COMPARISON OF STUDENT COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT
TAUGHT BYJIGSAW AND STAD MODELS ON
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TOPIC IN
8
THGRADE OF SMP N 1 SIDIKALANG
ACADEMIC YEAR
2012/2013
By:
Maria Loretta Hutabarat I.D. Number: 408141083 Study Program: Biology Education
SKRIPSI
Submitted to Biology Education Department State University of Medan, Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
PREFACE
The writer hardly knows where to start expressing her gratitude but for
sure the gratitude goes to all those who have assisted her in the process of
completing this thesis. It would be impossible to list all names but some deserves
her special thankfulness.
The completion of this thesis is nothing without the support of many
people around and close to the writer. First and foremost, she would like to thank
Jesus Christ, The Almighty, for His guidance and Blessings until she is able to
succeed in presenting this academic work as one of the requirement to obtain the
degree of Sarjana Pendidikan.
In this occasion the writer would also like to thank to those who have built
in completing this thesis, in particular to :
1. The Dean of FMIPA UNIMED, Prof. Drs. Motlan M.Sc.,Ph.D.
2. Thesis Supervisor and Coordinator of Bilingual Program, Prof. Dr. Herbert
Sipahutar, M.Sc.
3. Head of Biology Department, Drs. Tri Harsono, M.Si.
4. All the examinors, Dr. rer.nat. Binari Manurung, M.Si., Dra. Meida
Nugrahalia, M. Sc., and Dra.Martina Napitupulu, M.Sc
5. Headmaster of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, Jemsi Mahulae, S.Pd.
6. All Biology Teachers in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, S. Manullang, S.Pd,
Rosintan Manalu, S.Si., Ellys Farida Aritonang, S.Pd.
7. Validator, Dr. Hasruddin, M. Pd.
8. Especially for my parents, Edison Hutabarat, SE., MM., and my mother
Julia Dewi Koryati Pardede, who always support me while finished my
study. My sister Winda E Hutabarat, Putri Hutabarat, my brother Johannes
9. All my friends, Patrick Napitupulu, S.T, Noviyanti Nasution, S.Pd.,
Desriana Marpaung, S. Pd., and Asruri Ramadhani, S. Pd., who have
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
THESIS APPROVAL i
BIOGRAPHY ii
1.2Problem Identification 3
1.3Research Scope 3
1.4Research Question 4
1.5Objectives of Research 4
1.6Significance of Research 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1. Theory of Constructivism in Learning Science 5
2.2. Cooperative Learning 6
2.3. Jigsaw Model 8
2.4. Student Team Achievement Division Model 11
2.5. Biology Learning Outcomes 12
2.6. Relationship between Cooperatives Learning with Jigsaw
And STAD Model in Biology Learning Results 14
2.8 Conceptual Framework 16
2.9 Hypothesis 16
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLODY 18
3.1 Location and Time 18
3.3 Research Variable 18
3.4 Instrument 19
3.5 Research Design 19
3.6 Research Procedure 20
3.7 Technique of Data Analyzes 24
CHAPTER IVRESULT OF RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION 27
4.1. Result 27
4.2 Discussion 32
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34
5.1. Conclusion 34
5.2. Recommendations 34
REFERENCES 35
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
2.1. Stages of Cooperative Learning Activities Jigsaw Technique 10
2.2. Stages of Cooperative LearningSTAD Technique 12
3.1.Student Class VIII of SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang
Academic Year 2012/2013 18
3.2.Multiple Choices for Instrument 19
3.3.The design of Research 20
3.4.Teaching Learning Activities 21
3.5. Correlation Coefficient Classification 24
3.6. Criterion Reliability Coefficient 25
4.1. Summary of Normality Test 28
4.2. Summary of Homogeneity Test 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
3.1 Chart of the implementation procedure phase of the research
Until to varying conclusion 23
4.1 Result of Pretest and posttest between Students’ who were taught
with ‘Jigsaw’ and those who were taughtwith ‘STAD’ t = 0,17;
P = 0,842 for pretest and t = 4,280; P = 0,001 for posttest 30
4.2Different ability in answering C1 – C3 question of students’
who were taught with ‘Jigsaw’ and those who were taught with
‘STAD’ assignment 30
4.3 Different ability in answering C4 – C6 question
between Students’ who were taught with ‘Jigsaw’
i
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1 Lesson Plan using STAD Technique 37
Appendix 2 Lesson Plan using Jigsaw Technique 42
Appendix 3 Instrument 47
Appendix 4 Rubric of Instrument 51
Appendix 5 Lattice of the Instrument 52
Appendix 6 Syllabus 53
Appendix 7 Tabel Nilai Kritis Untuk Uji Lilliefors 55
Appendix 8 Tabel Wilayah Luas di Bawah Kurva Normal 0 ke z 56
Appendix 9 Daftar Nilai Presentil untuk Distribusi t 60
Appendix 10 Calculation of Instrument Test Validity 62
Appendix 11 Calculation of Reliability of Instrument Test 63
Appendix 12 Validity Test 64
Appendix 13 Reability Test 65
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Duties of the teacher in the classroom not only to convey information for
the achievement of learning objectives, but also to create learning experience to
the students. The teachers should strive to keep the activities in that classroom can
provide full opportunities for student experience. The teacher should be able to
find suitable methods and models that can support their role, to make teaching and
learning activities can be conducted effectively. But the reality in classroom, the
teaching and learning processes is still dominated by conventional methods.
(Ghazi, 2003).
In the teaching and learning by using process approach, the teachers
should create learning plans for one semester. In the planning step, teacher
determine all the concepts that will be developed, and for any concept determine
specified method or approach will be used for any concept and the skill of the
science will be developed.
Biology learns how to figure out and understand the universe
systematically. Biology is not just a collection of mastery of knowledge in the
form of facts, concepts, and principles of course but also constitutes a process of
finding. Biology education is expected to be a vehicle for students to learn about
themselves and nature, in which there is a wide subject matter that has the
specificity of each character as well as the concepts that must be understood
(Wina, 2005).
According to constructivism, knowledge is constructed in the minds of
student; such knowledge can be gained from the experience of physical and also
from others through social transmission. This is in accordance with the opinion of
theLorbach and Tobin (2000), knowledge cannot be transferred away from the
brain of a teacher to students, the students should be define what has been taught
by adapting to them. One of the applications of constructivism in learning at
Learning activities in cooperative learning also adds elements of social
interaction. Cooperative learning is a small group of students who work together
to learn and responsible to the group (Hernani, 2004). According to Killen,
cooperative learning is an instructional model and philosophy of learning that
seeks to improve the students to work in small groups, in order to maximize their
learning ability, and learn from their friend and able to lead themselves (Yusuf,
2006)
In cooperative learning, students learn together in small groups and mutual
aid to each other. It can train students accept the opinions of others and working
with a different background, helping make it easy to receive subject matter,
increasing the ability of thinking in solving problems. Due to the communication
between the member of the group in delivering knowledge and experience,
students able not only to add their knowledge and improve learning outcomes but
also social relationship of every member of the group (Ghazi, 2003).
According to some studies suggest that the application of Cooperative
Learning approach to the jigsaw model showed better learning outcomes. In her
research Zuhriyah (2005) stated that the learning outcomes of students who were
taught using a Cooperative Learning approach with jigsaw model is higher than
that of conventional on the subject of respiration.
Furthermore, Karuru (2006) reported that STAD cooperative learning can
increase the interest and the proportion of correct answers and student learning
outcomes better than using the method or lecture setting or teacher centered
learning. Activity in the study of biology is an attempt to how students can
understand to the concepts. Understanding obtained by students in the learning
process can be seen from the results of student learning as measured by giving the
test to student. This research done to find effective methods in the learning
process in the classroom and can provide an alternative approaches or methods
that allow it to be applied in the process of learning biology with the specificity of
the subject biology.
The principle learning objectives is that students had mastered the lesson
curriculum school management. Because in every class gather students with
different abilities (intelligence, talent, and speed of learning), a realistic and
logical organization of the material is needed so, subject matter can be achieved
and mastered by all students in accordance with established within given time.
Based on data from biology teacher who teach in grade VIII of SMP N. 1
Sidikalang at even semester showed that the average value of daily tests exam for
Growth and Development is 65-75. This show the results of biology learning of
grade VIII students SMPN.1Sidikalangstill low because of the Exhaustiveness
Minimum Criteria(KKM) for Biology subjects is 80. Teachers have no
implemented learning strategies and using variety of teaching materials yet that
able to improve student achievement results. To minimize time for
implementation, this research done only to compare the cognitive achievement of
the students.
Based on explanation above the author do research by lifting the title
research “Comparison of Student Cognitive Achievement Taught by Jigsaw
and STAD Models in Growth and Development Topic in Eighth Grade of
SMP N 1 Sidikalang Academic Year 2012/2013”
1.2. Problem Identification
Based on this background, some of the problems that can identified as
follows:
1. The low learning outcome of student’s in Growth and Development topic.
2. The low student’s response towards conventional model which is used by
the teacher in learning activity.
3. The difficulties of students to learn Growth and Development topic.
1.3. Research Scope
From identified problem, researchers limit comparison of students
achievement in biology taught with Jigsaw and Student Team Achievement
cognitive aspect of student achievement in VII grade of SMPN 1 Sidikalang first
semester on topic Growth and Development.
1.4. Research Question
Based on the identification and limitation of problems that outlined
previously the matter of researched is formulated as follows “How the comparison
of student biology cognitive achievement taught by Jigsaw and STAD?”
1.5. Objectives of Research
Based on the formulation of the problem above, the objectives of this
study was to compare the student biology cognitive achievement taught by Jigsaw
and STAD solving the problem of understanding the growth and development
topic concept of VIII grade students in SMPNegeri1 Sidikalang.
1.6. Significance of Research
From the results of research that the researcher expected to be useful for:
1. For researchers, convey information about the effects of cooperative
learning taught by STAD and Jigsaw toward study results and its
comparison.
2. For teachers especially biology teacher, can make both of the cooperative
learning model as an alternative in teaching and learning.
3. For students, it can provide the motivation to learn, practice skills, be
responsible for any duty, developing the ability to think and positive
thinking, and give provision to be able to collaborate with others both in
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
Based on the research data analysis and discussion, concluded, there is a
difference of students learning achievement between the Jigsaw model and STAD
model.The comparison of student cognitive achievement taught with Jigsaw and
STAD is 1:0,9 shows that Jigsaw models can increase the student cognitive
achievement higher than STAD model on Biology subject grade 8thof SMP Negeri
1 Sidikalang on Growth and Development topic, academic year 2012/2013.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on research findings outlined in conclusion of the study, proposed some
recommendations as following as:
1. For students, the cooperative learning model can be used to improve learning
achievement of students caused its systematic and attractive performance that able to
interest and stimulate students to learn independently then students are more
motivated to learn and be able to assess their own ability.
2. For Biology teachers in SMP Negeri 1 Sidikalang, could consider the Jigsaw
model in growth and development topic as an alternative to improve student’s
learning achievement.
3. For researcher as prospective teacher in the next future, the results of this study can
be used as information source and feedback to increase information and knowledge
REFFERENCES
Anonim. 2005. Cooperative Learning. Cooperative,http//Volcano.Und.Nodak, Edu/vwdocs/msh/is/cl.html.(8 Agustus 2005)
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 2002.Dasar-dasarEvaluasiPendidikan. Yogyakarta: BumiAksara.
Armstrong, Scott, Palmer and Jesse.2000. Student Team Achievment Division (STAD) in a Twelfth Grade Classroom: Effect on Student Achievment and Attitude. Journal of Social Studies Researc, vol 4:1.
Aronson, Elliot. 2000. The Jigsaw Classroom, Web Site Copyright 2000-2006, SocialPsycology Network.Tersedia :http://www.jigsaw.org
Cooper, Robert. 2000. Improving Intergroup Relation: Lessons Learned From Cooperative Learning Programs, Journal of Social Issues, 12:22.
Daroni.2002.PembelajaranKooperatifSiswa di SLTP Melalui Model
Jigsaw.LembaranIlmuKependidikanUniversitasNegeri Semarang.Tahun XXXI-No. 2: 225241.
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. 2004. Cooperative Learning. tersedia: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/consept2class/coopcolab/index.html. Ghazi, Ghaith. 2003. Effects of Learning Together Model of Cooperative
Learning on English as a Foreign Language Reading Achievement, Academic Self-Esteem, and Feelings of School Alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27:3.
Hernani. 2004. Pembelajaran Kooperatif Sebagai Salah Satu Alternatif Untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berpikir Siswa. Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA. 2004.
Johnson, David W., Jhonson, Roger T and Stanne, Mary Beth. 2006. Cooperative Learning Method: A Meta-Analysis, Tersedia:
http://www.coopeation.org/pages/clmethods.htmlr
Kai Hakkairanen. 2006. Jigsaw, Tersedia: http://www.articel.net/jigsaw/hakkiranen.html
Karuru, Predy. 2003. PenerapanPendekatanKeterampilan Proses DalamSetingPembelajaranKooperatif STAD
UntukMeningkatkanKualitasPembelajaran IPA Siswa
Lie, Anita. 2002. Cooperative Learning: Mempraktikan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia. Maloof, Joan. 2005. Using The Jigsaw Method of Cooperative Learning to Teach
From Primary Sources. Journal of Issues, 2005.7:2.
Masturoh. 2005.PengaruhPembelajaranCooperatif Learning Dengan model JigsawTerhadapHasilBelajarmatematika, (Skripsi FITK UIN
SyarifHidayatullahJakarta : 2005)
Paulina, Pannen. 2001.KonstruktivismeDalamPembelajaran. Jakarta: UT,
Popham, W. James. 2001. TeknikMengajarSecaraSistematis. Eva L. Baker, Jakarta: RinekaCipta.
PusatKurikulum. 2003. BadanPenelitiandanPengembangan,
KegiatanBelajarMengajar yang efektif. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
Slameto. 1995. BelajardanFaktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya. Jakarta
:RinekaCipta
Sooh, Leen-Kiat. 2006. Implementing the Jigsaw Model in CS1 Closed Labs.
Italy: University of Nebraska.
Sudjana, Nana and Rivai, Ahmad. 2002. TeknologiPengajaran. Bandung
:SinarBaru
Suhaenah, Suparno. 2001. Membangun Kompetensi Belajar. Dirjen Pendidikan
Tinggi Depdiknas. Jakarta
Sumaji. 2003. Pendidikan Sains yang Humanistis. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Theodora, De baz.2001. The Effectiveness of The Jigsaw Cooperative Learning on Strudent'sAchievment and Attitudes Toward Science, Journal of Education.
Wina, Sanjaya.2005.
PembelajarandalamImplementasiKurikulumBerbasisKompetensi. Jakarta: Kencana.
Yusuf. 2006. Kualitas Proses dan Hasil Belajar Biologi Melalui Pengajaran Dengan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Jigsaw pada Madrasah Aliyah Ponpos Nurul Haramain Lombok Barat NTB. Semarang. Zuhriyah. 2005. Pengaruh Pembelajaran Cooperatif Learning Dengan Teknik
