THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPE THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS)AND TYPE STUDENT TEAMS-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN THE TOPIC OF TRIGONOMETRY IN GRADE X OF SMA NEGERI 1 PERBAUNGAN A.Y. 2013/2014.

(1)

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPE

THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) AND TYPE STUDENT TEAMS-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN THE TOPIC OF TRIGONOMETRY IN

OF GRADE X SMA NEGERI 1 PERBAUNGAN A.Y. 2013/2014

By:

Anggi Paramita Daulay IDN 4103312001

Bilingual Mathematics Education Study Program

A Thesis

Submitted to Fulfill the Requirement for Getting the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

(2)

(3)

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Allah Subhanallahu Wata’ala give me more spirit to finish my

thesis. The title of thesis is The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability

by Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and Type

Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) in the topic of Trigonometry in

Grade X of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014. This thesis was arranged

to satisfy the law to get the Sarjana Pendidikan of Mathematics and Science

Faculty in State University of Medan.

For this chance I want to say thank you for the rector of State University

of Medan, Mr. Prof. Dr. Ibnu hajar, M.Si. and his staffs, Mr. Prof. Drs. Motlan,

M.Sc., Ph.D. for dean of FMIPA UNIMED and his college assistant of Dean I, II,

III in UNIMED, Mr. Drs. Syafari, M.Pd. as Head of Mathematics Department,

Mr. Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si. as Head of Mathematics Education Study Program and

then Mr. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si. as secretary of Mathematics Department.

Big gratitude to Mr. Prof. Dr. Asmin Panjaitan, M.Pd. as supervisor for his

guide to prepare this thesis. And thanks to Mr. Prof. Dr. Sahat Saragih, M.Pd., Mr.

Dr. KMS. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd. and Mrs. Dr. Izwita Dewi, M.Pd., who has persons

responsible for my thesis from the beginning until end. Thanks to Mr. Prof. Dr.

Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd. as my academic supervisor, Mr. Drs. Arifin Siregar, M.Pd.

as always support me and then thank you so much for all my lecturers and staffs

in FMIPA.

Special thanks to my lovely father Mr. Mohammad Kamaruddin Daulay,

S.H. and my lovely mother Nuraini for giving motivation, pray and all I need in

finishing this thesis. And then thanks for love to my brothers, Mohammad Angga

Ramadhan Daulay, Mohammad Arfan Zulkhoir Daulay and my sister Andini

Salsabillah Daulay.

And then, thank you so much for helping Mr. Drs. Suhairi, M.Pd. as

headmaster of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan, Mr. Edi Lokot, M.Si., Mr. Ishak

Saragih, S.Pd. and all staffs in SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan for helping and

(4)

v

Also thanks to big family in Bilingual Mathematics Education 2010 for

sadness and happiness in the class, Abdul, Dian, Dwi, Elfan, Erlyn, Falni, Kiki,

Lia, Maria, Matyanne, Meiva, Melin, Mila, Nelly, Petra, Riny, Rully, Sheila, Siti,

Surya, Tika, Uli and Mimi. And special thanks to my ABM Perbaungan friends,

Sheila, Uli, Rici, Jovan, Fery, Biah, Cici, Liza, and Rany.

Especially to my precious Bachtiar Rivai Nasution S.STP thanks to all

your support, hope you stay beside me and be mine forever. To bele’s thanks for

everything my future pharmacist Nurul Khairina Harahap, Zafira Nasution,

Fildzah Fitria, Rifkah Wulandari, Novade Nur Arif Siregar. And also to cici, irna,

putri, anggi yulia, maria, dina, meyna, arum and nanda safira.

The writer should give a big effort to prepare this thesis, and the writer

knows that this thesis has so many weaknesses. So that, the writer needs some

suggestions to make it this be better. And big wishes, it can be improve our

knowledge.

Medan, August 2014 Writer,

(5)

iii

THE DIFFERENCE OF STUDENTS’ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY BY USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING MODEL TYPE

THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS)AND TYPE STUDENT TEAMS-ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) IN THE TOPIC OF TRIGONOMETRY IN

GRADE X OF SMA NEGERI 1 PERBAUNGAN A.Y. 2013/2014

By:

Anggi Paramita Daulay ID. 4103312001

ABSTRACT

This research is a quasi experimental to determine whether there is difference students’ problem solving ability who taught by cooperative learning model type TPS with students’ problem solving ability who taught by type STAD in the topic of Trigonometry in grade of X SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014.

The population is used all students of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan in the year 2013/2014. Sample selected by cluster random sampling is a class XU-1 by 20 students as a class experimental A with cooperative learning model TPS (Think-Pair-Share) and class XU-2 by 20 students as a class experimental B with cooperative learning model STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Division). To obtain the necessary data used in this study to test the form of essays that look at students' mathematical problem solving ability. Before the test is defined as a data collection tool, first piloted by two lecturers from the Department of Mathematics in State University of Medan and one mathematics teacher in SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan.

(6)

vi

CONTENTS

Page

Sheet of Agreement i

Biography ii

Abstract iii

Acknowledgement iv

Contents vi

List of Figure ix

List of Table x

List of Appendix xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Identification of Problem 9

1.3 Limitation of Problem 9

1.4 Formulation of Problem 9

1.5 Research Objectives 10

1.6 Benefits of Research 10

1.7 Operational Definition 10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 Theoretical Framework 12

2.1.1 Problems in Mathematics 12

2.1.2 Mathematics Problem Solving 13

2.1.3 Mathematics Problem Solving Ability 15

2.1.4 Mathematics Learning 16

2.1.5 Learning Model 17

(7)

vii

2.1.7 Cooperative Learning Model Steps 21

2.1.8 Cooperative Learning Type TPS 23

2.1.9 Cooperative Learning Type STAD 26

2.1.10 Comparison of Model Cooperative Learning TPS & STAD 31

2.1.11 Supporting Theory of Cooperative Learning Model 32

2.1.12 Summary of Subject Matter 33

2.2 Relevant Research 38

2.3 Conceptual Framework 39

2.4 Hypothesis Research 41

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 42

3.1 Type of Research 42

3.2 Place and Time of Research 42

3.3 Population 42

3.3.1 Population 42

3.3.2 Sample 43

3.4 Variables and Research Design 43

3.4.1 Independent Variable 43

3.4.2 Dependent Variable 44

3.4.3 Research Procedure 44

3.5 Data Collection Instrument 47

3.5.1 Problem Solving Test 47

3.6 Data Analysis of Observation Sheet 50

3.7 Techniques of Analysis Data 51

3.7.1 Problem Solving Ability 51

3.7.2 Data Analysis by Inferential Statistics Technique 51

3.7.2.1 Normality Test 51

3.7.2.2 Homogeneity Test 52

(8)

viii

CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 54

4.1 Description of Research Data 54

4.1.1 Description Value Posttest Experimental Class A and Class B 54

4.1.2 Description Level Students in the Problem Solving Ability 55

4.2 Analysis of Research Results 57

4.3.1 Normality Test Data 57

4.3.2 Homogeneity Test 59

4.3.3 Hypothesis Test 60

4.3 Discussion of Results 63

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 67

5.1 Conclusion 67

5.2 Suggestion 67

(9)

x

LIST OF TABLE

Page

Table 2.1 Cooperative Learning Steps 22

Table 2.2 Implementation Steps Model Discussion Think-Pair-Share 25

Table 2.3 Score Calculation Developments 28

Table 2.4 Award Level Group 29

Table 2.5 Phases of Cooperative Learning Type STAD 29

Table 2.6 Comparison of Type Model Cooperative Learning Type TPS and Type STAD 31

Table 2.7 The Value Trigonometry Ratios 35

Table 2.8 The signs of Trigonometry Ratios 37

Table 3.1 Research Design of Randomized Control Group Only 44

Table 3.2 Guidelines of Scoring For Problem-Solving Ability Test 48

Table 3.3 Determination of completeness problem Solving By Individuals 49

Table 3.4 Criteria of Teacher’s Responses 50

Table 3.5 Criteria of Student’s Responses 51

Table 4.1 Student Test Data Experiment Class A and Experiment Class B 54

Table 4.2 Description of Student Ability Level Category Problem-Solving Experiment Class A 56

Table 4.3 Description of Student Ability Level Category Problem-Solving Experiment Class B 56

Table 4.4 Normality Test Results of Posttest Data Both Exp. Class 58

Table 4.5 Homogeneity Test Results of Posttest Data Both Exp. Class 60

(10)

ix

LIST OF FIGURE

Page

Figure 1.1 One Student Answer Sheet 7

Figure 2.1 Right Triangle 33

Figure 3.1 Procedure of Research 46

Figure 4.1 The Result of Ability Level Problem Solving Category in

(11)

xi

LIST OF APPENDIX

Page

Appendix 1 Lesson Plan 1 (TPS) 71

Appendix 4 Lesson Plan 1 (STAD) 92 Appendix 5 Lesson Plan 2 (STAD) 99 Appendix 6 Lesson Plan 3 (STAD) 105

Appendix 7 SAS 1 (TPS) 111

Appendix 10 SAS 1 (STAD) 136

Appendix 13 Blue Print of Initial Capability Test 160

Appendix 14 Initial Capability Test 161

Appendix 15 Solution Alternative of Initial Capability Test 163

Appendix 16 Guidelines of Scoring For Initial Capability Test and Problem-Solving Ability Test 166

Appendix 17 Blue Print of Problem-Solving Ability Posttest 167

Appendix 18 Problem Solving Ability Posttest 168

Appendix 19 Solution Alternative of Problem Solving Ability Posttest 170

(12)

xii

Appendix 21 Observation Sheet of Teacher Activity (STAD) 172

Appendix 22 Observation Sheet of Student Activity-1 (TPS) 180

Appendix 25 Observation Sheet of Student Activity-1 (STAD) 183

Appendix 28 Results of Observation Sheet 186

Appendix 29 Result of Initial Capability Test (XU-1) 190

Appendix 30 Result of Initial Capability Test (XU-2) 191

Appendix 31 Validation Sheet of Problem Solving Ability Test 192

Appendix 32 Students’ Problem Solving Ability Experiment Class A (Posstest) 199

Appendix 33 Students’ Problem Solving Ability Experiment Class B (Posstest) 201

Appendix 34 Determination of Percentage Students’ Problem Solving for Each Category I, II, III, and IV on the Posttest (Exp.A) 203

Appendix 35 Determination of Percentage Students’ Problem Solving for Each Category I, II, III, and IV on the Posttest (Exp.B) 205

Appendix 36 Calculation of Normality Test 207

Appendix 37 Calculation of Homogeneity 208

Appendix 38 Calculation of Hypothesis 210

(13)

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Mathematics is the oldest science and basic science has an important role

in science and technology. The statement is supported by the statement Cockroft

(in Abdurrahman, 2009:253) argues that mathematics should be taught to students

because:

1. Mathematics always be used in all aspects of life. 2. All area studies require to math skills appropiate. 3. Can be strong, short and clear in communication. 4. Can be used for present information in various way. 5. Increase logical thinking, accuracy and awareness spatial. 6. Provide satisfaction against to solve challenging problems.

Mathematics education is one of study taught at every level of

education. Mathematics education has a very dominant role in educating students

for developing critical thinking skills, analytical and logical. One of the problems

that occur in the world of education in Indonesia is the low quality of mathematics

education, both in terms of process and learning outcomes, thus causing low

Indonesian student mathematics achievement.

The mathematics problem is a matter of mathematics or mathematical

statement in which there is no procedure or algorithm that can be directly used or

used by students to solve the problems, and the statement must be solved by the

students. Teachers are required to encourage students to actively learn and can

improve the ability of solving mathematical problems which are important factors

in mathematics. Slameto (2010: 94) argues that:

(14)

2

The fact that mathematics education in Indonesia is still

disappointing. The low outcomes is a serious problem that must be solved,

because the success of the learning process is not only dependent on the teacher

but the students also played a role. Through learning model, teachers can help

students get information, ideas, skills, ways of thinking and expressing

ideas. Therefore, active learning is required of students so that they can improve

their learning performance as proposed by Noor (

http://pages-yourfavotite.com/ppsupi/abstrakmat2005.html) that:

“Active learning is required of the students, so that they can improve their learning performance. Therefore, teachers are required to encourage students to actively learn and can improve reasoning skills in mathematics which is an important factor in mathematic".

The learning process at schools, many obstacles faced by the students,

one of these obstacles is the lack of student interest in receiving the teacher's

lessons, especially in mathematics is one of study that less diserable for students

and considered is the most difficult lessons since first . As pointed out by Rida

(http://www.duniaguru.com) said that: "The fact show the students relatively low

in mathematic so it’s very rare to find our students understand the concept and

application of mathematics well". Similar to Pranoto (http://www.sigmetris.com),

"With the growing of perception about irrelevance or not beneficial mathematics,

their motivation to learn mathematics will be down, or even disappear".This is in

line with the results of the interview on January 6, 2014 which is disclosed by

math teacher at SMAN 1 Perbaungan, Mr. Edi Lokot that: "The problems often

faced by teachers when teaching mathematics due to the lack of interesting with

math and understanding with the basics of mathematic as soon as assume

mathematical considered a difficult subject and avoid, it makes students being

confused and bored when study ongoing process". And because in SMAN 1

Perbaungan still using learning teacher oriented model.

Trigonometry is a math subject in grade x for this second

semester. Trigonometry has a very close relationship in our lives, both directly

(15)

3

planes, with the growing of time, trigonometry is often used in world of applied

sciences, the development of other sciences, and the development of mathematics

itself. On this topic there are many students who have difficulty in solving a given

problem, it’s not surprising because there are too many formulas to remember and

need more understanding. To improve their learning outcomes through the

application of knowledge, learn to solve problems, find something for themselves

and discuss each other with their friends, the way is to choose an appropriate

learning model with the cooperative learning model. Correspondingly Nurgayah

(2011: 66) also states that:

"In the model of cooperative learning is done by developing interaction and work together in a structural team work, educate among each students to avoid offense, misunderstanding in learning in order to reach the learning objective. There are at least three important learning objectives by implementing cooperative learning model, which is the result of academic learning, acceptance of diversity or individual differences, and the development of social skills or cooperation and collaboration skills".

In the implementation of cooperative learning can change the role of

teachers from teacher-centered role to a role managing a small group activity.

Thus the role of the teacher during monotonous will be reduced and students will

be trained to solve problems, even problems that are considered intractable. There

were 4 of cooperative learning approach according to Trianto (2011: 67), "That

Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD), JIGSAW, Investigation Group

(Teams Games Tournaments or TGT), and the Structural approaches include

Think - Pair-Share (TPS) and Numbered Head Together (NHT)”.

Because teachers' mastery of the learning model is still not optimal, the

researcher tried to introduce cooperative learning models for math teachers in

SMAN 1 Perbaungan. One of the cooperative learning model to improve learning

outcomes is cooperative learning model type Think-Pair-Share (TPS). The reason

the researchers chose this learning model because TPS is a type of cooperative

learning that is designed to influence the pattern of interaction that occurs

between students in learning activities. In this case the student is expected to work

(16)

4

rather than individuals. The advantages of TPS models are shaping individual and

a pair group responsibility, because in this model there are individual tasks and

task groups. So also with cooperative learning model Student

Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) is the simplest cooperative learning, with 4-5

people heterogeneously discussions. STAD cooperative learning created between

student interaction with the students and also between students and teachers to

create a learning community. Students not only learn from teachers but also from

fellow students. In STAD cooperative learning requires active student

participation in group discussions. According to Istarani (2011: 68-69),

think-pair-share has strength:

1. Be able to improve students’ reasoning, critical power of students, the

students’ imagination and power of analysis to a problem;

2. Promote cooperation among the students as they work in groups; 3. Improve the ability of students to understand and appreciate other

opinions;

4. Improve students’ ability to express opinions as implementation of his/her knowledge;

5. Teacher is more likely to increase students’ knowledge when they finished with the discussion.

And there are some of the strength of cooperative learning model STAD (Student

Teams-Achievement Division), according Nurgayah (2011: 86-88) are:

a. In STAD cooperative learning model, learners are not overly relied on teachers, but also increased confidence in the ability to think independently, finding information from a variety of sources as well as learning from other learners.

b. STAD cooperative learning model develops the ability to express an idea or ideas verbally and compare with other people's ideas.

c. STAD cooperative learning model can help learners to appreciate others and aware to the limitations as well as receiving all the difference.

d. STAD cooperative learning model can help learners to take more responsibility in learning.

(17)

5

Polya defined problem solving as finding “a way where no way is

known, off-hand… out of a difficulty…around an obstacle”. Polya stated that to

know mathematics is to solve problems. The difference between nonroutine and

routine problems seems to be a key element in how problem solving is currently

being viewed among mathematics educators. The primary purpose of

mathematical problem-solving instruction is not to equip students with a

collection of skills and processes, but rather to enable them to think for

themselves. The value of skills and process instruction should be judged by the

extent to which the skills and processes actually enhance flexible, independent

thinking. With above statement parallel according to Carmen

(http://www.lamath.org/journal/Vol1/What_IS_PSAbility.pdf) conducted a

critical analysis of the research on problem solving in secondary school

mathematics between the years of 1925-1975: “Out of twelve conclusions, one

stated the following. Characteristics of an effective problem solver can be

identified. An effective problem solver: tends to use a wide range of heuristic

strategies; seems to follow some plan of attack when solving a problem and

exhibits trial-and-error ability; has good arithmetic skills; has confidence in own

mathematics ability; tends to check answers for reasonableness and is able to

estimate an answer; and usually obtains an understanding of a problem before

trying to solve it.Some of the mathematicians attempted to make problem solving

into a more detailed process than the mathematics educators. For example, one

mathematician defined problem solving to be the process of evaluating possible

techniques, applying techniques, reaching a solution, checking the results for

accuracy, and writing out the solution in a coherent fashion”.

Research has also been conducted regarding what constitutes the process

of problem solving ability. Polya (1945/1973) posited four problem-solving steps

in How to Solve It: understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the

plan and looking back.

Researcher using this model for cooperative learning has not previously

been applied by the teacher. From the result of survey that conducted by

(18)

6

test to student of grade XU-1 and XU-2 of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan. In topic of

Angle Size and Angle Triangle as a prerequisites matter of trigonometry topic.

With the initial capability test item:

1. A and B angles are supplementary angles where the ratios is 4 : 5. Determine size of B angle.

a. What is known and asked of the above question? b. How to determine size of B angle?

c. How to result of size of B angle?

d. According to Ima, the result size of B angle is . Is it true that the results of the calculation Ima?

2. Look this figure. R

P O Determine size of PRQ angle.

a. What is known and asked of the above question? b. How to determine size of PRQ angle?

c. How to result of size of PRQ angle?

d. According to Sari, the result size of PRQ angle is . Is it true that the results of the calculation Sari?

3. Determine size of PRQ in figure below that is stated with a in b. R

Q P

a. What is known and asked of the above question? b. How to determine size of PRQ?

c. How to result of size of PRQ?

(19)

7

4. Calculate size of every angle in ABC triangle.

C B

A

a. What is known and asked of the above question? b. How to determine size of every angle in ABC triangle? c. How to result of size of every angle in ABC triangle?

d. According to Tono, the result size of every angle in ABC triangle is . Is it true that the results of the calculation Tono?

This is example from the answer one of student.

(20)

8

At figure 1.1 can be seen that the students know about the problem, but

do not understand the steps of problem solving, making it less obvious steps taken

and no checking solution. Just added the steps of problem solving that students

can answer the question with a perfect score. The initial capability test result also

shown that there was not student who completed to solve problem.

From grade XU-1 with number student is 20 who took the test, the

average of class score that obtained is 53.50 (score scale 0 – 100) and grade XU-2

with 20 students too got 54.62 (score scale 0 – 100). From some of descriptions

above it, it can be seen that many of students who are not able to solve problem

because learning process is meaningful to student that cause to low ability of

students in solving problems. The reality is students just memorize the concepts

and less able to use these concepts if it is encountered in real life problems that

associated with concept that owned. Mathematics teachers have a duty to help

students to improve students’ problem-solving abilities. Teachers should strive harder to enable students to solve problems because one focus of learning

mathematics is problem solving, so that basic competencies that should be owned

by every student is a minimum standard of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values

which is reflected in learning of mathematics with habits of thought and action to

solve problem.

One of the efforts made to improve students' understanding of the

material trigonometry can enhance the students’ problem solving abilities with the

use of cooperative learning model type Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and type Student

Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) in order to increase students’ problem

-solving ability. When researchers put forward this to teacher of mathematics in

SMA N 1 Perbaungan, they welcomed the idea so that the students are used to

learning state centered on teachers who use the lecture method can be

immediately abandoned. From this the researchers wanted to see how the

students’ problem-solving ability through the use of cooperative learning model

type Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and type Student Teams-Achievement Division

(21)

9

Based on the above background, the authors are interested to research

this with the title : "The Difference of Students’ Problem Solving Ability by

Using Cooperative Learning Model Type Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and Type Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) in the Topic of Trigonometry in Grade X of SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014".

1.2 Identification of Problem

Based on background that have been raised it can be identified several

problems, as follows:

1. Students’ mathematics learning outcomes is still low.

2. Mathematics is regarded as a difficult subject.

3. Learning activities are still teacher-centered.

4. Students’ mathematical problem solving ability is still low.

5. Knowledge of teachers to various teaching models are not optimal and

not yet implementation of cooperative learning model

Think-Pair-Share (TPS) or type Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) in

the learning of mathematics.

1.3 Limitation of Problem

For more directing this research so focused and specific to the problem in

this study is limited to the students’ problem-solving ability on the subject of

trigonometry grade x in SMA N 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014 as well as the

learning model is applied in the model limit by cooperative learning model type

Think-Pair-Share (TPS) and type Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD).

1.4 Formulation of Problem

Based on the above problem definition, then the formulation of the

problem in this research : is there any difference students’ problem-solving

ability taught by cooperative learning model Think-Pair-Share (TPS) type with

Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) type in the subject of trigonometry

(22)

10

1.5 Research Objectives

The purpose of this research : to know any difference students’ problem

-solving ability taught by cooperative learning model Think-Pair-Share (TPS) type

and Student Teams-Achievement Division (STAD) type in the subject of

trigonometry in grade X SMA Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014?

1.6 Benefits of Research

The benefits of this research are :

1. Being incoming material for researchers as mathematics teacher

candidates to apply cooperative learning in every learning process

especially TPS type and STAD type in learning mathematics,

especially on Trigonometry.

2. For teachers and prospective teachers, this study could be a reference

in planning learning trigonometry particular subject.

3. For students, is expected to use the cooperative learning model type

Think-Pair-Share (TPS) can improve the students’ problem-solving

ability.

4. For schools, is expected to be a source of information or contribute

ideas for improvement of mathematics teaching, especially in schools

where the research conducted and the school in general.

5. A comparison may be relevant for future research.

1.7 Operational Definition

To avoid differences in interpretation of the terms contained in the

formulation of the problem in this study, the operational definition be stated as

follows:

1. Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability in this study is the result of

student learning in solving problems on material trigonometry to

(23)

11

 Understanding the problem  Make a plan

 Do the plan  Checking solution

2. Learning model is a plan or a pattern that is used as a guide in

learning in the classroom.

3. Cooperative learning is learning that emphasizes the involvement of

the student in the form of a group to achieve a common goal.

4. Cooperative learning model type Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a

cooperative learning that every student is given the opportunity to

think about it first answer to the problem that has been given, and

then made in pairs and then share them with others in a way

presentation results of group discussion.

5. Cooperative learning model type Student Teams-Achievement

Division (STAD) is one type of cooperative learning model using

small groups with a total membership of each group of 4-5 students

are heterogeneous.

In the process of learning, STAD cooperative learning consists of six

steps or phases:

a. Delivering learning objectives

b. Presents or deliver material

c. Organize students into groups to learn

d. Guiding the work and the working group

e. evaluate

(24)

67

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion

Based on the research and processing of data it can be concluded that:

1. Average students’ problem-solving ability who taught by cooperative learning TPS is not equal to average students’ problem-solving ability who taught by cooperative learning STAD in the topic of trigonometry in grade X of SMA

Negeri 1 Perbaungan A.Y. 2013/2014.

2. Using cooperative learning model TPS type can increase students’ problem

solving ability and can increase the average scores of students.

5.2. Suggestion

Based on these results it is suggested that researchers can provide are as

follows:

1. To mathematics teachers are suggested to use cooperative learning model TPS

type or STAD type as learning model alternative in improving students’

mathematical problem solving ability.

2. Based on problem solving aspect that will be achieved, cooperative learning

model TPS type is more effective that cooperative learning model STAD type

with the requirement teachers should be handle allocation time in the

classroom.

3. For prospective teachers to apply cooperative learning model TPS type in

(25)

68

REFERENCES

Abdurrahman, M., (2009), Pendidikan Bagi Anak Berkesulitan Belajar, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Aisyah, N., (2007), Pendekatan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika, http://staff.uny.ac.id/sites/default/files/PengembanganPembelajaranMatem atika_Unit_5_0.pdf (accessed on May 1st/ 1.00pm)

Amustofa, (2009), Strategi Pemecahan Masalah dalam Matematika, http://amustofa70.wordpress.com/strategi-pemecahan-masalah-dalam-matematika/ (accessed on Maret 25th,2014 / 5.00pm)

Anton, (2010), Rubric of Problem Solving Ability. http://web.njit.edu/`ronkowit/teaching/rubrics/samples/math_probsolv_chi cago.df (accessed on April 15th 2014/ 4.00pm)

Arini, (2009), Langkah-langkah Pembelajaran Kooperatif, http://yusti-arini.blogspot.com/2009.08/model-pembelajaran-kooperatif.html?m=1 (accessed on January 20th,2014 / 5.00pm)

Arikunto, S., (2007), Manajemen Penelitian, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Arikunto, S., (2012), Dasar-dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan Edisi II, Jakarta: Bumi

Aksara.

Asmin and Mansyur A., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Dengan Analisis Klasik dan Moder, Medan: Larispa Indonesia.

Carmen, (2010), Journal of Problem Solving Ability, http://www.lamath.org/journal/Vol1/What_IS_PSAbility.pdf (accessed on July 30th,2014 / 5.00pm)

Dimyati and Mudjiono, (2006), Belajar dan Pembelajaran, Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Negeri Medan, (2011), Pedoman Penulisan Proposal dan Skripsi Mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan, Medan : FMIPA Unimed.

Ibrahim, M., Rakhmediarti, F., Nur, M., and Ismono, (2010), Pembelajaran Kooperatif, Surabaya : Universitas Surabaya Universitas Press.

(26)

69

Hartati, (2011), Upaya Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Siswa dengan Pendekatan TPS pada Pokok Bahasan Pecahan di Kelas V SD Negeri No. 016505 Taman Sari Kab. Asahan Tahun Ajaran 2011/2012, Skripsi, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan

Noor, F., (2005), Pengaruh Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Students Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) Terhadap Kemampuan Siswa Dalam Mengerjakan Bukti dalam Matematika pada Siswa SMU, http//pagesyourfavorite.com/ppsupi/abstrakmat2005.html (accessed on January 12th,2014 / 2.15pm)

Noormandiri, (2007), Buku Paket Matematika untuk SMA Kelas X, Jakarta: Erlangga.

Nuralam, (2009), Pemecahan Masalah sebagai Pendekatan dalam Belajar Matematika, Jurnal Edukasi, Vol. V, No. 1, 142-145.

Nurbaidhi’ah, (2011), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Siswa Dengan Menggunakan Model Cooperative Learning Tipe TPS dan Tipe STAD kelas X SMA Al-Washliyah 1 Medan T.A 2011/2012. Skripsi, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan.

Nurgayah, (2011), Strategi dan Metode Pembelajaran, Bandung : Cipta Pustaka Media Perintis.

Peers, S., (1996), Statistical Analysis for Education and Psychology Researchers, Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Pranoto, (2007), Motivasi Belajar Matematika, http://www.sigmetris.com (accessed on January 12th,2014 / 3.15pm)

Pusdihartati, (2011), Model Pembelajaran Tipe STAD, http://digilib.edu/pasca.com (accessed on January 12th,2014 / 3.25pm)

Rida, M., (2007), Recrentasi Pembelajaran Matematika, http://www.duniaguru.com/index.phpoption=comcontent&task=vilew&id =285&temid.com (accessed on January 12th,2014 / 3.01pm)

Sakiben, S., (2010), Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa yang Diajar dengan Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe TPS dan Tipe STAD di Kelas X SMK-BM Raksana Medan T.A 2009/2010. Skripsi, FMIPA, UNIMED, Medan.

Slameto, (2010), Belajar dan Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi, Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.

Sudjana, (2008), Penelitian Hasil Proses Belajar Mengajar, Bandung : Remaja Rosdakarya.

(27)

70

Suhardi, (2006), Tujuan Pembelajaran Matematika oleh KTSP, kemdikbud.go.id/.../Buku%20Standar%20Isi%20SMP(1) (accessed on January 17th,2014 / 20.00pm)

Sujono, (1988), Pengajaran Matematika untuk Sekolah Menengah, Depdikbud, Jakarta.

Suprijono, A., (2010), Cooperative Learning Teori & Aplikasi PAIKEM, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Trianto, (2009). Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif-Progresif. Jakarta: Kendana Prenada Media Group.