during academic program.
6) Head of education and culture ministry Tebingtinggi, Zahidin, S.Pd, M.Pd who
7) Principal of SMP Negeri 1 Tebingtinggi, H. Adrul, for his kindness to allow in
conducting this research at SMP Negeri 1 Tebingtinggi.
8) Anggiat Simanjuntak, S.Pd as vice headmaster who helped me in conducting the
study.
9) Berliana Silitonga, S.Pd as a biology teacher who helped me in conducting the
study and teach me how to teach well.
10) Author also say thanks to my sister Rosalina Marpaung and Wariston Panjaitan,
Renita Maharani Marpaung for their kindness to the author and for my beloved
nephew Gabriel.
11) All my friends especially for Asruri, Noviyanti, Maria, Wenny, Dina, Yeni and
others for their motivation, kindness and encouragement to author.
12) For my special friend Patar Tampubolon, S.Si for his kindness and motivation that
always support and help the author in doing this thesis.
13) Last but not the least, all sister and brothers in Biology department, State
University of Medan for their support in many things whose name cannot be
mentioned one by one.
Medan, July 2012
Desriana Marpaung
iii
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTEXTUAL TEACHING LEARNING APPROACH TO IMPROVE STUDENT’S LEARNING ACTIVITY AND
OUTCOME OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION FOR 7TH GRADE STUDENT SMP NEGERI 1 TEBINGTINGGI
ACADEMIC YEAR 2011/2012 Desriana Marpaung (ID. 408141048)
ABSTRACT
vi
2.1 Definition of Learning 6
2.2 Definition of Teaching 7
2.3 Learning Outcome 8
2.4 Learning Activity 11
2.5 Contextual Teaching Learning Conceptual 12
2.5.1 The Understanding of CTL 13
2.5.2 The Characteristic of CTL 14
2.5.3 The Principal of CTL 16
2.5.4 The procedure of CTL in Teaching 20
vii
3.6.2 Reliability Test 43
3.6.3 Discrimination Power 44
3.6.4 Difficulty Index 45
3.7. Data Analysis 45
3.7.1 Student Mastery Level 45
3.7.2 Learning Completeness 46
3.7.3 Indicator Achievement Completeness 47
3.7.4 Non Test Instrument 47
CHAPTER IV RESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION
4.1. The Result of Instrument Test 48
4.1.1. Validity Test 48
4.1.2. Reliability Test 48
4.1.3. Difficulty Index 48
4.1.4. Discrimination Index 48
4.2. Description of the Result of Research 49
4.3. Description of Each Cycle 54
4.3.1. Cycle I 54
4.3.2. Cycle II 58
4.3.3. Cycle III 63
4.4. Discussion 66
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion 68
5.2. Suggestion 68
ix
TABLE LIST
Table 2.1: CTL Approach 21
Table 3.1: The Test of Environmental Distruction Topic 41
Table 3.2: Instrument For Student Activity 42
Table 3.3: Corellation Coefficient Classification 43
Table 3.4: Student Mastery Level 45
Table 3.5: Non test Instrument 47
Table 4.1: Score of Pre Test and Post Test 49
Table 4.2: Percentage of Student Mastery Level Cycle I – III 50
Table 4.3: Completeness Frequency of Student Learning Outcome 51
Table 4.4: Score of every Aspect in Cycle I – III 52
viii
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2.1: The scheme of CTL` 19
Figure 2.2: The Picture of Air pollution 26
Figure 2.3: The Picture of Water pollution 29
Figure 2.4: The Picture of Oil pollution 32
Figure 3.1: Classroom Action Research Cycle 36
Figure 4.1: Diagram of Activity Cycle I 56
Figure 4.2: Diagram of Percentage Activity Cycle I 56
Figure 4.3: Diagram of Student Learning Out come Cycle I 57
Figure 4.4: Diagram of Comparison Student Activity Cycle I & II 60
Figure 4.5: Diagram of Percentage of Student’s Activity Cycle II 61
Figure 4.6: Diagram of Student Learning Outcome Cycle I & II 62
Figure 4.7: Diagram of Student Activity Cycle III 64
x
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1: Syllabi 71
Appendix 2: Lesson plan 76
Appendix 3: Assessment 90
Appendix 4: Key answer of instrument 97
Appendix 5: Worksheet 98
Appendix 6: Validity 100
Appendix 7: The Calculation for Validity 101
Appendix 8: Table of Reliability 103
Appendix 9: The Calculation for Reliability 104
Appendix 10: Table of Discrimination Power 105
Appendix 11: The Calculation of Discriminant Power 106
Appendix 12: Difficulty Test 108
Appendix 13: The calculation of Difficulty Index 109
Appendix 14: Pre Test Achievement 110
Appendix 15: Student Learning Outcome in Cycle I 111
Appendix 16: Student Learning Outcome in Cycle II 112
Appendix 17: Student Learning Outcome in Cycle III 113
Appendix 18: Observation Sheet Instrument of Student 114
Appendix 19: Table of Individual Assessment 115
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1Background
The quality of education in Indonesia is still not encouraging. This is
evidenced by the results of student's learning outcomes become decrease. From
research in the schools, the logical thinking of students in Indonesia is only about
30% of all the material being taught (PISA:2009)
A comparative study carried out by PISA-OECD (Programme for
International Student Assessment- Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development), it shows that the average of reading, math, and science
achievements in Indonesia are below of the international average. This table will
be explaining about Indonesian rank in the international education.
PISA-OECD explains about student achievement in the world with
showing the kinds of learning subject and rank for all country in 2000, 2003, and
2006. The first subject is reading, Indonesia get rank 39th from 41 countries in
2000, 39th from 40 countries in 2003, and 48th from 56 countries in 2006. The
second subject is math, Indonesia get rank 39th from 41 countries in 2000, 38th
from 40 countries in 2003, and 50th from 56 countries in 2006. The third subject is
science, Indonesia get rank 39th from 41 countries in 2000, 38th from 40 countries
in 2003, and 50th from 56 countries in 2006 (PISA: 2009).
The decreasing of student achievement is caused by many factors,
including lack of awareness of education in the world, poor infrastructure, the
quality of teacher still low, the prosperity to the teachers are low and lack of
student knowledge about the meaning of an education.
Same case with education in north Sumatra. Quantity and quality of
education in public schools and RSBI still relatively low. This is evidenced by
low learning outcomes of students each year. One of the draft international
schools in northern sumatera is SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi.
Based on observations in SMP N 1 Tebing Tinggi, student learning
outcomes were still low. Moreover, the language used was English. This made
2
students more confused in the study. They not only learn the material, but also
language. It was very felt hard by the student in class VII. VII grade students tend
to seek the meaning of the words in the book not understand the contents of the
subject matter, so that learning materials often do not fit with the concept.
According to Mrs. Berliana who was one of RSBI biology teacher who
taught in class VII, she was often difficulty in teaching biology lesson materials.
Students often asked the same question all the time, especially when concerned
with the meaning of the word. So she pays little attention to the learning model
that she uses.
Sometimes the material that was submitted by the teachers were not all can
be accepted by students. Because this case often happen in the classroom, most
students will misunderstand about the concept. Misunderstanding in receiving
lessons proved to be unfavorable effects for both of teachers and students. For
teachers, if the student could not catch the lesson well and she felt like a failure in
teaching the subject matter. For students the material that was not entirely well
received will affect student learning outcome itself.
The involvement of students in following the course of teaching and
learning activities about 60%, classroom management in learning about 70% of
the 25 students in the class who follow the learning process. The results of daily
tests students' average value was 65. Student learning outcomes was still relatively
low, say low because the majority of students on tests of cognitive learning
outcomes achieved only at high values of 20 and 70, which means that there were
many students who have to perform remedial.
The low student learning achievement to subjects of biology teachers felt
uneasy. Hence the need for renewal in the study. One of them by using CTL
approach that has not implemented in that school.
According to Berns & Erickson 2001, CTL can increase student learning
3
use. Most recently, he characterized CTL as a “conception of teaching and learning that
helps teachers relate subject matter content to real world situations”.
Chris Mazzeo (2008), broadened the definition, describing CTL as a “diverse
family of instructional strategies designed to more seamlessly link the learning of foundational skills and academic or occupational content by focusing teaching and learning squarely on concrete applications in a specific context that is of interest to the student”
The task of teachers in contextual learning is to assist students in achieving
its goals. That is, teachers deal more with strategy than giving information.
Teachers just manage class as a team that works together to find something new to
students. Teaching and learning process is more marked than teacher centered
student centered.
Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) assists students in meeting
content standards by applying knowledge to their current and future lives as
family members, citizens, and workers. Effective use of CTL:
• Emphasizes problem-solving,
• Recognizes the need for teaching and learning to occur in multiple contexts,
• Reaches students to become self-regulated learners,
• Anchors teaching in students’ diverse life contexts,
• Encourages students to learn from each other in interdependent groups, and
• Employs authentic assessment.
Based on the description above, so the research about “The Implementation of Contextual Teaching and Learning Approach To Increase Student’s Learning Outcome and Activity On Environmental Destruction Topic of Class VII-2 SMP Negeri 1 Tebing Tinggi Academic Year 2011/2012” had done.
1.2Problem Identification
Based on the background of the above problems can be identified the
problem as follows:
1. Student learning outcomes are still relatively low.
4
3. The tendency to use traditional methods of teaching.
1.3Research Scope
Research problem is limited into:
a. Subjects of Research
Subjects in this study are the increasing of learning outcomes and student’s
activity by implementing Contextual Teaching Learning.
b. Objects of Research
Objects in this study are student class VII-1 SMPN 1 Tebing Tinggi at
2011/2012 with topic Environmental Destruction
1.4Research Question
By considering the background and limitations of problems in the study
then the formulation of the problem are:
1. Is the learning outcome of student’s class VII-1 SMPN 1 Tebing Tinggi at 2011/2012 in environmental destruction topic is higher after the
implementation of Contextual Teaching Learning approach?
2. Do the activities of student’s class VII-1 SMPN 1 Tebing Tinggi at 2011/2012 in environmental destruction topic increase after the implementation of
Contextual Teaching Learning approach?
1.5Objectives
Based on the research questions above, the research objectives are:
a. To know the increasing of learning outcome of students class VII-1 SMPN 1
Tebing Tinggi at 2011/2012 in environmental destruction topic after the
implementation of Contextual Teaching Learning
b. To know the increasing of activities of students class VII-1 SMPN 1 Tebing
Tinggi at 2011/2012 in environmental destruction topic after the
5
1.6Significance of Study
The significance of study that is expected are:
1. Theoretical Benefits
a. The results of this research are expected for teachers of biology in an
attempt to improve student learning outcomes and student’s activity with the implementation of Contextual Teaching Learning approach.
b. Input material for researchers as prospective teachers of biology on the
application of Contextual Teaching Learning approach to teaching
environmental destruction subject matter
2. Practical Benefits
a. The application of active learning strategies that can motivate learners to
learn so that educational goals can be achieved
b. Can motivate student to learn biology, so that the student’s learning outcomes can be interested
c. Biology teacher can use CTL in teaching learning process to increase
learning outcomes
d. Give some information about classroom action research to the other
69
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S.2002.Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan.Jakarta:Bumi Aksara
Aqib, Z. 2008. Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Bandung: Yrama Widya.
Aloysius, S, (2006), Biology for junior High School, Yudhistira, Jakarta.
Arends, R. (2009).Learning to Teach English Edition.New York.Mc.Graw Hill
Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy, OH: National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education. Columbus.
Brand, B. (2003), Essential Of High School Reform: New Form Of Assessment
And Contextual Teaching And Learning, American youth policy forum,
USA.
Elaine, L. (2009), Contextualized Teaching and Learning, The academic Senate for California Community College. Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges.
Gie, (1985), Aktivitas Belajar Siswa, Penerbit Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.
Hamalik, O. (2009), Proses Belajar Mengajar, Penerbit Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.
Hamalik. (2002). Psikologi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algesindo.
Hull, D. (2004), Teaching Biology Contextually, CORD communication, Inc, United States of America.
Hull, D. (2004), Teaching Science Contextually, CORD communication, Inc, United States of America.
Lindblom, S. (2006), How Approaches To Teaching Are Affected By Discipline
And Teaching Context. University of Oxford, UK.
Matthew, M. (2000), Contextual Teaching, Professional Learning, And Student
Experiences; Lesson Learned From Implementation. Center on education
and work university of Wilconsin-Madison.
Mazzeo, C. (2008). Supporting student success at California community colleges. Prepared for the Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative Career by the Career Ladders Project for California Community Colleges.
Nurkancana, W. (1995), Evaluasi Pendidikan, Usaha Nasional: Surabaya
Pusat penilaian Pendidikan BALITBANG kemdikbud. 2009. Penilaian PISA. Balitbang Kemdikbud, Jakarta.
70
Richard, L. (2005), Contextual Teaching And Learning In Pre-Service Teacher
Education, The University of Georgia.
Robert, B. (2001), Contextual Teaching And Learning: Prepare Student For The
New Approach, The Ohio State University. Columbus.
Sanjaya, W. (2008), Strategi Pembelajaran, Penerbit Kencana Perdana Media Group, Jakarta.
Sardiman, A. (2003), Interaksi Motivasi Belajar Mengajar, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Slameto. (1995).Belajar dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Smith, p. (2006), Contextual Teaching And Learning Practices In The Family And
Consumers Science Curriculum, Colombia Middle School Decalb
Country, Georgia.
