THE DIFFERENCE OF PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING MODEL AND COOPERATIVE TYPE OF THINK – PAIR – SHARE TOWARD
STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT ON TOPIC OF STATISTICS IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 2 BALIGE
By:
Yohannes ID 4113111083
Mathematics Education Study Program
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
iv
PREFACE
First of all, the author is grateful to the God Almighty for His blessing and chance for me to finish the study and complete the thesis entitled “The Difference of Problem – Based Learning Model and Cooperative Type of Think – Pair – Share toward Students’ Mathematics Achievement on Topic of Statistics in Grade XI
SMA Negeri 2 Balige.” The authors recognize that the completion of this thesis
thanks to the help of the moral and material from various parties.
The author’s special sincerest thanks is expressed to Mr. Drs. Syafari, M.Pd
as his thesis supervisor for his advices, encouragements, suggestions and
knowledge that have been contributed to help the author in compiling this thesis so
that this thesis could be finished. Then author also say thanks to Mr. Dr. Waminton
Rajagukguk, M.Pd as his academic supervisor for his advices, suggestion,
motivations from beginning until finishing the study. The author’s special thanks
are also given to Mr. Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd, Mr. Drs. Zul Amry, M.Si,
Ph.D, and Mr. Dr. KMS. Amin Fauzi, M.Pd as thesis examiner for their willingness
to correct, giving advices, encouragements, suggestions and knowledge that have
been contributed to help the author in compiling this thesis.
The author also give thanks to Mr. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd as the
Rector of State University of Medan, Mr. Prof. Drs. Motlan Sirait, M.Sc, Ph.D as
the Dean of Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Mr. Dr. Edy Surya, M.Si
as the Head of Mathematics Department, Mr. Drs. Yasifati Hia, M.Si as the
Secretary of Mathematics Department and Mr. Prof. Dr. rer.nat Binari Manurung,
M.Si as the Coordinator of Bilingual Program for all the valuable guidance and
contribution to complete this thesis. Big thanks for all the lecturers of Mathematics
Department and all administrative staff at the faculty, department, and bilingual
program for their guidance and administrative assistance given. Then, also give
thanks to Mr. Aldon Samosir, S.Pd as Headmaster of SMA Negeri 2 Balige, Mr.
Marudut Simangunsong, S.Pd as Mathematics Teacher at SMA Negeri 2 Balige and
also all of teachers and staff in SMA Negeri 2 Balige who help author in doing and
v
This thesis can’t be compiled well without the everlasting love and pray from author’s beloved parents, St. Pintor Mencius Naibaho and Herlina Ginting,
also for authors’s beloved sisters Nansie Rosamei Naibaho, SE and her husband
Jimmi Situmorang, SE, Shinta Seftiany Naibaho, S.Pd and her husband Leo
Nainggolan, S.Sos, and for my young brother Hervin Naibaho for their support,
motivation, material and pray so that author can face the problem during his
academic year at the university.
This thesis was compiled from the strength, spirit, and endless friendship ever given by author’s best friends (Debby Masteriana, Nelly Yunita Malau, and Widi Aulia Widakdo). Also big thanks for family of BilMath 2011: Evan, Tika, Oji,
Vera, Anna, Dewi, Yerni, Lita, Kris, Aprita, Tari, Roni, Samantha, Dwi, Leni,
Mawaddah, Sapta, Aci, Sifa, Elvi, and Galang for all support and togetherness
during first semester until eight semester. For all partner of PPLT Unimed Bilingual
2014 of SMA Negeri 2 Balige, for my senior and junior in mathematics department,
my students when author was doing practice in SMA Negeri 2 Balige, thanks for
the support and motivation to finish my study.
Finally, the author realize that there are also many weakness and
insufficiency in this thesis, for that the author hopes suggestion and critic in making
this thesis to be better. Author also hopes this thesis will give advantage for reader
and the world of education.
Medan, June 2015
Author,
Yohannes
iii
THE DIFFERENCE OF PROBLEM – BASED LEARNING MODEL AND COOPERATIVE TYPE OF THINK – PAIR – SHARE TOWARD
STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT ON TOPIC OF STATISTICS IN GRADE XI SMA NEGERI 2 BALIGE
Yohannes (ID 4113111083)
ABSTRACT
The research is aimed to find out if there is a difference between Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model and Cooperative Type of Think – Pair – Share (TPS) Model toward students’ mathematics achievement on topic statistics. The type of this research is Quasi Experiment Research which was conducted in SMA Negeri 2 Balige. The population of this research is all regular students at SMA Negeri 2 Balige. The sampling technique applied was cluster random sampling. The experiment class I that is chosen XI Science 6 consist of 32 students, meanwhile the experiment class II that is chosen XI Science 7 consist of 31 students. The instrument used to measure the students’ mathematics achievement was a multiple choice test. The normality test used of Liliefor’s test and the homogeneity test by using Fisher test. The data analysis technique was t-test at the level of significance = 5%.
Before doing the hypothesis test, it would be done normality and homogeneity test beforehand. From the result of those tests, sample was taken from normal distributed and homogeneous variance. From the data analysis of each of experimental class were obtained that the average score of posttest in experiment class I is 16.03 and the average score of posttest in experiment class II is 14.06. Then the test of hypothesis by using t-test which is tcalculate = 3.057 and ttable = 2.000
so that tcalculate > ttable (3.057 > 2.000). Consequently Ho is rejected and accept Ha.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Sheet of Agreement i
Biography ii
Abstract iii
Preface iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Figure ix
List of Table x
List of Appendix xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of Study 1
1.2. Problem Identification 5
1.3. Problem Limitation 5
1.4. Problem Formulation 5
1.5. Objectives of Study 7
1.6. Benefits of Study 7
1.7. Operational Definition 7
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1. Theoritical Framework 8
2.1.1. Definition of Learning 8
2.1.2. Vygotsky’ Learning Theory 9
2.1.3. Mathematics Achievement 11
2.1.4. Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model 13
2.1.4.1. Problem – Based Learning (PBL) 13
2.1.4.2. Steps of Problem – Based Learning (PBL) 15
2.1.4.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of PBL 18
2.1.5. Cooperative Learning Model 19
vii
2.1.5.2. Characteristics of Cooperative Learning 21
2.1.5.3. Step of Cooperative Learning Model 21
2.1.5.4. Cooperative Learning Type of TPS 22
2.1.5.5. Steps of Think – Pair – Share (TPS) 23
2.1.5.6. Advantages and Disadvantages of TPS 23
2.1.6. The Differences between PBL and TPS Learning Model 24
2.2. Statistics 25
2.2.1. Center of A Distribution (Cenral Tendency) 25
2.2.2. Measures of Spread 27
2.2.3. Interpretation of Data 29
2.3. Relevant Study 31
2.4. Conceptual Framework 31
2.5. Hypothesis of Study 32
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METODOLOGY 33
3.1. Type of Study 33
3.2. Place and Time of Study 33
3.3. Population and Sample of Study 33
3.4. Variable and Instrument of Study 34
3.4.1. Variable of Study 34
3.4.2. Instruments of Study 35
3.4.2.1. Validy Test 36
3.4.2.2. Reliability Tes 36
3.4.2.3. Difficulty Level Index 37
3.4.2.4. Discrimination Power of The Test 38
3.5. Design of Study 39
3.6. Procedure of Study 40
3.7. Technique of Analyzing Data 41
3.7.1. Normality Test 41
3.7.2. Homogeneity Test 42
viii
CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION 33
4.1. Statistic Descriptive Analysis 47
4.1.1. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By
Problem – Based Learning Based on Pre – Test 47
4.1.2. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By Cooperative
Type of Think – Pair – Share Based on Pre – Test 49 4.1.3. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By
Problem – Based Learning Based on Post – Test 50
4.1.4. Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught By Cooperative
Type of Think – Pair – Share Based on Post – Test 51
4.2. Assumption Analysis Test 52
4.2.1. Normality Test of Pre – Test 52
4.2.2. Variance Homogeneity Test of Pre – Test 53
4.2.3. Normality Test of Post – Test 54
4.2.4. Variance Homogeneity Test of Post – Test 55
4.2.5 Hypothesis Test 55
4.2.5.1. Hypothesis Test of Pre – Test 55
4.2.5.2. Hypothesis Test of Post – Test 56
4.3. Discussion of Study Result 56
4.4. Weakness of Study 57
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 59
5.1. Conclusion 59
5.2. Suggestion 59
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1. Step of Problem – Based Learning Model 15
Table 2.2. Syntax of Cooperative Learning Model 20
Table 2.3. Differences between PBL and TPS Model 23
Table 3.1. Validity Test of Pre – Test 35
Table 3.2. Validity Test of Post – Test 36
Table 3.3. The Criterion of Reliability 38
Table 3.4. Reliability Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test 38
Table 3.5. Difficulty Level Index and Discrimination Power
of Pre – Test 40
Table 3.6. Difficulty Level Index and Discrimination Power
of Post – Test 40
Table 3.7. The Research Planning 42
Table 4.1. Summary of Descriptive Statistics 47
Table 4.2. The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by PBL Model 48
Table 4.3. The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by TPS Model 49
Table 4.4. The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by PBL Model 50
Table 4.5. The Students’ Mathematics Achievement Taught
by TPS Model 51
Table 4.6. Summary of Normality Test of Pre – Test 53
Table 4.7. Summary of Fisher Test of Pre – Test 54
Table 4.8. Summary of Normality Test of Post – Test 54
Table 4.9. Summary of Fisher Test of Post – Test 55
Table 4.10. Summary Result of Hypothesis Test of Pre - Test 55
ix
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1. Learner Knowledge and Zone of Proximal Development 9
Figure 2.2. Components of PBL Approach 14
Figure 2.3. Approximating a Histogram with a Smooth Curve 29
Figure 3.1. The Chart of Procedures of Study1 43
Figure 4.1. Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Problem – Based Learning Model 48
Figure 4.2. Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Think – Pair - Share Model 49
Figure 4.3. Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
Problem – Based Learning Model 51
Figure 4.4. Histogram of Data Distribution Achievement Taught by
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix 1 Score List Middle Examination of Odd Semester 64
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan I PBL Classroom 65
Appendix 3 Lesson Plan II PBL Classroom 75
Appendix 4 Lesson Plan I TPS Classroom 89
Appendix 5 Lesson Plan II TPS Classroom 99
Appendix 6 SAS 1 PBL Classroom 112
Appendix 7 Alternative Solution of SAS 1 PBL Classroom 118
Appendix 8 SAS 2 PBL Classroom 124
Appendix 9 Alternative Solution of SAS 2 PBL Classroom 131
Appendix 10 SAS 3 PBL Classroom 138
Appendix 11 Alternative Solution of SAS 3 PBL Classroom 147
Appendix 12 SAS 1 TPS Classroom 154
Appendix 13 Alternative Solution of SAS 1 TPS Classroom 160
Appendix 14 SAS 2 TPS Classroom 164
Appendix 15 Alternative Solution of SAS 2 TPS Classroom 170
Appendix 16 SAS 3 TPS Classroom 174
Appendix 17 Alternative Solution of SAS 3 TPS Classroom 181
Appendix 18 Instrument of Pre – Test 187
Appendix 19 Solution of Instrument of Pre – Test 193
Appendix 20 Blueprint of Instrument Pre – Test 198
Appendix 21 Instrument of Post – Test 200
Appendix 22 Solution of Instrument of Post – Test 206
Appendix 23 Blueprint of Instrument Post – Test 210
Appendix 24 Observation Sheet of Learning Process PBL Class 212
Appendix 25 Observation Sheet of Learning Process TPS Class 216
xii
Appendix 27 Validity Test of Instrument Post – Test 223
Appendix 28 Reliability Test of Instrument Pre – Test 226
Appendix 29 Reliability Test of Instrument Post – Test 229
Appendix 30 Discrimination Power and Difficulty Level of Pre – Test 232
Appendix 31 Discrimination Power and Difficulty Level of Post – Test 235
Appendix 32 Code Name and Attendance of Students in PBL Classroom 238
Appendix 33 Code Name and Attendance of Students in TPS Classroom 239
Appendix 34 Group Division Both Classroom 240
Appendix 35 The Result of Students Pre – Test 242
Appendix 36 The Result of Students Post – Test 244
Appendix 37 Normality Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test 246 Appendix 38 Homogeneity Test of Pre – Test and Post – Test 252
Appendix 39 Statistic Hypothesis of Pre – Test 254
Appendix 40 Statistic Hypothesis of Post – Test 256
Appendix 41 Critical Value from Liliefors Test 258
Appendix 42 Table of F Distribution 259
Appendix 43 Table of T Distribution 260
Appendix 44 Pattern of Students Answer 261
Appendix 45 Research Documentation 266
Appendix 46 Letter of Supervisor Acceptance 272
Appendix 47 Letter of Research License from Math Department 273
Appendix 48 Letter of Research License from Faculty 274
59 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the result of research from data analysis and test of hypothesis
then it can be conclude that: There is difference between problem – based learning
model and cooperative learning model type of think – pair – share toward students’
mathematics achievement at SMA Negeri 2 Balige. The students’ mathematics
achievement taught by Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model is higher than
students’ mathematics achievement taught by Think – Pair – Share (TPS) Model.
5.2. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and the relevant study can be offered some
suggestion below:
1. For mathematics teacher, Problem – Based Learning (PBL) Model or Think
– Pair – Share (TPS) Model can be alternative learning model to improve
the students’ mathematics achievement. These model can produce the
higher mathematics achievement rather than use conventional learning
which not involved student actively.
2. For mathematics teacher which provide student activity sheet, it will be
better if the problems given have any clue or scaffolding. Student activity
sheet of PBL and TPS class should be appropriate and proportional so that
students could solve the problem although the composition of group
members of PBL and TPS are different.
3. For mathematics teacher who want to use PBL or TPS as model in learning
process should be attended at class and time management. Especially for
TPS class which has many pair, teacher have to be watchful when control
60
REFERENCES
Alice., (2007), Interactive Learning, http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/tp
share.html, accessed on January 9th 2015.
Arends, R., (2009), Learning to Teach 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
________., (2008), Learning to Teach, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogjakarta.
Arikunto, Suharsimi., (2010), Prosedur Penelitian, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Asmin., (2012), Pengukuran dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar dengan Analisis Klasik
dan Modern, LARISPA, Medan.
Azer, Samy., (2008), Navigating Problem – Based Learning, Elsevier Australia,
Australia.
Beaton, A.E., et al., (1996), Science Achievement in the Middle School Years,
TIMSS International Study Center Boston College, USA.
Benjamin, Amy and John T. Crow., (2013), Vocabulary at The Center, Routledge,
New York.
Berger, K., (2004), Developing Person Through The Life Span (6th Edition), Worth
Publishing, New York.
Biehler & Snowman., (2009), Psychology Applied To Teaching: Cooperative
Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8/e. Houghton Mifflin Co.
(Chapter 4 & 11).
Bijnens, Johan., (2006), Introduction to PBL: Problem Based learning, Grabbit and
Grubbit, UK.
Brown, Tom and John Eagles., (2011), Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates,
The Royal College Psychiatrists, London.
Cohen, et.all., (2007), Research Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor and
Francis Grup, London.
Delisle, Robert., (1997), How to Use Problem – Based Learning in The Classroom,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA.
Dobbs, Vicki., (2008), Problem Based Learning, ProQuest Information and
Learning Company, USA, Journal of Vicki Dobbs to certify the doctoral
61
Dyson, Ben and Ashley Casey., (2012), Cooperative Learning in Physical
Education: A Research – Based Approach, Routledge, New York.
Gregory, Gayle H. and Carolyn Chapman., (2007), Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t Fit All Second Edition, Sage Publications Company, California.
Howell, David C., (2012), Statistical Methods for Psychology, PWS Publisher,
USA.
Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika,
Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press), Malang.
Jean, Loretta Everhart., (2011), Math Vitamins: Daily Dose for Students Learning
How to Solve Word Problems, iUniverse, USA.
Johnson, Robert and Patricia Kuby., (2010), Elementary Statistics, Cencage
Learning, USA.
Kothari, C.R., (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques 2nd
Revised Edition, New Age International (P) Limited Publisher, New Delhi.
Kusumah, Cipta Jayakarta,. (2009), Perbandingan Model Pembelajaran Problem
Based Learning Dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair
Share Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Program Diklat
Mengoperasikan Peralatan Pengalih Daya Tegangan Rendah (MP2DTR)
Di BPTP Bandung, S1 Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Laili, Binti Nur., (2010), Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Siswa yang Diajar dengan
Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif dan yang Diajar dengan Model
Pembelajaran Berdasarkan Masalah pada Materi Pokok Bangun Ruang
Sisi Lengkung dikelas IX SMP Giki 3 Surabaya, EngD thesis, UIN Sunan
Ampel, Surabaya.
LIPI., (2008), Masyarakat Indonesia: Majalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial Indonesia,
Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta.
McBurney, Donald H. and Theresa L. White., (2010), Research Methods Eighth
Edition, Wadsworth Cencage Learning, USA.
Millis, Barbara J., (2010), Cooperative Learning in Higher Education: Across the
62
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)., (2000), Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, NCTM.
Nurgiyantoro, Burhan, et al., (2000), Statistika Terapan untuk Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu
Sosial, Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogjakarta.
O’Connor, Andrea B., (2006), Clinical Instruction and Evaluation: A Teaching
Resource, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada.
Peck, Roxy and Jay L. Devore., (2010), Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of
Data Seventh Edition, Cencage Learning, USA.
Roberts, Tim S., (2004), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, Idea
Group Inc, USA.
Ryan, G. L., and Quinn, C. N., (1994), Cognitive apprenticeship and problem based
learning. In S.E. Chen, R. Cowdroy, A. Kingsland, and M. Ostwald (Eds.)
Reflections on Problem Based Learning (p. 15-33), Australian Problem
Based Learning Network, Sydney.
Sanjaya, Wina., (2009), Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran: Teori dan praktik
Pengembangan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan, Prenada Media
Group, Jakarta.
Silipigni, Lynn Connaway and Ronald R. Powell., (2010), Basic Research Methods
for Librarians, Greenwood Publishing Group, USA.
Slavin, Robert., (2000), Cooperate Learning: Theory, Research and Practice,
Allymand Bacon, London.
Spiegel, Murray R., (2000), Schaum’s Easy Outline: Theory and Problems of
Statistics, McGraw – Hill Companies, USA.
Sudjana., (2009), Metoda Statistika, Tarsito, Bandung.
Tan, O. S., (2003), Problem – Based Learning Innovation: Using Problems to
Power Learning in the 21st Century, Thomson Learning, Singapore.
Trianto., (2009), Mendesain Model Pembelajaran Inovatif – Progresif, Prenada
Media Group, Jakarta.
Trisna, Benny N., (2005), Pembelajaran Matematika Realistik di Kelas VIII (Topik
63
Uden, Lorna and Chris Beaumont., (2006), Technology and Problem – Based
Learning, Idea Group Inc, USA.
Ulfah, Meiria Mentari., (2014), Studi Perbandingan Hasil belajar Kimia Siswa
Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran PBL (Problem Based Learning) dan
Model Pembelajaran TPS (Think Pair Share), Skripsi, UB, Bengkulu.
Zakaria, Effandi, et al., (2013), Journal: Effect of Cooperative Learning on Secondary School Students’ Mathematics Achievement Vol 4, No.2, 98-100, Creative Education, Malaysia, Published Online February 2013 in SciRes
(http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce).
___________________., (2010). The effects of cooperative learning on students’
mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. Journal of
